Democracia Participativa
Democracia Participativa
Participatory Democracy
  • Noticias
    News
    • Headlines
    • Titulares
    • Cuba / Cuban Affairs
    • Venezuela / Venezuelan Affairs
    • Navegando / Browsing
  • Derechos
    H. Rights
    • Derechos Humanos / Human Rights
    • Perspectivas / Perspectives
    • Denuncias / Reports
    • Organizaciones / Campaigns
  • Economía
    Society
    • Toma nota.../Take note...
    • Perspectiva económica: Elías Amor
    • Perspectiva económica: Martínez-Solanas
    • Columnistas invitados/Guest columnists
    • Mundo Sindical / A Worker's World
  • Documentos
    Data & Referenda
    • DOCUMENTOS / DOCUMENTS
    • Documentos en Español
      • Instrumentos Internacionales y Declaraciones
      • Documentos sobre Derechos Humanos
      • Cuba: Iniciativas Democráticas
      • Documentos sobre Economía
      • Doctrina Social Cristiana
      • Otros documentos y perspectivas
      • Fundamentos / Basics
    • Documents in English
      • International Instruments & Declarations
      • Human Rights Documents
      • Documents on Economy
      • Other Documents
      • Christian Social Thought
    • Libros / Outstanding Books
    • Nosotros / About us
      Enlaces / Links
  • ELECCIONES
    Referenda
    • Elecciones / World Elections
    • Referendos / Plebiscites' articles
  • Foro
    Debate
    • Categorías / Forum categories
    • Mensajes / Recent Topics
    • Buscar / Search in Forum
Democracia Participativa
Democracia Participativa
Participatory Democracy
  1. Home
  2. Documentos
  3. Documents in English

Christian Social Thought

Paying taxes in the light of the Social Doctrine of the Church

Written by Gerardo E. Martínez-Solanas on 18 October 2024. Posted in Christian Social Thought.

Taxes are indispensable, but they must be fair and necessary. It is the responsibility of the State to uphold justice and order in society. Taxes are a way of supporting institutions devoted to these goals and contributing to the general well-being —the common good—, the primary reason for the existence of a government.

In some of his Epistles, St. Paul teaches the obligation to submit to civil authorities and to pay taxes, even when, despite the greatest of intentions, human activity —including the government— is fallible. Taxes are an expression of our social responsibility and our obligation to solidarity. In his letter to the Romans, he states: “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue ...” (Rom.13,7)

Social Doctrine of the ChurchThat is why one of the fundamental principles of the Church's Social Doctrine is SOLIDARITY because it exhorts us to contribute to the well-being of all, especially those most in need. Paying taxes is a concrete manifestation of this principle, even if we disagree with certain policies.

Of course, disagreement may reach a level of condemnation and rejection when it comes to funding with taxes activities, programs, and political ambitions that are radically opposed to Christian ethics and are discriminatory, unjust, and/or repressive. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa Theologica: “... human law should not be obeyed" if it is  "… a law that inflicts unjust hurt on its subjects” (S.Th., I-II, q.96, a.4 ad 2-3). Therefore, paying taxes does not imply our passive acceptance of all government decisions, however harmful, unjust or criminal they may be. We have the right and responsibility to question them, condemn them, and actively work to improve public policies, always in a constructive manner.

From a Catholic perspective, taxes necessary for the well-being and progress of society are an obligation that supports the COMMON GOOD and reflects our commitment to solidarity. Through dialogue and active engagement, we can improve society while still fulfilling our civic duties.

The Church's first great social encyclical, Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII (1891), already addresses this issue. As Domingo Sugranyes, head of the Seminar on Socioeconomic Ethics of the Paul VI Foundation, reminds us: "The social doctrine of the Church is not a manual. It does not deal with all the issues and those it does deal with are not done in a systematic and scientific way," but he adds that the Compendium published in 2005 addresses the issue of taxation in the chapter dedicated to economic institutions at the service of man. And he stresses that when it focuses on public finances it refers, first of all, to their role as an instrument of development and not as a means of redistribution. It is very important to recognize this. In other words, it does not accept socialist solutions because "just and efficient public finances must favor the growth of employment, support business activity, non-profit initiatives, and pension systems, and increase the credibility of the State as guarantor of pension systems and social protection. Fiscal activity must serve as a complement for the development of solidarity."

Consequently, although every citizen must comply with the moral obligations that derive from his status as a member of society, both in compliance with just laws and in the obligation to respond positively to the interests of public life, it must be recognized that political leaders increasingly invade the sphere of citizens' personal lives, legislating on aspects of "natural law", the value of the person, his dignity and his attributions, encouraging the criteria of utility and possession on the one hand and of convenience on the other as an electoral resource. Justice, from these criteria, is relativized and becomes a new social construct, subject to a selfish human convenience that is then determined by laws that adulterate the concepts of the common good and solidarity.

