Orthodox Catholics say that discipline can change and doctrine can develop—in the sense that elements present in the early form of a doctrine can emerge more fully over time—but doctrine in its essence cannot change.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Catholic advocates of contraception cited the Church’s teaching on usury as a counterexample to this dictum. The Magisterium’s doctrinal authority covers faith and morals, which surely includes its teaching on usury. And yet its teaching on usury obviously changed. If doctrine could change with respect to usury, the argument went, why could it not change with respect to contraception?
During the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family in Rome, we heard the same argument applied to communion for the divorced and remarried, and for homosexuality. Reporting on the Synod in , Barbie Latza Nadeau wrote: “Doctrine, the traditionalist fathers said, cannot be changed, even though there are exceptions: doctrine on slavery has ch so, arguably, has doctrine on ‘usury,’ the payment of interest.”
This argument has achieved a place in the pantheon of conventional wisdom. But is it correct? Did the Church’s change of teaching on usury constitute a doctrinal change?
No. What changed was our understanding of the nature and function of money, neither of which has doctrinal status. Once the understanding of money changed, the sin of usury ceased to be identified in any simple way with charging interest on money. This is development, not substantial change.
Unfortunately, the issue is complex. And its complexity provides fertile ground to plant the seeds of doubt about the stability of doctrine. We need to lay this mistake to rest.
The Traditional View
These days, we think of usury as charging an astronomical interest rate on a loan, but for most of the last 2,000 years, usury referred to any interest charged on a loan—that is, usury was more or less identified with charging interest on a money loan.
Far from being a trivial moral peccadillo, it was seen as a damnable offense. In his Divine Comedy, Dante puts usurers in the inner ring of the seventh circle of hell. Hatred of usury was not unique to Christianity, however. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle—along with such Roman thinkers as Cicero, Seneca, and Cato—also disdained it, with the latter comparing it to murder. And it wasn’t just a Western hang-up. Buddha denounced it, and Islam still follows Muhammad in condemning it.
While Greek and Roman thinkers shaped the Church’s view of usury throughout the Middle Ages, the other influence, of course, was Scripture. The Old Testament seemed to prohibit charging interest on money loans. In Leviticus, for instance, God forbids the Hebrews from charging each other interest on loans after they have entered the Promised Land.
But if the Hebrew Bible condemns usury, how did Jews come to be associated with usury in the Middle Ages? The short answer is that the Old Testament allows Jews to charge interest to non-Jews.
Christians had to grapple with an additional passage from the New Testament book of Luke, where Jesus admonishes his followers to “lend, expecting nothing in return.” Because of admonitions like this, for centuries Christians were officially forbidden from charging interest while Jews were free to make interest-bearing loans to Christians. Since Jews were often prohibited by laws and prejudice from pursuing other lines of work, many ended up working as moneylenders to Christians.
From Sterility to Fertility
Although profound developments in culture and technology took place in the intervening 2,000 years, in terms of their economies, most classical and medieval Europeans were not all that different from the ancient Israelites. Most people lived and worked in the country or in villages and traded mainly within their extended families, clans, or tribes. By modern standards, almost everyone was dirt poor, and banks as we know them didn’t exist. Moneylending, then, involved rich people lending to their poor neighbors, probably their kin or longtime employees, for a basic need such as food or winter clothing. Such borrowers would not have been able to shop around for the best interest rate.
The early Christian world, like the Roman world before it, saw money as sterile, functioning only as a means of exchange but without value in itself. This was Aristotle’s view. The Greek philosopher had argued that money, unlike monkeys and monkey trees, did not produce after its own kind. (The Greek word for usury, tokos, translates as “offspring.”) Quarters do not sprout quarters, and if you plant a dollar in your garden, you won’t get a money tree. What followed from this, Aristotle thought, was that while charging interest on money might enrich the banker, it is ill-gotten gain because it’s based on a fact “contrary to nature.” It’s treating something as fertile that is in fact sterile.
