In the Christian world, Catholicism is unique in its demands for obedience to the Church beyond all other things. When we went through RCIA, mention of a relationship with Jesus was barely dwelt upon. But our confession that we would obey the teachings of the Church was hammered in. Not that any denomination or tradition doesn't expect some fealty to its particular interpretations and understandings and faith confessions. But that 'obey the Church' just isn't there.
So we have this little dialogue. It's over the issue of usury, something that has long been a thorn in the side of the faith, that we often forget about in our post-enlightenment, capitalistic societies. Forbidding usury plays a big part in Medieval history. It's come back into the forefront in light of the Church's movement away from capitalism, and starting to warm up to more socialist leaning solutions for economic woes.
Note the final point by Kirt Higdon. What the Church is saying appears to be change rather than development of teaching. It also appears to have contradictions. So be it. I am called to obey. However it is worth noting that we shouldn't impugn the heart and soul of the person who has questions. But here's the point. If obedience is the core of the faith, then when the Church does something like change its teachings, or say things that appear to contradict themselves or reality, you can either do what Kirk did, and just say it doesn't make sense. Or you can impugn the character of those who threaten your acceptance of the situation by pointing out the obvious.
The Crusades and the Inquisition. They are uniquely Catholic for a reason. Terrible things have been done in the name of any religion or belief system. But never so clearly defined with such an officially declared seal of approval. Reread the link for understanding.
What drives me crazy about Zmirak’s style of argument is that he can’t just make his case. He has to punch below the belt after he makes his case. He can’t just say “I think you should vote for Romney”. He has to call you a spiritual masturbator if you choose to vote for a third party.
ReplyDeleteGood grief, that is a preternatural lack of self-awareness on Shea's part.
lack of self awareness. I kept wanting to say irony, but I knew that wasn't the right term. Lack of self awareness, and also on the part of many of his readers and apparently a sizable hunk of the Catholic apologetics media.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders if Catholics would not have occasion to be more humble when talking about evolution and protestants when they are often the same way when it comes to economics...
ReplyDelete"It's science!"
"Doesn't matter, this is what the church says!"
etc etc
And of course if you bring that up to them, they'll play the game so many protestants will of how "unscientific" that branch of knowledge is.
At some point we have to ask ourselves: is it about what's true, or is about what we want?
Hello Dave,
ReplyDeleteFolks who frame usury as a capitalism against socialism thing just demonstrate that they don't understand usury. Casting usury that way is no more reasonable than casting contraception as a capitalism vs socialism thing.
I've posted an FAQ and a downloadable ebook documenting and explaining what usury is and is not. You can find both on the home page of my blog under "Permaposts". The latter even has a mention of our mutual friends the Friends of St. Martin de Porres.
Zippy, did you ever answer TMLutas' questions about the time value of money? Or any of his other challenges to your FAQ?
ReplyDeleteHey Zippy! Honored that you came by old Green Acres of the blogosphere. I don't doubt that usury is not a Capitalist vs. Socialist thing. Though I am also sure both systems have their unique ways of covering up the problems. Truth be told, I admit I know little about the subject, most of what I've read being its role in the Middle Ages. My focus was on that unique characteristic of emphasizing fealty to the Church above all things. Something that does express itself in Catholic living more than probably any other Christian tradition. And, of course, how it can play out in some pretty rough approaches to discussions, approaches that would be cast squarely into the 'fundamentalist' camp if they occurred in that nature in a Protestant setting. IF not fundamentalist street preacher.
ReplyDeleteNate,
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. That's why I'm shy about getting into subjects too deeply when I don't know the meat and bones of them. Be it science or economics or law or a host of things. Biblical studies, Church history, the Middle Ages, and WWII (the subject that got me interested in history when I was a kiddo). Those are my realms. Plus experience in pastoral counseling and guidance. Apart from that, as in this case, I would refer you to experts and cut slack to those who aren't.
BTW, one doesn't have to be an expert on anything to have an opinion, but there are limits. After all, I don't have to be a musician to notice when someone can carry a tune.
Nate Winchester:
ReplyDeleteThe updated FAQ answers all of those questions.
The updated FAQ answers all of those questions.
ReplyDelete"Opportunity costs are not ontologically real"????