Does the control of the economy and money correspond to the State or this issue goes beyond State powers? Does this have to do with the Social Doctrine of the Church? Let us reflect on these questions and act accordingly in our environments.

  • Rerum Novarum
  • social doctrine
  • common good
  • taxation
  • solidarity
  • Hits: 248
Write comment (0 Comments)

Social justice is a vital part of a priest’s vocation

Written by Nathaniel Hunter on 31 October 2023. Posted in Christian Social Thought.

«A good priest must be involved in the life of the community and seeking the common good»

A U.S. Catholic interview

Anthony B. PizzoThroughout his nearly 40 years as a priest, Augustinian Father Anthony B. Pizzo, who was recently elected to a second term as the prior provincial of the Midwest Province of the Augustinian Order, has had plenty of experience in taking not only a hands-on, pragmatic approach to the priesthood but also in stepping outside of long-drawn boundaries. Upon returning to his native Chicago in the 1990s, he became heavily involved with local community organizing, working with organizations such as the Southwest Organizing Project to address racial and economic injustice, immigration issues, fair housing, health care access, and neighborhood violence.

Pizzo sees the role of the priest as being far more than a simple celebrator of the sacraments, but rather as an integral part of bringing justice and the church’s mission to the streets. And for those discerning the priesthood, he sees a willingness to embrace this service role as crucial. “I cannot see myself, nor can I define pastoral ministry, without it being somehow involved in the life of the community and organizing to address whatever threatens our common good, stability, and peace,” he says.

Q. What makes a person a good priest?

A. Augustinians follow what I consider to be a very beautiful and yet simple spirituality: It’s all about being relational. When you read St. Augustine’s rule of life and his Confessions, he is always in relation with the other. When he seeks to understand God in his life, it’s always about looking beyond himself, even though he ultimately had to look within himself to see that God has been there the whole time. This is reflective of our nature as human beings: If we’re created in the image and likeness of God, we’re going to reflect God’s nature.

What is the nature of God? It’s not only our intelligence and the ability to reason—our ultimate nature is about being relational. That to me reflects what it means to be religious in the church. If the priest is seen as a shepherd, as Pope Francis continues to emphasize, then we cannot help but somehow be in relation with something else. A shepherd with his flock, to use that metaphor, is walking with and accompanying God’s people.

So what makes a good priest? I’d like to think I’m a good priest, but I’m a wounded priest. For me, being a good priest means recognizing that I’m very much a human being, and I bring my humanity into my priesthood. My challenge is to integrate the ideal of priesthood, which is to reflect the image of Christ, while somehow coming to terms with my own limitations and my woundedness. This is the work of grace.

Q. What goes into forming a priest who can achieve this kind of integration?

A. First of all, those discerning the priesthood have to develop a deep and abiding practice of prayer, and this is not something separate from everything else. Coming to terms with my own humanity and my own limitations within the context of being called to be a public figure in the church and to walk with God’s people is all part of what it means to be in communication with God.

Importantly, there needs to be both individual and communal prayer. For religious, we live in community, and we pray together. But we also pray privately; each of us cultivates a relationship with God and finds that grace that continues to compel us and move us beyond ourselves, our own ego, our own desires. It helps us recognize that we’re here to share ourselves in the midst of others who are searching for meaning in their lives. The ultimate adventure in our life is the search for God.

It’s not always easy. It’s at times very challenging because we bring our own individuality into the mix, but we’re all works in process. I always say, “Once in formation, always in formation,” because that opens a door and holds us accountable for pursuing our own personal development and recognizing we’re not here just for ourselves. We’re here to share with other people, for the sake of the common good.

Besides that, the curriculum of priestly ministry needs to create space and time to be integrative. It’s not just about theory, and it’s not just about praxis. You have to combine these two pieces together in order to form a priest who has not only acquired the knowledge and learned to appreciate and love the Word, but can also bring it from being a spoken word to an active word. That takes time, energy, intelligence, and heart. Being a man of prayer is foundational, but we also have to move beyond ourselves.

Being a priest these days is very, very challenging. It’s not about the privilege and the honor of having a title—titles, as far as I’m concerned, should never be the motive. It’s about being willing to step beyond ourselves, to move outside of our comfortable space because that’s what Christ did.

Q. What responsibility does a priest have toward their community?

A. I’m not just here to celebrate the sacramental life of the church. Those are important moments of convocation that bring people together, but priests are not confined only to those moments of sacramental convocation. We move beyond them as well.

