To many conflicts of "interest".

Interestingly, St. Thomas writes in Summa Theologica II-II q. 78 a. 4 that it can be "lawful to borrow money under the condition of usury" because "it is lawful to make use of another's sin for a good end":

Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need.

Thus, if a priest were to preach against usury, he would only be speaking to a tiny fraction of his congregation, as most people (Catholics especially) are not money-lenders. However, the priest could also talk about responsibly borrowing money.

To many conflicts of "interest".

:roll-laugh2:

Geremia - thank for the st thomas quote/teaching.  To me, that quote/teaching has to be wrong.  I consider that being an accessory to ones sin and the sin of omission.  I don't know how he gets away with it.  Maybe it is a shock/awe factor, but I cannot say for sure.  That is the problem with usury.  There are loopholes that make the montes peitatitis justifiable.  But, to approve going to Jєωs basically who won't loan for under 5% interest is the problem.  5% is their minimum and infinity is their goal(as we now know).  Their rates are sinfully high and I suspect there are other problems that I won't now discuss.  

Usury is a real problematic subject for the Church historically speaking. It never endorsed the practice at any level until the renaissance, which coincided with the powerful banking families like the Medici's influencing the Vatican. And we all know who really was behind the banking industry.


The Jєωιѕн take over of the Church will not allow the practice to be spoken against. It's their leverage against the world.

Gregory IX (d. 1241) said in a letter, "He who loans a sum of money to one sailing or going to market, since he has assumed upon himself a risk, is not to be considered a usurer who will receive something beyond his lot." See 448 in Denzinger.

It seems the editors added in a parenthetical "[not]"! Here's the full quote:

He who loans a sum of money to one sailing or going to market, since he has assumed upon himself a risk, is [not] to be considered a usurer who will receive something beyond his lot. He also who gives ten solidi, so that at another time just as many measures of grain, wine, and oil may be payed back to him, and although these are worth more at the present time, it is probably doubtful whether at the time of payment they will be worth more or less, for this reason should not be considered a usurer. By reason of this doubt he also is excused, who sells clothing, grain, wine, oil, or other wares so that at a set time he receives for them more than they are worth at that time, if, however, he had not intended so to sell them at the time of the contract.

Even the 1911 edition (p. 199) has an added "[non?]":

Naviganti vel eunti ad nundinas certam mutuans pecuniae quantitatem, eo quod suscipit in se periculum, recepturus aliquid ultra sortem, usurarius [non?] est censendus. Ille quoque, qui dat X solidos, ut alio tempore totidem sibi grani, vini et olei mensurae reddantur: quae, licet tunc plus valeant, utrum plus vel minus solutionis tempore fuerint valiturae, verisimiliter dubitatur: non debet ex hoc usurarius reputari. Ratione huius dubii etiam excusatur, qui pannos, granum, vinum, oleum vel alias merces vendit,ut amplius, quam tunc valeant, in certo termino recipiat pro eisdem, si tamen ea tempore contractus non fuerat venditurus.

I wonder if this inspired Shakeaspeare's Merchant of Venice? They both talk about merchant ships.

(Also, 1911 is after 1890, which is when La Civiltà Cattolica sounded the alarm about usury.)

There's another topic(s) which I've never heard addressed from the puplit, which is of equal importance today... It's that of economics and commerce. These are completely intertwined with the practice of "usury" which brings all of civilization under complete control of a few...

Here are two must reads, by Hillarie Belloc, that should be in every library...
*Usury
*Economics For Helen

Belloc was weak in his condemnation of usury. He thought, like Calvin, that taking usury on productive loans is moral.