Friday the author of The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, Judge John Noonan graciously consented to have lunch with me in San Francisco. For the purposes of this note let me make clear when referring to usury, we are referring to paying interest on a loan, of any amount for any duration. Interest and usury are synonymous today, and in this note.
And also, what is at stake? For both the Moslems and Christians, a question is "does compliance with the law lead to better results?" If we distinguish between radicals and extremists, then radical religionists see compliance as a way to peace and prosperity, and extremists have given up on the process and seek enforcement for enforcement's sake. Radicals want to call prophetically, extremists want to use violence to take over. So to get usury right is to advance peace and prosperity.
Also, usury is not forbidden because Someone says so, it is forbidden because it causes damage. To my mind it is the means the powers that be use to aggregate excessive power unto themselves and in turn "call the shots" literally, leading to war, famine, malinvestiment, poverty and so on. Truly usury is "love of money as the root of all evil" in practice.
As to those practicing any religion, there is the ultimate question of obedience to holy commands.
I shared with Judge Noonan how I came to know of his work. In studying the claims of Islamic finance as a more stable economic system, I kept coming across Islamic writers who pointed to Judge Noonan's 1957 book on the topic as proof that the Catholic Church had changed its teaching on usury, not to mention the countless Christian sources who cite Judge Noonan's book.
This claim was not true, and so I read the source the Islamic sources cited, Judge Noonan's book. His book, published in 1957 is very difficult to come by. I found a copy in a small Jesuit college (naturellement!) and gave it a read. There is no doubt Judge Noonan is an exhaustive researcher and a master of Latin, a prerequisite to this study, since some critical sources he uses have never been translated to English. I know, I searched worldwide for the same to check his sources.
Yet I know something of the undemocratic nature of the Catholic Church hierarchy, and realized after reading his book all of the arguments he martials do not overcome the teaching presented in Vix Pervenit, the last and highest authority on the topic regarding usury, and is still binding, regardless of what his sources say in whatever language, dead or alive. I understand it is rather temerarious for me to disagree with Judge Noonan on this topic, but I did not write the Church rules on the hierarchy of teachings, which are clear.
I cited a Church lawyer who was addressing this hierarchy of teachings to Judge Noonan, to which the Judge simply asked "was he referring to Vix Pervenit?" Wham! Out of the ball park! At 87 years old, this active judge can still shut down a line of argument faster than you can come up with one.
Then the judge posed another problem, to the effect do I believe that Cardinals aplenty, archbishops by the score, bishops and abbots, countless parish priests, not to mention nearly all of the faithful, are living in inculpable ignorance of the truth about usury? He didn't say it, but the implication is, "do I believe I am right and everyone else is wrong?" Ouch.
But that is exactly the argument that needs to be made if I am to argue anything. So, thanks be to God, the judge gave me precisely the topic to address.
I shared with Judge Noonan my impression that Islamic scholars cited his book for the additional reason that the development of Judge Noonan's argument is exactly the process Moslems use to arrive at Shariah law. He seemed pleased at this observation.
And it is another vein to mine: how the process that leads ineluctably to Shariah law simply will not yield the same results in Catholic law. (But in both systems, usury is forbidden without argument.)
One point the judge emphasized was that central to all of this is "the loan." And that is a sharp point that people wander away from in the discussion, mainly I believe for poor definitions as to what is money, credit, interest, and so on. This is another urgent task given the advanced state of decay in our economic system.
In summary, the judge still holds his view from 1957 in his book, that the church changed its teaching on usury. I urged the judge to get it republished, at least in Kindle, since it is so hard to come by, and it really will not do to argue against a book that few can find and challenge my reading of his book. Since he has other books on Kindle, we may see at least a kindle version in time.
You can try amazon, but last I checked there are none for sale. Another avenue is to check WorldCat for a copy in a library near you, click here for that.
I asked the judge, who published another book last year, if he is working on any books right now. He is looking at something on a summary of cases which should be interesting.
In the meantime, I've got my work cut out for me: argue why and how a prohibition is universally ignored in the church today, and why complying with the prohibition will lead to peace, justice and prosperity.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
And also, what is at stake? For both the Moslems and Christians, a question is "does compliance with the law lead to better results?" If we distinguish between radicals and extremists, then radical religionists see compliance as a way to peace and prosperity, and extremists have given up on the process and seek enforcement for enforcement's sake. Radicals want to call prophetically, extremists want to use violence to take over. So to get usury right is to advance peace and prosperity.
Also, usury is not forbidden because Someone says so, it is forbidden because it causes damage. To my mind it is the means the powers that be use to aggregate excessive power unto themselves and in turn "call the shots" literally, leading to war, famine, malinvestiment, poverty and so on. Truly usury is "love of money as the root of all evil" in practice.
