Does any major branch of Christianity still consider usury a sin?

…or any minor one, for that matter?

I actually mean this more as a General Question, but due to the subject matter, I figured it’s safer in GD.

In some of my literature and history courses, I’ve come across a lot of Medieval literature condemning usury in no uncertain terms – demons coming for the souls of usurers, sacred earth rejecting the bodies of usurers, Dante’s usurers in the burning deserts of hell, weighed down by their bags of money. Usury was defined strictly as making any money off a loan, not just large amounts.

My question is, does Catholicism or any other branch of the Christian family tree still condemn usury. And if not, what’s the explanation for the change in policy?

I’m sure you can probably find some fundamentalists out there that wuuld. After all, there is a prohibition against usury somewhere in the Old Testament. Of course, the fact that both the Jews and the Christians both saw this prohibition as applying to only their group, and the lack of other jobs available to Jews, created the stereotype of money-hoarding Jewish bankers. Though quite frankly, seeing as how interest is such a vital part of economics, I can’t imagine any large denomination prohibiting usury. What would an interest rate have to be now to be considered usury anyway?

It used to be anything above 18% in many states. Then we had the Carter presidency and interest rates went through the roof. Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980 which preempted existing state usury laws. Out-of-state banks are free to ignore state usury laws.

Cite: House of Cards

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury:

Also – opposition to “usury” has a long history in certain strains of American populist politics, going back to Jacksonian Democrats’ opposition to the Bank of the United States, and the Populist Party’s “free silver” policy (“You shall not crucify humanity upon a Cross of Gold!” – W.J. Bryan), and surviving in some contemporary militia groups’ opposition to the International Bankers (if you know who they mean, and I think you do! :wink: ). Even this year, at least one Congressional candidate (James Hart, Republican-but-disavowed-by-the-party candidate in Tennessee – very amusing fellow, I started a thread about him recently) is making an issue of “usury,” by which, near as I can tell, he means charging any interest at all. From http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/:

These are the relatively rational aspect of Hart’s platform. What he has to say about “eugenics” and “favored races” is (unlike our usury-tainted false currency) truly priceless! :smiley:

And yet, they fail to understand that usury is the perfectly rational way to account for the time-value of money when trading assets for future value.

Seems like kind of a bizarre prohibition for so many of the ancient religions to stress so heavily. Are their any theorys about why these prohibitions started?

Usury was seen as taking advantage of another’s misfortune. He didn’t have (say) $10, but needed it (otherwise he wouldn’t be trying to borrow it). This was an unfortunate situation to be in. You did have it, but didn’t need it (otherwise you wouldn’t be offering to lend it). Why should you profit from his misfortune?

Sure, it overlooks the fact that usury is the perfectly rational way to account for the time-value of money when trading assets for future value, as Sam Stone so elegantly points out. But I don’t think these concepts had been identified at the time.

Small comfort to the poor soul who is burning in Hell.

A lot depends on how you define usury, of course, and my dictionary gives four of them.

Defining all moneylending at interest as usury (and therefore a sin) seems much too extreme to me, but even so some forms of moneylending ought to be considered usurious and morally contemptible. Some lenders deliberately design their policies and practices so as to trap many or most of their debtors into an endless cycle of crushing debt. This can hardly be considered moral. The “company store” so well known and thoroughly despised by coal miners and share croppers is an example from history, and the “payday” loans are a contemporary example. Today many credit card issuers are howling about the record numbers of bankruptcies that are piling up and want the bankruptcy laws changed so that it would be much harder to discharge all of one’s debts through the courts. The obvious response is, “If it’s such a problem, why the hell don’t you tighten up the standards by which you issue credit?” Throughout history in many lands, the wealthy and powerful have used such tricks to exploit the poor and powerless, and that’s one of the reasons many people tend to be naturally suspicious of moneylenders.

It really does seem to me that Christians ( as well as a lot of other folks ) should raise their voices against such practices.

The trend in recent years has been the passing, in a large number of States, ‘predatory lending’ laws. I believe this indicates that voices are being raised about this issue.

So the original idea was to prohibit what we now consider ‘loan-sharking’?

After all, without ‘interest’ there would be no money markets, banks, mortgages, credit cards (OK, maybe that’s loan sharking), easy terms for buying a car, etc etc…

No banks without interest? Admittedly, Islamic banking institutions are a different breed from what most non-Muslims are used to, but they do exist. From this page:

In practice, the end result seems pretty similar to dealing with banks that do charge interest, though:

Orthodox Christianity theoretically forbids usury, but recognizes that it is absolutely necessary to operate in the modern world, as our current fiscal system is based around it, and so allows its members to deal with it as necessary. It’s still better to not have it, though.

Are there any religious traditions that draw a distinction – as the law does – between a usurious rate of interest, and a legitimate and permissible rate of interest?

It is unfortunate they can’t be as reasonable about abortion and homosexuality. Why is that?

Huh? Whuzzat?! Hey, come on, don’t try to tell me that Orthodox (i.e., Greek :wink: ) Christians have a problem with homosexuality! :stuck_out_tongue:

This page has some interesting information about various religion’s prohibitions against usury.

One thing to remember is that usury as it is usually practiced today is different from the type that was practiced in the ancient world. Today, it’s one of the bases of the modern economy; remove it from the picture, and the financial world comes crashing to a halt. In ancient times, usury was a means of screwing a person in need when he was down; most cases of this are prohibited by modern law, but in areas where it still happens, such as fast-cash paycheck loan places or underground loan sharks, it’s still completely forbidden.

Abortion is considered the taking of an innocent life, and there’s no circumstances that change that; hence, it is only permissible for the same reasons that killing (for example) a toddler would be permissible, which isn’t bloody often. Homosexual acts (not orientation) are taught by the Church as being intrinsically sinful. I personally don’t understand completely why they are; I’ve never heard a logical reason for proscribing them. I do believe, however, that the commandment to not partake of them was indeed given by God, and is still in effect; hence, I refrain from them. Honestly, though, this is way down on the list of sins that need to be fought societally, if it’s even on that list at all. It doesn’t hurt me for others to engage in homosexual acts; that issue is between them and God. Mote, beam, and all that. I’m infinitely more concerned with ending abortion and pointless foreign military excursions, myself.

So it is not really a matter of morality as much as expediency. The Bible still says it is wrong, but these days it is just too darned inconvenient. I think there is a word for that…

I am convinced that if a way could be found to amass a fortune by buggering little boys, it would become a sacrament.

Indeed. It is called ekonomia, and is a well-established principle in Orthodoxy, where rules may within certain limits be adapted to new situations, according to the guidance of the bishop.

Sorry, you must have us confused with the Catholics.