- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,985
- Reaction score
- 14,475
There have been Catechisms over the centuries that defined lending at interest as a sin, coming under the general heading of Usury. There's a whole history of unintended consequences that came out of this. The consequence most harmful to Christendom, to use the old term, was that Capitalism, which depends on lending at interest, could not take hold anywhere where lending at interest was illegal. (Present-day Islamic banking overcomes such problems through a system of fees, which, while not "interest," serve the same purpose.)
Today's Catechism has this to say on the subject:
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.
We talk a lot about abortion, and the catechism now has a lot to say about it. We have members who hold that it is inconsistent with Catholicism to vote or advocate for a woman's right to choose.
I am, however, curious as to whether a Catholic must advocate for greater national resources to be devoted to the elimination of famine elsewhere.
"The acceptance by human society" clause, above, makes it clear that it is our shared responsibility to eliminate famines. If you are a Catholic, and you know there are famines, and there is a bill on the floor of the House to increase aid to a region in famine conditions -- for example -- would you not have to vote in favor of it, the deficit aside, unless you are a "cafeteria Catholic"?
PFnV
Today's Catechism has this to say on the subject:
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.
We talk a lot about abortion, and the catechism now has a lot to say about it. We have members who hold that it is inconsistent with Catholicism to vote or advocate for a woman's right to choose.
I am, however, curious as to whether a Catholic must advocate for greater national resources to be devoted to the elimination of famine elsewhere.
"The acceptance by human society" clause, above, makes it clear that it is our shared responsibility to eliminate famines. If you are a Catholic, and you know there are famines, and there is a bill on the floor of the House to increase aid to a region in famine conditions -- for example -- would you not have to vote in favor of it, the deficit aside, unless you are a "cafeteria Catholic"?
PFnV