In the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas, along with many others, adopted Aristotle’s thinking on the subject (though St. Thomas showed that he was aware of contrary arguments even then). Money, they noted, doesn’t wear out like clothing or a house. If somebody wears your clothes for a year, you can’t get your original clothes back. At best, you’ll get used clothes. So you can rightly charge rent for your clothes. When coins get too shabby-looking, however, they are simply removed from circulation and replaced with freshly minted coins of the same worth. Also, a borrowed sum of money can be repaid exactly, even if repaid with different coins or bills. Charging for money seems different from charging rent on, say, a horse and cart or a three-bedroom apartment with a carport.
These arguments led most people to conclude that charging interest on money was more or less charging for nothing. As such, it was wrong. What changed their minds? In the West, Christian scholars slowly began to recognize the changing nature of money. Around the twelfth century, the growth of trade and banking exposed the problems. This created several dilemmas. First, growth in trade led to a shortage of gold and silver coins—the common form of currency. Second, it’s hard to make large exchanges of money over hundreds or thousands of miles when money is made of gold and silver and easily stolen by roadside bandits or lost in a shipwreck. Finally, the different coins used in Bruges, Milan, and Rome were often reminted and debased with less valuable metals, so the ordinary person could easily get ripped off by unscrupulous merchants or conniving kings.
From these exigencies, the bank as we know it emerged. Moneychangers, who could tell real coins from counterfeits, were crucial to the new system. They began keeping deposits for various clients so that when two clients made an exchange, all the moneychanger had to do was credit one account and subtract from the other. Simple arithmetic had replaced a risky and cumbersome movement of coins.
Eventually banks emerged with branches in different cities. This gave merchants a way to transfer payment safely over large distances, since bank notes now stood in for the money stored safely in a bank vault.
This process became so common that not only merchants but also governments and even the Pope used bank notes to pay bills. In fact, some banks had such large deposits that they could lend money to kings. What was fit for a king was soon fit for the commoner. Individuals and firms with extra money began depositing their money in banks, to be withdrawn as needed. This could only happen once people were convinced that their money was safer in a bank than hidden in a mattress or a hole in the ground. Thus banking grew only as ties of trust grew beyond family and ethnic lines to connect larger and larger groups of people.
Interest was still identified with usury, however, so instead of talking about interest on money, bankers spoke of a fee for service. This fix fell short of a robust theological defense, but the result was that the use of business credit and insurance spread. Soon the surplus money of a privileged few was no longer hoarded and unproductive but set free for others to use creatively in launching new enterprises. People began to create more wealth than they consumed, and, with the accumulated wealth, banks could create yet more wealth by functioning as brokers between depositors and investors.
It slowly became clear that money, at least in certain settings, is fertile, and has what economists call a “time value.” If I lend my neighbor $1,000 for a year, I forgo the opportunity to invest the money in some wealth-creating enterprise for a year, while you gain the same opportunity. That’s worth something.
Notice that charging interest for money need no longer be a rich man bilking his destitute brother or cousin. Now banks were making capital loans, that is, loans that could be used to start or fund business ventures. When a bank lends money at interest, it isn’t charging for nothing. Strictly speaking, it isn’t charging for the money itself, as a butcher would charge for a ham that will be smoked and eaten. It’s charging for the “opportunity cost” that the lender bears by not having the money for a while. To lend the money, the lender has to forgo all other uses he might have for the money. And for the borrower, getting the money now rather than a year from now is a benefit. It’s no surprise, then, that people will pay a premium for that benefit, since it self-evidently has value to the borrower. That’s why if you lend someone $1,000 today, he will be paying you for something if, a year from now, he repays you $1,000 plus interest. Whatever this is, it isn’t usury as the ancients envisioned it.
Besides the time value of the money lent, a banker charges for the risk that he won’t get his money back on time, or ever. So what is the right price to offset that risk? That depends on the situation. If only one bank can lend, and lots of people want to borrow money, the bank can charge a relatively high interest rate, though it would still be limited by what potential borrowers are willing to pay. But in a market with lots of banks competing for customers, interest rates will be much lower as the rates reflect the underlying supply and demand for credit—along with the perceived riskiness of a given loan. A wealthy tech executive with a perfect credit rating can get a much lower interest rate than the guy who just graduated from college and has never had a checking account or a credit card.