The parish is beyond the four walls of the church. The parish is out there as well. We may have canonical boundaries to a parish, but that shouldn’t confine us from reaching out. As a parish priest, it’s my responsibility to recognize that everyone has their own story, and whether they actively reach out to the church or not, I have a responsibility to reach out to them.

As Pope Francis continues to emphasize, go out to the people! Don’t sit back and wait for them to come to you. That’s evangelism—that’s what Christ did. These are Gospel moments.  When you read the Gospels for instance, Christ goes out to the people and feeds them the Gospel.

Being a priest is not just about sitting in my office and waiting for people to show up at the office door. It’s literally moving beyond my own limitations, and that means moving beyond my own space and time.

Q. Has this understanding of priesthood affected the community organizing you’ve done throughout your life?

A. In the 1990s I was assigned back in Chicago after two stints in both Michigan and Wisconsin as a parochial vicar. Years ago, I considered being a missionary in a foreign country, but I realized—once I came back to Chicago in an area of the city that was going through major demographic transition—that I had found myself in mission territory. The interesting dynamic is that I wasn’t only thinking of lending myself out to mission work in this part of Chicago but also that the local community, more specifically the immigrant community, was reaching out to me and being missionaries to me.

That created a whole different perspective for me on pastoral ministry: It’s about reaching out, accepting, and welcoming in spite of the fact that at times I didn’t understand what was going on. I was going through a transition without realizing I was.
In the meantime, there were issues arising because of changes in the local neighborhood. The median income was lowering. There was a lot of flight out of the neighborhood because of the cultural and racial transition. But I committed myself to walk with folks toward articulating a new identity.

We had an issue with street gangs, so safety in the neighborhood was threatened. I realized that people were living in fear, so I began to seek advice from people in the neighborhood, especially from those whom I considered to be organizers themselves without belonging to an organization. One thing led to another, and eventually several of us, both lay folk and a few clergy, were getting together to talk about all of this. What came up was that we should consider community organizing: forming a local community organization whereby we move out into the neighborhood, visit people in their space, engage them in conversations, get their stories, and get to know what their needs are. Ultimately, those needs were about living with some kind of stability in peace with one another.

That’s what propelled me into community organizing and investing myself and my community in addressing these issues and working together for the common good. All of that was new to me. It was the first time I realized that, wow, I don’t have to be confined to the four walls of the church building. I can literally walk out the doors, and I’m going to be in the middle of my neighborhood.

People need to see that. They need to know that the church is smack in the middle of all of this. And it can’t just be the building. They need to see the church taking Catholic social teaching, for instance, and making it real by incarnating it in the neighborhood.

This is kind of what the gospels are saying, right? Jesus brought a new way of thinking to people in helping them realize that God has been there the whole time. He gives us the opportunity to recognize him in one another and in the good that we do and that we are—even the gang members.

I was actually angry at first because there was so much instability with graffiti and shootings and all that. But when I began to reach out to these kids, I realized they’re someone’s son. They’re someone’s brother. They’re a neighbor, really. They need to be in relationship with that which is good and life-giving and know that they can be part of another larger family. I began to truly love these guys. That converted me and helped me realize that Christ can manifest himself in anybody, regardless of our circumstances.

That’s just an example of the many issues that we had to deal with in our neighborhood through community organizing. And it made a tremendous difference. I cannot see myself, nor can I define pastoral ministry, without it being somehow involved in the life of the community and organizing with one another to address whatever it is that threatens our common good, our stability, our peace.

Q. What does pastoral ministry look like for someone ministering in a community where these clear threats to the common good you’re describing aren’t really an issue?

A. I’ve thought about that a lot. What would I do if I was ever assigned to a economically stable community? First of all, preaching—bringing in Catholic social teaching and raising awareness of communities, even if they aren’t in a destabilizing situation—doesn’t exonerate pastors from reaching out or doing something. Perhaps priests in these situations are called to utilize their own resources to help stabilize an unstable situation elsewhere. What priests have acquired and accumulated is not ours; it belongs to everybody.

I can see using the same principle of poverty in my religious life as an Augustinian priest and applying it to the local faith community. I might say, “Folks, what we have is wonderful, beautiful, and a gift of God, but it doesn’t just belong to us. The church is bigger than us. This is Christ’s church, and Christ always reached out to the poor.” Imagine the giftedness if a local faith community of means could identify with being the collective Christ.

It wouldn’t just be asking people to dig deep into their pockets. That would be part of it, but it would also involve asking people to move beyond their comfort zone and say, “Hey, look, I’m going to volunteer in a situation where there is a need.” Comfort is not a bad thing, but complacency is. Complacency can lead us to apathy, and that is very dangerous ground.
What do you think is behind the “crisis” in priestly vocations? Are there simply not enough men who want to take on this role?

