The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

Maria wrote:

Nadir, these Catholic priests lived in Chicago and were Dominicans. They frequently got these calls.

They were told not to ask questions and not to call the police. Usually the car was outside the rectory within 10 minutes, so the priest barely had time to waken, splash water on his face, dress, and fetch the necessary sick bag containing his stole, etc.

These priests obeyed the caller's instructions because a man's soul was in jeopardy.

Maria,

The sense of what I have written to you was that Mafia and the priest, you mentioned in your comment, has little or nothing to do with usury as topic perse. It is a sideline.

[Anyway, I will be off for Sydney tomorrow. I will catch with you later...ciao.]

jgress wrote:

With all due respect Hoffman isn't a member of our church so let's just focus on what we teach. Usury is a sin but interest is so entrenched in our society that we can't expect the laity to separate itself from it completely. If you have particular concerns bothering your conscience you bring them up with your priest.

I note that in the parable of the talents Christ refers to interest approvingly.

Jgress,

Yes, Hoffman is not a member of your church, neither am I then. Nevertheless, I am here now to try to contribute in bringing to this forum some light concerning usury.
To your remark, I note that in the parable of the talents Christ refers to interest approvingly,

Here is what Hoffman has to say:

Yes, it is necessary to reply to the myth that Jesus sanctioned usury in His Parable of the Talents, and we have done so on pp. 50-53 of “Usury in Christendom.”
While it is does not do justice to the topic to reduce a response to a few sentences, I will venture to offer a one-paragraph summation of the correct exegesis of the Parable:

"The substantive point of the parable is that Jesus’ statements are made in reply to the mentality of the servant who called him a 'hard man' (in the Greek austere, i.e. harsh). The servant is terming his master, Jesus, a hard, ruthless man. The advice to put money at interest is based on an if/then proposition. The wicked servant had slandered his master in a feeble attempt to justify his own laziness. If Christ is a cruel master, then the servant is justified putting the money at interest” (p. 51).

We have much more to say in the book (as noted, three pages’ worth) in defense of Christ’s purity in regard to any aspersion that dares to associate Our Lord with advocating, in the parable, interest on debt.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com.a ... endom.html

Nadir

Yes, usury is a sin and Orthodox Christians should have nothing to do with either paying it or accepting the benefits of it. That is the ideal. However, it is also written, the debtor is the lender's slave, in the book of Proverbs. The fact is that almost all of us live beyond our means and the world's system is owned and built in favour of the control of the banks, such that things are designed that we cannot do anything except that we participate in their system. Most employers will not pay cash, but either by cheque or by direct deposit; hence, everyone needs to have a bank account and that always has automatic interest either paid to the account holder if there is a positive balance of cash, or they are charged interest if there is a negative balance. So even if one is a good steward, and is not in debt but even has an abundance, one cannot easily avoid the sin of usury. I think that one who is forced into participating is less guilty than one who has the freedom to live free from involvement in usury but is taking usury anyway. But, we should try to live free from it: "if you are able to get your freedom, do so" 1Corinthians 7:21.

Icxypion wrote:

Yes, usury is a sin and Orthodox Christians should have nothing to do with either paying it or accepting the benefits of it. That is the ideal. However, it is also written, the debtor is the lender's slave, in the book of Proverbs. The fact is that almost all of us live beyond our means and the world's system is owned and built in favour of the control of the banks, such that things are designed that we cannot do anything except that we participate in their system. Most employers will not pay cash, but either by cheque or by direct deposit; hence, everyone needs to have a bank account and that always has automatic interest either paid to the account holder if there is a positive balance of cash, or they are charged interest if there is a negative balance. So even if one is a good steward, and is not in debt but even has an abundance, one cannot easily avoid the sin of usury. I think that one who is forced into participating is less guilty than one who has the freedom to live free from involvement in usury but is taking usury anyway. But, we should try to live free from it: "if you are able to get your freedom, do so" 1Corinthians 7:21.

cxypion,

By saying,

...involvement in usury but is taking usury anyway

do you mean, interest?
Nadir

There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words. Thomas Reid