skip to main |
skip to sidebar
...even in an economy that gives and receives interest as a matter of
course we can at times distinguish what might be legitimate interest
from what is probably usury. Although the praxis of the Church for the
past two hundred years has been not to disturb consciences on the
subject, that does not mean that there is anything wrong with discussion
of the matter and with attempts to identify usury where it is present.
An increased consciousness of the evil and the ubiquity of usury today
(cf. Rerum novarum) cannot but help to make Christians more aware of what to our ancestors was one of the greatest of sins.
Is Usury Still a Sin,
The Distributionist Review
For certainly it appears that usury is no longer a sin that
Christians need to worry about. But there is something curious about
saying the Church’s teaching has changed. When did this occur? When did
usury in the sense which we mean by it here cease to be a sin? If we
look in the first half of the nineteenth century as the best place to
locate such a change, we find no statement by the Church during that
time that says anything about repudiating the teaching of Vix pervenit...
Even John Noonan, in an article written expressly for the purpose of
proving that there had been changes, or developments as he called them,
in moral doctrine, admits: “Formally it can be argued that the old usury
rule, narrowly construed, still stands: namely, that no profit on a
loan may be taken without a just title to that profit.”[38] It is true
that he continues, “in terms of emphasis, of perspective, of practice,
the old usury rule has disappeared.”...
One can certainly find a nearly universal practical neglect of the
question of usury, but one looks in vain to find that the Church ever
retracted, abrogated, or substantially altered her teaching on usury.
-Is Usury Still a Sin,
The Distributionist Review