I think about this quite a bit. The Augustinians have a good vocation ministry in our province. We seemingly have done well insofar as outreach. We have several discerners, believe it or not, but not everybody is called. And there’s a vetting process that will determine whether or not somebody can even apply, let alone move on to the next levels of formation. It takes a lot of discernment, not only on the part of the discerner, but also on the part of the vocation ministry directors and leadership in a particular religious order or diocese.

Religious have to keep our eyes, ears, and heart open and listen very carefully, because this cannot fall into an issue of quantity. It’s got to be an issue of quality, but for many of us American types, more is better. That may be in some cases, but not when it comes to vocations to the church. Granted, we’d love to have 25 guys waiting in the wings who are all of great quality. If we can do that, that’s the gift of the Spirit. But I’m just not very optimistic we’re going to wind up with that many at any given time.

People use the word crisis, and I get it. I’ve used it sometimes, too. But I look at it as being an opportunity for us to move beyond some of the boundaries we put up. It’s an opportunity for us to think outside the box.

Is all of the work that the church does only confined to the priest? No. We’ve been discovering that over the past 50 years since the Second Vatican Council. The post-Vatican II times have been screaming at us saying, “Sorry, but the church is not the clergy. The church is the people of God.”

As Pope Francis would say, and I know we might get a little tired of this proverbial expression, the priests are the ones who smell like sheep. We walk with the people of God, and we share responsibility more and more with the people of God. We delegate more and more, so we create an atmosphere or a culture of collaboration. This is what gives us the opportunity within this question of vocations to the priesthood to say, “Hey, not all are called. Few are chosen.” It’s right there in scripture.

The church was so used to a particular point in time before and during Vatican II when vocations were way up. Things changed, and some people say it was because of Vatican II. I say it was the Holy Spirit who changed us, who transformed us, and who said, “If we’re going to refer to the church as the people of God, then let’s put the focus on the people of God.”


This is an abridge version. The full article appears in the August 2023 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 88, No. 8, pages 16-20). Click here to subscribe to the magazine.

 

  • Hits: 678
Write comment (0 Comments)

Forgive us our Debts

Written by Paul D. Mueller on 21 April 2023. Posted in Christian Social Thought.

God seems focused on the welfare of the poor brother, not on the inherent sinfulness of borrowing and lending.

 

 

Debt can be a cruel master, but it can also be a powerful servant. Debt is a tool. And like any tool, debt can be dangerous to those who misuse it and a snare to those who rely on it too much. It can also harm others if used badly. As Christians, we should not fear or shun using debt any more than we should fear or shun weapons or fire or technology or power.

There are many perspectives on debt. From the hostility of Dave Ramsey to the embrace of Richard Kiyosaki, from the condemnation of usury (lending at interest) by Aristotle and Aquinas to the approval of usury offered by John Calvin, debt can be a complicated moral, financial, and spiritual issue. Although today people think of usury as “excessively high interest” debt, historically usury referred to all lending at interest—and that is how I will use the term in this essay.

Considering God’s purposes for humanity from the cultural mandate to the greatest commandments, historical treatments of debt, whether embedded in the Hebrew scriptures, discussed by ancient Greek philosophers and medieval theologians, or as used by men and women in a modern economy, will reveal that borrowing and lending at interest are morally permissible and can promote human flourishing.


The Cultural Mandate and the Greatest Commandments

Theologians have long noted “the cultural mandate” in the first chapter of the Bible. After creating Adam and Eve, God tells them to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, ESV). Before the fall and the curse of sin, God intended men and women to have families, cultivate the earth, domesticate animals, and engage in other forms of cultural and economic activity.

Working, creating, and building involve stewarding resources well and developing technology. Furthermore, creating wealth provides us means for obeying the greatest commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:37–40).

We can demonstrate love for God by how we use our physical resources. God required regular material sacrifices in Israelite worship. In the New Testament, God commends the sacrificial giving of the widow’s mite and the woman who poured perfume on Jesus’ feet. God wants human beings to show Him love and honor with their wealth.

We can also love our neighbor with our resources. In both the Old and the New Testaments, loving one’s neighbor almost always involves material care—sharing or giving of one’s resources as well as forgiving debts (Lev. 25:39–40). Examples abound, from Abraham hosting angels, to Boaz providing for Ruth and Naomi, to David and Mephibosheth, to Elijah and Elisha toward the women who cared for them, to the sharing of all things in common (Acts 2: 44–45), to the gentile churches sharing resources with the church in Jerusalem during a famine.