Since when did time and space stop being ontologically real? I'm not much of a philosopher, but I thought I had grasped that much. Was there a big overhaul recently?
To quote John C Wright:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/06/economists-and-antieconomists-2/
For example, there is also something called the disutility of labor, which says that, unlike machines, to persuade a man to forgo a desired idleness involves an opportunity cost.
For example, there is something called time preference, which says that eating a hamburger today and eating a hamburger tomorrow are not equally desirable, time being what it is: and that to overcome the reluctance of delayed gratification, interest must be added to the future use. I might be willing to give you my lunch money today, so that you can buy a hamburger, if, in return, you promise to buy me a hamburger and an order of French fries tomorrow. This is also known as the law that “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
Nate Winchester:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the things you are saying have been said and debated a thousand times before, for a thousand years or more. You obviously haven't actually read the whole thing, because your questions are answered repeatedly from a number of different perspectives. I posted it for the sake of people who want to understand the subject, and you can't understand the subject without doing at least a minimal amount of work.
Generally speaking, abstracted parameters in economic theories are not ontologically real property which can be owned, bought, and sold. They may be useful as components of economic theory, and they may provide guidance to an investor about what actual property to buy or sell, but they are not themselves actual property.
If opportunity costs were ontologically real property it would be possible for a lender to repossess them when the borrower stops making payments. The fact that there is no specific and actual property for the usurer to repossess demonstrate's Aquinas' point. Sorry, but Aquinas knew what he was talking about and Wright doesn't (if you are correct that Wright disagrees with Aquinas on the point).
It is all in the FAQ/ebook, including citation of the Magisterium explicitly condemning charging interest on a mutuum loan for opportunity costs or the time value of money.
Anyway, I didn't comment here to rehash everything all over again with people who cannot be bothered to familiarize themselves with the background, or who assume that Aquinas and the Magisterium were just too dumb to comprehend economics. I commented here to let Dave know about the resource.
And of course someone who does not understand why opportunity cost is not ontologically real property for which it is licit to charge rent payments in the form of interest can always simply accept the authority of the Magisterium on the matter until they do come to understand it; which acceptance I take as something pertinent to the OP:
ReplyDelete"[The following proposition is condemned as erroneous:] Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury. – Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II), Pope Innocent XI by decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denzinger)"
(Cited in my FAQ/ebook).
Generally speaking, abstracted parameters in economic theories are not ontologically real property which can be owned, bought, and sold. They may be useful as components of economic theory, and they may provide guidance to an investor about what actual property to buy or sell, but they are not themselves actual property.
ReplyDeleteOpportunity costs are the economic description of 2 things:
1) You can't do two things at once.
2) You can't be in two places at the same time.
I'll buy those as not ontologically real if you can tell me what the proper term actually is then.
Here's a quote Shea posted the other day:
“The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor” (St. Basil the Great).
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/01/things-i-really-dont-want-to-hear.html#ixzz3PHHMPUwb
But according to you, Basil is wrong because opportunity costs aren't real.
(Oh and you don't have to type out a reply, you can just post direct links to the FAQ, that's fair.)
Anyway, I didn't comment here to rehash everything all over again with people who cannot be bothered to familiarize themselves with the background, or who assume that Aquinas and the Magisterium were just too dumb to comprehend economics. I commented here to let Dave know about the resource.
Yet you seem unwilling to familiarize yourself with any background. Aquinas and the rest are probably plenty smart, I won't argue that (though I only believe one man was perfect), but if I was going to consult them on say... computer programming, a bit of effort on translating words and concepts is going to have to be done because (unless you want to claim they had ultimate foreknowledge), their use of the term "object" is probably not going to be the same as programmers' use of the term "object".
Nate Winchester:
ReplyDeleteOpportunity costs are the economic description of 2 things:
Your own description confirms the point that opportunity costs are not ontologically real property.
Yet you seem unwilling to familiarize yourself with any background.
Again you flatter yourself with the odd conceit that you are saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, simply assuming lack of familiarity on my part and ignorance on the part of Aquinas.
Look, I get it: I have an MBA, I've founded a few companies, I'm familiar enough with the modern economic schools (Keynsian, Austrian, Chicago, Modern Monetary Theory, etc). I have a pretty deep education and experience in practical finance in particular (read the preface to my ebook for some of my background), and we are fed stuff like 'opportunity cost' from day one like mother's milk. Furthermore, abstract concepts like opportunity cost are very important and useful as management/investor decision drivers.