These days, few Christians—whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox—offer a blanket opposition to charging interest, the Vatican participates in modern banking, and
assumes its legitimacy. As it was said toward the long conclusion of the scholastic debates, “When the reasons for the law ceases, the law itself ceases.”
What Do the Scriptures Really Say?
But did the Church, as some have charged, simply ignore inconvenient biblical passages against usury and change her teaching? No. What happened was that once scholars had cleared away certain assumptions about money they had brought to such biblical passages, the Church could draw some key distinctions that had been overlooked.
Of the three passages forbidding interest-charging in the Hebrew Torah, two refer to the rich Israelite lending money to a poor “brother” the lender should not take advantage of the situation by charging interest. The third passage, in Deuteronomy, repeats this ban but allows Hebrews to charge interest to people outside the community. So the practice must not have been seen as intrinsically evil. Ancient Israelites were simply forbidden from confusing family relationships with commercial ones.
Look at the passage in the New Testament book of Luke, which I referred to earlier. “If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive,” Jesus said, “what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.” Historically, many readers have thought that Jesus was prohibiting the charging of interest. But in context, things look quite different.
In the first part of this sermon, Jesus has given his famous “beatitudes,” such as “Blessed are you who are poor” and “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.” Then, he says, among other things: “If anyone takes away your coat, do not withhold even your shirt.” Does Jesus mean we should hope for everyone to be poor, so that they can be blessed? Is he commanding us not to laugh? Are Christians not allowed to sell shirts and coats? Is Jesus forbidding society from enforcing laws against theft? Of course not.
Jesus is using a rhetorical device common in first-century Judaism: hyperbole. Even sinners lend money, he observes, and they expect to receive back the same amount. Jesus says nothing about interest. And Aristotle’s argument is nowhere in sight. Instead, Jesus says we should lend expecting nothing in return. Jesus is encouraging his followers to be generous to he is not denouncing banks for charging interest on loans. Similarly, when Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, he also drives out everyone selling sheep, cattle, and doves. Nobody concludes from this that Jesus issued a blanket ban on livestock auctions. He did not denounce commerce or money-changing in general, but rather the misuse of a house of worship.
Jesus also condemned hoarding and stinginess. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,” he told his disciples, “where moth and rust consume and where thieve but store up for yourselves treasure in heaven.” Here he’s reminding his disciples that their ultimate loyalty is not in wealth or possessions, but in God’s kingdom. He’s denouncing selfish hoarding, not pensions.
In the parable of the talents, Jesus even draws a distinction between the sterile hoarding of money on the one hand and, on the other hand, the interest-bearing savings of mo and he approves of the latter. In the parable, a man calls three servants and entrusts each with huge sums of money, and goes away. When he returns, he rewards the first two servants for investing the money they were given—for putting it at risk, where it can bear fruit. He condemns the third servant for playing it safe and burying the money. The master expected the servant to invest, to put the money at risk. At the very least, the master tells the servant, he should have put it in a bank where it could bear interest. Jesus isn’t giving an economics lesson—the parable is about the kingdom of God—but he treats prudent risk, investment, and interest in a positive light. So we can say that our more modern understanding of money and of interest is not just doctrinal development, but also resourcement: a recovery of something embedded already in the tradition—indeed, in the canon—but long overlooked.
Not a Doctrinal Change
Still, wouldn’t it have been better if the Church had understood all this from the beginning? Perhaps. But John T. Noonan, in his distinguished Scholastic Analysis of Usury, argues that “the scholastic theory of usury … is the first attempt at a science of economics known to the West.” The centuries-long debate over usury just may have given the West an economic head start. (Noonan, incidentally, stumped for contraception during the 1960s, but that doesn’t sully his point here.)