The cultural mandate and the two greatest commandments demonstrate the importance and purpose of wealth, and therefore of debt. They also explain why many passages in Scripture prohibit lending at interest (usury) and taking profit. In those situations, doing so harmed one’s neighbor, and by extension the community, which reflected badly on God and displayed callous selfishness rather than love. Similarly, philosophers from Aristotle to Aquinas condemned usury because they thought its use was not consistent with the flourishing of one’s community or loving one’s neighbors—especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.

In agrarian societies, most people produced barely enough to survive. Children would rarely be richer than their parents. Income did not usually rise over the course of one’s life as it does today. The risk of starvation was always present for most people. This context presents a problem when you borrow something. Not only do you have to return what you borrowed, but you must generate some surplus to pay interest. That was a nearly impossible task for most people and often led to their selling themselves or their families into slavery.

But borrowing and lending in our modern era is not inherently sinful. With economic growth and prosperity, borrowing is not undertaken because of dire circumstances only. In fact, wealthy people tend to borrow much greater sums than the poor do. In class, I sometimes tell my students, most of whom are borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to pay for college, that I have borrowed more money than all of them put together. Yet I am far from poor—in fact, the reason why I can borrow so much is because I am not poor! I have assets, investments, and income to service loans and pay interest, and I can put that borrowed money to productive use in ways that didn’t exist a thousand years ago.


Debt in the Torah

Considerations of usury in the Old Testament are less about the practice of lending itself than about the particular harms caused by the practice in certain contexts. The Israelites were literally family. Therefore not sharing was reprehensible and punished severely by their laws. Furthermore, God hates people engaging in usury in ways that enslave their neighbors or harm and exploit the most vulnerable.

Old Testament authors saw lending in a very particular light and context: rich lending to poor; charging interest as harmful, almost punitive; and lending as power and borrowing as weakness or disadvantage. Nor were they wrong to see it this way.

In ancient and medieval societies, people borrowed because of tragedy, weakness, or desperation—a drought, a blight, the death of a husband or father, etc.—hence the importance of stories about widows and orphans. The poor would borrow from those with wealth, influence, and power. As I mentioned earlier, God created rules regarding slavery, lending, and Jubilee to protect the vulnerable and promote shalom in a society of brothers and sisters.

At first glance, God appears to take a very dim view of usury. He repeatedly prohibits the Israelites from employing usury and taking profit from their fellow Israelites:

  • Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. —Leviticus 25:36–37
  • If a man is righteous and does what is just and right—if he … does not lend at interest or take any profit… he shall surely live, declares the Lord God. —Ezekiel 18:8
  • You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. —Deuteronomy 23:19
  • Whoever multiplies his wealth by interest and profit gathers it for him who is generous to the poor. —Proverbs 28:8
  • Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He … who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. —Psalm 15:5

While this may seem like a sweeping condemnation of lending money at interest, deeper consideration of the context suggests that God is not condemning usury per se, but rather abusive uses of usury. Consider that: (1) these condemnations take place within a specific set of relationships and situations; (2) other passages allow and even encourage lending at interest; (3) Scripture condemns lending, not as inherently sinful (like, say, adultery or worshiping an idol), but as one of a variety of practices that can be used sinfully—namely, not loving one’s neighbor and not caring for the poor.

Notice, for example, the connections between poverty, borrowing, and debt. The Pentateuch addresses usury in Exodus 22, Leviticus 25, and Deuteronomy 15, 23, and 28. In Exodus 22:25, God tells the Israelites that “if you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.” Notice that the command explicitly talks about lending to the poor. This passage stresses caring for the poor, and it condemns usury as harming or neglecting them.

This fits the preceding verse (22), which talks about not taking advantage of widows and orphans, who would be the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. It also fits the subsequent verses (26–27) about the importance of returning a poor neighbor’s pledged cloak before nightfall because it could be his only cloak and he will be more exposed to the elements if you keep it.

The Leviticus 25:36–37 passage is similar. Before the verse about not charging interest, we are explicitly told that the borrower is poor and unable to support himself. God says we have a responsibility to care for such a brother. Then comes the prohibition: “You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.”

God seems focused on the welfare of the poor brother, not on the inherent sinfulness of borrowing and lending. By the way, the broader context of this chapter in Leviticus is the year of Jubilee, when debts were to be forgiven and Hebrew slaves were to be freed. God institutes the year of Jubilee because He brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt: “For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God” (Lev. 25:42–43, emphasis added). Canceling debts freed the poor from slavery and destitution.

There is another significant reason why this was part of the Mosaic law: God’s ownership of the land and the inheritance he intended for his people. Returning land in the year of Jubilee is part of God’s rules of inheritance, as the land ultimately belongs to Him.

Deuteronomy 15:8 has similar commands about caring for the poor and not charging them interest, but it adds a further detail of what biblical authors assume when they talk about charging interest: that lenders are rich and borrowers are poor. Why else would God tell Israel multiple times that if they follow him they will be blessed, wealthy, and lenders to the nations rather than borrowers?