But the reality is that opportunity costs are not ontologically real property which can be bought and sold (like a house, a car, a patent portfolio, copyright to a catalogue of rock songs, a dentist's practice, a farm, a hunting ground, the family silverware, etc); and the fact that your mind is closed on the point doesn't change the reality. The reality is that Aquinas was right and modern people have blinded themselves to the fact that he was right.
It is hard to give specific questions in the FAQ since so many of the questions are pertinent to this point, given that each answer tends to give rise to more questions. (The reason why this is central is because it - the issue of what constitutes actual property which actually exists and what does not - directly pertains to the nature of a mutuum contract as opposed to other kinds of contracts).
ReplyDelete14 and 15 address opportunity cost directly, but other pretty directly relevant questions/answers include 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 31, 35, 36, 38, 43, 44, 46, and 47.
It would be one thing for someone to actually understand Aquinas' position and then reject it. But as best as I can tell, almost nobody who rejects Aquinas' position actually understands it.
Yes, Zippy, your FAQ is a fine example of why a friend of mine once said, "I'm glad I'm a Christian and not Catholic."
ReplyDeleteYou say this has all been debated and answered before but you can't tell me what's the term for limitation of space and time if such are not real (even though corporations are somehow, your choices for what's real seem quite arbitrary). If they're not real, then please tell me what's the proper term for choice and scarcity.
In fact I'm having trouble finding a reply to a common example:
Say I have a thousand dollars in cash. Bob and Charlie come up, and both of them need 1k right now. Now for this mental example Bob and Charlie are exactly alike (they can even be identical twins) and their need for the thousand is as frivolous (autographed collector plates of william shatner on sale!) or serious (their only child needs emergency care in the hospital right now!) as you want to think for the example. Both of them even promise that they can pay you back in 3 days.
Seeing that you are having trouble deciding between them, Bob tells you that not only will he pay you back the $1,000, but he'll give you $10 extra as well!
So, if you give Bob the 1k, did you sin or did Bob?
Wait a second... the above example reminds me of something...
That’s why it is always possible to foreclose on the corporation and claim your property: because the thing you own actually exists.
So therefore... medical care is usurious. I mean think about it, especially if someone unconscious in an emergency situation, they can't really pay up front, so typically treatment is administered immediately with payment to be dealt with later. But if payment can't be made... what is foreclosed on? Almost everything close to tangible per your standard will no longer be in the patient's body by the time they are well enough to pay usually or you'll be retrieving items left in the patient (such as rods to help set broken bones).
So if health isn't real... all medicine not paid for up front is usury. I never knew Aquainas and the church had such a hatred of hospitals. Seems contrary to what I've read about the past but like you said, I don't know anything.
Nate Winchester:
ReplyDelete... but you can't tell me what's the term for limitation of space and time if such are not real
There you go again.
Space and time are not property: they cannot be alienated from a particular owner, bought, sold, possessed, and repossessed like farms, houses, patents, and corporate equity: like actual property.
Believe it or not, I actually am quite willing to have a conversation that does not involve constantly batting away straw men which are the result of your own prior commitments and failure to read, as opposed to actual arguments I've made.
You were the one that made the point (which I quoted) that they weren't ontologically real, which is foolish.
ReplyDeleteIf you meant they are not property and cannot be traded, (like a sandwich) that is more accurate. There are lots of things which are ontologically real but cannot be traded (such as a sunrise). NOW a discussion can be had. (see now what I was meaning about definitions?)
Now we have the riddle of is healthcare usury or not? Because health (say... in the case of surgery for example) is not like a sandwich, it is not a property that can be traded per your definition. Therefore by your metrics, healthcare is usury and practitioners of it (unless acting for free) are sinners.
An interesting argument to make and I'm curious what system of medical care you think should be set up to be less sinful.
I used the term "ontologically real property".
ReplyDeleteAnd your confusion about health care (and labor in general) is addressed in my FAQ.
If other readers are interested, the discussion has continued at my place in this thread:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/possessed-by-unreality/
I probably won't check back here, if only because I am likely to forget about this thread.