Moreover, the development of the Church’s teaching on usury has helped clarify both the extent and the limits of magisterial authority. In hindsight, it seems commonsensical that refined details about the nature and function of money in an economy would not be the natural domain of doctrine per se, any more than would the precise geometry of the solar system. Nevertheless, the Magisterium can speak about the moral implications of financial engagements in light of its current understanding of money. But that distinction, that limitation, is vital to keep in mind.
And if we do keep it in mind, it should be clear that doctrine, as Catholics define it, has not changed. Put simply, usury is charging someone for something that has no value, in short, for defrauding someone, especially the poor and dependent, in a financial transaction. The Church is right to condemn it, as Pope Benedict XVI did in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate. Our thicker understanding of money simply leads us to recognize that most ordinary bank loans exact a cost on the lender and have value to the borrower, and so are not usurious. Perhaps there are other examples of the Church changing doctrine—though I doubt it—but her teaching on usury is not one of them.
Editor’s note: The image above titled “The Moneylender and His Wife” was painted by Quentin Massys in 1514.
More on Crisis
The Church Today
Popular PostsIn recent news
because his body belongs to the Church and, hey, if he was beatified all his organs would turn into holy relics. (Never mind that he's 87 and not exactly a desirable source of young, healthy donor organs.)
This got me thinking ...
What about the status of donor organs from other beatified/canonized persons? Especially in light of the Catholic Church's recent trend towards creating new saints much faster than the historic norm.
Which led to the first germination of a story I shall not write ...
Let us postulate a world in which Christian doctrine is actually True & specifically Catholic doctrine.
Our hero is a 40-something newspaper editor and investigative journalist with a history.
About 20 years ago, while investigating a story in Eastern Europe, he a corrupt billionaire oligarch took exception to our hero nosing into his family history and arranged for a minion to stir some Death Cap mushrooms into his stroganoff. However, he was saved by a kidney transplant, using an organ donated by a priest working with the local hospital who happened to be a perfect histocompatibility match.
In the aftermath, our hero managed to lay his hands on some highly incriminating documents and promptly found a Swiss bank va he has to prove he's alive and free once every six months or the bank will release the papers to wikileaks, causing some minor embarrassment to our shady billionaire oligarch from the Carpathians.
$PROTAG is at home on a sunny weekend afternoon when his front doorbell rings. Chaos ensues: the two Men In Black on his doorstep aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, they're hit men. Our hero manages to escape and runs like hell, then calls the police on his cellphone. The police arrive, and the hit men are duly caught. $PROTAG is invited back to the station to make a statement, and all seems to be going well when the inspector who is taking him in receives a phone call. The cop's manner changes, and our hero realizes that from being a witness or a victim, he's now being treated as something else.
His second escape & from the police & is rather harder. As he goes on the run he rapidly realizes that he is being tracked by his phone, and is forced to turn it off. (This is harder than you might think, especially as circa 2015 your mobile phone is also likely to be your credit card/cash wallet.)
We now have a classic man-on-the-run setup.
Progression
$PROTAG goes to visit an old friend, now working as a PI. The PI starts digging and discovers that an eye-watering reward has been offered for the return of $PROTAG, or his left kidney.
$PROTAG puts two and two together and hits the net. The priest who donated his kidney died three years later. Two years ago he was beatified. The process of canonization is being pursued with indecent haste for some reason, and he's a couple of weeks from being officially declared to be a saint. A shadowy agency associated with the Vatican is therefore trying to secure the rogue holy relic before it "goes live" inside our hero, granting him whatever eerie superpowers come from carrying a no-shit saint's left kidney.
Recomplication
Through slack internet security discipline, our hero has given the bad guys a clue to his whereabouts. That night, more MIBs turn up, ready to kidnap or kill him. His friend the PI has an
there's a shoot-out, and our hero is facing certain death when more MIBs turn up and lay into the first bunch.
It turns out that the Carpathian oligarch hasn't forgotten about the blackmail material after all ...
Where next?