  • For the Lord your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you. —Deuteronomy 15:6
  • The Lord will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. —Deuteronomy 28:12

If they don’t follow God, however, they will be poor and borrow from the nations: “He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail” (Deut. 28:44). The author of Proverbs echoes this idea: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender” (22:7).

Similarly, why would God allow them to charge interest to the nations but not to their brothers: “You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest” (Deut. 23:20)? In fact, when it comes to a brother, “you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be,” instead of shutting your hand and hardening your heart to your poor brother.

I should note that biblical authors are not always talking about a formal business transaction when referring to borrowing and lending. Letting someone use your hammer or drill or borrow your car for a day, giving a friend your umbrella temporarily, these would all be modern examples of the kinds of lending the Bible speaks about in Psalm 37:26, Psalm 112:5, and Proverbs 19:17, for example.

We can’t always distinguish when “lend” really means “give.” We’ve all experienced situations where we have “lent” something and never gotten it back. This can be irksome if we expected it back, but we will often lend not expecting anything in return. Luke 11:5 illustrates how “lend” can be used to mean “give”: “And he said to them, ‘Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves.”’”

This is clearly not a business transaction. The friend may hope or expect that you will give him some loaves in the future, but you will clearly not be returning these three loaves the way you would return a plow.

We find more condemnation of usury in Nehemiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. These condemnations fit the pattern I’ve described above: God requires us to care for the poor and to practice generosity rather than greedily seeking gain when we interact with the poor and the vulnerable. Doing so honors God and recognizes that He did not make us to rule ruthlessly over our fellow men and women as slaves.

Nehemiah condemns the wealthy Israelites for not dealing generously with their poor brothers and sisters. Instead, the wealthy Israelites charged the poor so much interest and profit that the poor say, “[We] are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our houses to get grain because of the famine. … [We] are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards” (Neh. 5:3–5).

These verses show something else God cares about—people’s ability to generate income, which in agrarian societies primarily consisted of food and clothing, to provide for themselves, and to be part of the community. Not only are the poor indebted in Nehemiah’s time but they also have no means to improve their situation because they have mortgaged or sold their productive assets (fields and vineyards). They are permanently poor now and slavery must inevitably follow. Nehemiah explicitly calls out the charging of interest (in violation of the Pentateuch’s prohibitions) as the main problem: “I took counsel with myself, and I brought charges against the nobles and the officials. I said to them, ‘You are exacting interest, each from his brother.’ And I held a great assembly against them. … Let us abandon this exacting of interest” (Neh. 5:7–10).

The context suggests that the problem stems from the particular use of usury, not from the activity itself. Such a reading resolves the otherwise puzzling passages about lending to foreigners and Jesus’ parable of how the servant should have given the talent to the bankers to lend with interest (Matt. 25:14–30).


Ancient Philosophers and Medieval Theologians

Before the 18th century, there were no “economists.” But philosophers and theologians often considered economic questions like “What is wealth and how should it be used?” and “What does justice in the marketplace look like?” They often wrote about usury and generally concluded that it was unjust.

Aristotle, for example, argued that usury was unnatural and a distortion of an appropriate use of wealth. In seeking to live well, people need all kinds of material goods. Many of these goods could be produced within an extended household, but not all of them. Aristotle approves trading one’s surplus for a roughly equivalent amount of someone else’s surplus (e.g., a bushel of olives for a bushel of grapes). Money can serve a useful intermediary function in these exchanges, but fundamentally people are trading commodities for other commodities.

Usury, however, does not fit this paradigm. The lender begins with money and ends with more money. He both gets more than he gives and mistakes means for ends. There are “natural” limits to how much commodities one gathers. At some point, people have enough gallons of olive oil or pairs of shoes or sets of dishes. Collecting thousands of these things does not make sense. But collecting a thousand dollars does. Or ten thousand. Or ten million. In fact, there is no “natural” limit to one’s monetary accumulation.

Regarding trading practices, Aristotle writes:

The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural. (Politics, Book I)

Beyond the danger of unrestrained acquisitiveness, Aristotle was also concerned about usury’s injustice. Just exchange requires trading equal value. But with usury, the lender receives more money or value than he gives.

Thomas Aquinas similarly condemns usury but offers different reasons. He, too, criticizes usury for not being an exchange of value for value—which justice requires. But he picks up on the rich-poor dynamics of lending, going so far as to say: “He who gives usury does not give it voluntarily simply, but under a certain necessity, in so far as he needs to borrow money which the owner is unwilling to lend without usury” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “Treatises on the Virtues,” Question 78). This fits the biblical or agricultural paradigm of borrowing being used only in dire circumstances. The concern seems to be about oppression and the lack of virtue in lending at interest.

Reformers like John Calvin took a broader view of usury. Calvin understood that money, along with clearly defined and protected property, was a tool men can avail themselves of to produce more. And producing more fulfilled the cultural mandate. Besides appreciating the prospect of productive loans, the Reformers also added nuance to what borrowing and lending consisted of—namely, it is actually a kind of purchase. In that case, principles of charity and justice apply rather than blanket prohibitions. Furthermore, when lending for productive use, the lender shares in the fruit or profit of the enterprise when they receive interest.

One must consider the position of borrowers to avoid taking advantage of their situation or impoverishing them. But Calvin also thought it was possible for borrowers to defraud the lender if they had the means of repayment but chose not to repay. This was tantamount to theft. As Christians, he argued, we are primarily under the law of charity, both in terms of how we use our resources and in how we borrow and lend. He would have had no patience for loan sharks, payday lending, or high credit-card interest rates.


Borrowing and Lending in 2023

Today Christians should consider the ethics and prudence of borrowing and lending. As borrowers, we should feel Should christians lend money?confident that debt is a legitimate tool for us to use prudently. I suggest we use the paradigm of productive debt versus unproductive debt. Productive debt increases our capabilities to work, create, steward, and bless others. Unproductive debt creates burdens, hardships, and reduces our ability to steward resources and bless others.

With debt you acquire an asset right away and then increase your “ownership” of it over time by paying off the debt. Borrowing to buy a house can be a productive use of debt if we are prudent: not taking out more debt than we can reasonably repay with our current and future job prospects or taking a significant risk by borrowing the entire value of the house, which may decrease in value over time. Similarly, borrowing to buy or build housing for others can be another productive use of debt.

Borrowing money can also be justified when put toward other productive endeavors like starting a business or paying for education or for job certification. Often these loans have reasonable interest rates and repayment schedules. And most importantly, from a theological perspective, these kinds of loans can increase our capacity to carry out the cultural mandate and our means of loving our neighbors.

In contrast, unproductive borrowing tends to center on consumption and should generally be avoided. Most borrowing for consumption damages one’s financial position—leaving us with fewer resources to share with or give to others. Borrowing for consumption is also usually economically unproductive. Buying a boat or new clothes or dining out are generally superfluous economic activities. This doesn’t mean that owning or enjoying these things is necessarily sinful, but they are not part of the cultural mandate of creative production.

Of course, in rare or extreme cases, borrowing for consumption may be productive. After all, we need food and clothing, and shelter in order to live and flourish. While there may be times, often because of misfortune, when we need to borrow to pay bills or to bridge a period of unemployment, such borrowing limits our capabilities. Our options for work, spending, and giving shrink because we have to service our debts. Borrowing for consumption can also amplify our passions and our appetites rather than our creative and productive capacities.

When it comes to lending, Christians need to exercise discernment. Lending at well above market rates should be scrutinized closely. Are we able to charge such a rate because someone is desperate or stuck? Are we their only option for funds? If so, we should remember the teaching of the Old Testament: Are we impoverishing a brother or friend when we should be aiding them? There is no simple rule for the diverse situations we might face.

After all, the risk of default may justify an unusually high rate of interest. But would offering someone a lower rate show more care? Should we offer the loan without interest? Or give the resources away entirely? Or could the loving thing involve not enabling the other person to spend more money? Answering such questions requires wisdom.

In the marketplace of impersonal exchange, however, there is greater latitude in what interest rates we may charge. I suppose, like gambling, Christians should generally avoid creating or working in payday or credit card or consumer debt businesses that deal primarily with unproductive borrowing by people in difficult circumstances. These kinds of businesses have little to do with expanding people’s ability to create or to serve others. Instead, they tend to cater to people’s appetites—or desperation—while ultimately reducing their options and capacity to love God and their neighbor.

So, how should Christians think about debt? As a powerful servant or a cruel master.

Although I have focused on individual borrowing and lending, similar principles apply to government borrowing. Unfortunately, many politicians and governments borrow money to pay for consumption of various kinds, rather than for productive investment. This can hobble countries as their interest and debt payments crowd out other forms of public spending.

President Biden’s proposal to forgive large sums of student debt provides an interesting test case. First, consider what the policy would do. It would “forgive” $10,000 (or even more) of someone’s student debt—that is, money borrowed directly or indirectly from the government to pay for college. While that improves their financial position, it means that the lender (i.e., the federal government) will now receive that much less money from debt repayment. A loan has become a gift.