Well, this all came out at the pub last night and survived the hang-over. I've got no definite end in mind and no use for such an extremely silly novel, so I thought I'd dump it here on my blog in all it's rawness, just because.
What we've got is a classic man-on-the-run thriller plot. What he's run what he's running to needs further development before there's an actual story arc. However, in the background there's clearly scope for a B-plot revolving around the less obvious implications of Catholic doctrine being true. For example: let us postulate that the transubstantiation of the host during holy communion is real, and that in the communicant's mouth the wafer and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of the son of God. We can remove tissue samples from the stomach of a believer right after communion without and such tissues will of course contain stem cells, and with the right techniques we can come up with pluripotent Jesus stem cells. What are the applications ...?
Lurking in the back of my head there's also a mischievous conceit: the classic vampire story & setting aside all the dubious rape/disease symbolism & rests on an artificial mythology that presupposes the truth of Christian theology. Vampires are repelled by crosses, don't show up in mirrors, and so on. Creatures of the night, in other words. It's trivially obvious that the thriller plot I've just described will go well with vampires. And wouldn't it be fun to have a vampire yarn revolving around a hapless journalist who is in demand because he pisses holy water?
Alas: I don't have time to go on a six month diversion into vampire country & not to mention that I find the literalist content of most religious doctrines to be deeply silly, to such a degree that I'd have difficulty suspending my disbelief for long enough to finish the yarn. Moreover,
believers can get quite irate when you start treating their beliefs as a science fictional shared universe and go looking for loopholes in the laws. I can happily forgo the consumer boycott or hate mail or whatever.
But if you want to see where this kind of thing ultimately leads? Here's , a Manga style re-telling of the Revelation of St John the Divine.
at 12:51 on February
Raisedbywolves
steve.c.simmons
JamesPadraicR
JamesPadraicR
JamesPadraicR
replied to
replied to
Crutcher Dunnavant
Glen Murie
JamesPadraicR
replied to
Tim Whitworth
replied to
replied to
brucecohenpdx
replied to
heteromeles
replied to
replied to
replied to
Robert Sneddon
drivingmenuts
replied to
Fred Matzner
Fred Matzner
replied to
Kevin Williams
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
Fr. David M. Allen
John Anderson
Nialle Sylvan
replied to
replied to
nadine earnshaw
brucecohenpdx
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
David Weingart
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
JamesPadraicR
replied to
Thom Marrion
Kevin Williams
replied to
replied to
Ross Smith
replied to
replied to
replied to
JamesPadraicR
replied to
Neil in Chicago
replied to
ARCHAEOPTERYX
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
Arthur Chance
replied to
Arthur Chance
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
Danny Sichel
replied to
replied to
Fred Davis
replied to
Antongarou
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
Arthur Chance
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
brucecohenpdx
replied to
replied to
replied to
Daniel O'Donnell
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
PrivateIron
Another Jewish Atheist
Jan de Wit
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
Antongarou
replied to
Antongarou
replied to
replied to
ARCHAEOPTERYX
joe rojas-burke
replied to
ARCHAEOPTERYX
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
replied to
brucecohenpdx
replied to
replied to
replied to
Arthur Chance
replied to
replied to
replied to
brucecohenpdx
replied to
Steve Simmons
replied to
replied to
replied to
Peter Wilkinson
replied to
replied to
replied to
Steve Simmons
replied to
replied to
brucecohenpdx
replied to
replied to
Trottelreiner
replied to
Trottelreiner
replied to
—a series of essays about the industry I work in.
—my non-writing autobiography, or what I did before becoming a full-time writer.
—an experiment in weblog mediated collaborative fiction.
Shaping the Future—a talk I gave on the social implications of Moore's Law.
& or, what I did on my holidays
the MIT Media Lab—what it’s like to spend a day
wandering around the Media Lab.
& space colonization: feasible or futile?
“Nothing
like this will be built again”—inside a nuclear
reactor complex.
&#06 (RIP)
This page contains a single entry by
published on February
was the previous entry in this blog.
is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the
or look in the
to find all content.