Now, in a private setting, if a lender chose to forgive someone’s debt, we would consider it an act of charity. But this case is more complicated because the federal government is the lender and it represents the American people. Furthermore, it is only a couple of politicians deciding, on behalf of everyone, to make this “gift.” And it will mean either higher taxes to compensate for less debt-repayment dollars or greater borrowing by the federal government. So we are warranted in asking: What does this policy produce? If the answer is not much, then we can lump this policy in with hundreds of others that create debt for consumption rather than production, further undermining the financial capacity of the nation’s government.


A Tool, Not a Vice

We should recognize lending and borrowing as potentially useful, not as inherently sinful. Rather, debt is a tool that can improve our stewardship or detract from it; that can bless others or take advantage of their situation. To shun this tool would be to close our eyes to a powerful means of advancing God’s work on earth and promoting human flourishing. But to embrace it unquestioningly sets the stage for our financial ruin or for our participation in the financial ruin of others.

And as with any tool, charity should rule along with prudence and wisdom. We can learn how to use debt better with time—just as you can get better at operating a machine or driving a vehicle with practice. Our borrowing should be for productive uses. And our lending should be tempered by charity and generosity.

[ First published in the Spring 2023 issue of Religion & Liberty magazine. It can now be found, along with other Religion & Liberty articles, on the Acton Institute website ]

Paul D. Mueller

Paul D. Mueller is an associate professor of economics at The King’s College in NYC and the author of Ten Years Later: Why the Conventional Wisdom about the 2008 Financial Crisis Is Still Wrong.

  • God
  • doctrine
  • usury
  • charity
  • debt
  • sin
  • Hits: 5300
Write comment (0 Comments)

More Articles …

  1. Christian Democracy
  2. I’m a married Catholic priest who thinks priests shouldn’t get married
  3. Fratelli Tutti (Encyclical Letter)
  4. “I’m Catholic. Can I disagree with Pope Francis on property?”
  5. An Overview of Fratelli Tutti
  6. Querida Amazonia – Pope Francis Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
  7. The Principle of the Universal Destination of Goods
  8. Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care

Page 1 of 2

  • 1
  • 2
Mutual Respect, trust and concern for one another's welfare is our best hope for lasting world peace.
S.S. the Dalai Lama

Buscar / Search

Identificarse / Login

Identificarse / Login

  • Forgot your password?
  • Forgot your username?

Cuba: Iniciativas Democráticas

  • CUBA, ¿Ideología o Filosofía?
  • Visiones para una Transición – Propuestas
  • Reforma Constitucional y Libertad Religiosa en Cuba
  • La transición en Cuba: Memoria Histórica, Justicia Transicional y Reconciliación Nacional. Visión y propuestas
  • MANIFIESTO DE JUSTICIA SOCIAL PARA LA CUBA DEL FUTURO

Información Básica / Basic Information

  • European Citizen's Initiative
  • World Elections Information & Results / Información y resultados electorales en todo el mundo
  • European Parliament - Political Groupings & Composition
  • ¿Qué es el Consejo de Europa? / What is the Council of Europe?
  • Cronograma electoral de América Latina
  • Plebiscitos en América Latina: una breve reseña
  • Teoría del Referendo y el Plebiscito
Facebook
© 2003 - 2025 Participatory Democracy Cultural Initiative, Inc.
  • Noticias
    News
    • Headlines
    • Titulares
    • Cuba / Cuban Affairs
    • Venezuela / Venezuelan Affairs
    • Navegando / Browsing
  • Derechos
    H. Rights
    • Derechos Humanos / Human Rights
    • Perspectivas / Perspectives
    • Denuncias / Reports
    • Organizaciones / Campaigns
  • Economía
    Society
    • Toma nota.../Take note...
    • Perspectiva económica: Elías Amor
    • Perspectiva económica: Martínez-Solanas
    • Columnistas invitados/Guest columnists
    • Mundo Sindical / A Worker's World
  • Documentos
    Data & Referenda
    • DOCUMENTOS / DOCUMENTS
    • Documentos en Español
      • Instrumentos Internacionales y Declaraciones
      • Documentos sobre Derechos Humanos
      • Cuba: Iniciativas Democráticas
      • Documentos sobre Economía
      • Doctrina Social Cristiana
      • Otros documentos y perspectivas
      • Fundamentos / Basics
    • Documents in English
      • International Instruments & Declarations
      • Human Rights Documents
      • Documents on Economy
      • Other Documents
      • Christian Social Thought
    • Libros / Outstanding Books
    • Nosotros / About us
      Enlaces / Links
  • ELECCIONES
    Referenda
    • Elecciones / World Elections
    • Referendos / Plebiscites' articles
  • Foro
    Debate
    • Categorías / Forum categories
    • Mensajes / Recent Topics
    • Buscar / Search in Forum