As to those practicing any religion, there is the ultimate question of obedience to holy commands.
I shared with Judge Noonan how I came to know of his work. In studying the claims of Islamic finance as a more stable economic system, I kept coming across Islamic writers who pointed to Judge Noonan's 1957 book on the topic as proof that the Catholic Church had changed its teaching on usury, not to mention the countless Christian sources who cite Judge Noonan's book.
This claim was not true, and so I read the source the Islamic sources cited, Judge Noonan's book. His book, published in 1957 is very difficult to come by. I found a copy in a small Jesuit college (naturellement!) and gave it a read. There is no doubt Judge Noonan is an exhaustive researcher and a master of Latin, a prerequisite to this study, since some critical sources he uses have never been translated to English. I know, I searched worldwide for the same to check his sources.
Yet I know something of the undemocratic nature of the Catholic Church hierarchy, and realized after reading his book all of the arguments he martials do not overcome the teaching presented in Vix Pervenit, the last and highest authority on the topic regarding usury, and is still binding, regardless of what his sources say in whatever language, dead or alive. I understand it is rather temerarious for me to disagree with Judge Noonan on this topic, but I did not write the Church rules on the hierarchy of teachings, which are clear.
I cited a Church lawyer who was addressing this hierarchy of teachings to Judge Noonan, to which the Judge simply asked "was he referring to Vix Pervenit?" Wham! Out of the ball park! At 87 years old, this active judge can still shut down a line of argument faster than you can come up with one.
Then the judge posed another problem, to the effect do I believe that Cardinals aplenty, archbishops by the score, bishops and abbots, countless parish priests, not to mention nearly all of the faithful, are living in inculpable ignorance of the truth about usury? He didn't say it, but the implication is, "do I believe I am right and everyone else is wrong?" Ouch.
But that is exactly the argument that needs to be made if I am to argue anything. So, thanks be to God, the judge gave me precisely the topic to address.
I shared with Judge Noonan my impression that Islamic scholars cited his book for the additional reason that the development of Judge Noonan's argument is exactly the process Moslems use to arrive at Shariah law. He seemed pleased at this observation.
And it is another vein to mine: how the process that leads ineluctably to Shariah law simply will not yield the same results in Catholic law. (But in both systems, usury is forbidden without argument.)
One point the judge emphasized was that central to all of this is "the loan." And that is a sharp point that people wander away from in the discussion, mainly I believe for poor definitions as to what is money, credit, interest, and so on. This is another urgent task given the advanced state of decay in our economic system.
In summary, the judge still holds his view from 1957 in his book, that the church changed its teaching on usury. I urged the judge to get it republished, at least in Kindle, since it is so hard to come by, and it really will not do to argue against a book that few can find and challenge my reading of his book. Since he has other books on Kindle, we may see at least a kindle version in time.
You can try amazon, but last I checked there are none for sale. Another avenue is to check WorldCat for a copy in a library near you, click here for that.
I asked the judge, who published another book last year, if he is working on any books right now. He is looking at something on a summary of cases which should be interesting.
In the meantime, I've got my work cut out for me: argue why and how a prohibition is universally ignored in the church today, and why complying with the prohibition will lead to peace, justice and prosperity.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
Can't some Islamic scholarly institute offer to republish Judge Noonan's 1957 book?
ReplyDeleteJudge Noonan specifically asked me if I knew of any such organization willing to do so, so I know he would welcome such an inquiry. Absent that, he told me a Kindle version is in the works.
ReplyDeleteDid you ask Judge Noonan, not only about whether the definition of usury remains the same, but also whether his Church's evaluation of it has changed? Did he mention that he addressed that issue in his 2005 book "A Church That Can and Cannot Change"?
ReplyDeleteHey Tony,
ReplyDeleteNot sure I understand. The definition of usury is not in debate, so that is a constant. The debate is whether the Church changed its teaching. The judge has not changed his views from 1957 (as you note his 2005 book.)
I'e got all the parts to demonstrate that the church has not changed its teachings, I just have to find time to pull it all together. Then, there is the problem Judge Noonan posed to me above: do I believe there is general innocent ignorance of the Church teaching. I answer that here...
http://shariahfinance.blogspot.com/2013/03/usury-catholic-church.html
To be clear, what we call interest today and usury are exactly the same thing. One can tart it up all he wants with pseudo-science talk and what not, but it is still what is forbidden by God, not matter how one labels it. It is not forbidden because someone says so, it is forbidden because it does damage.
I'll take that as "No" and "No."
ReplyDeleteDid you ask Judge Noonan, not only about whether the definition of usury remains the same,
ReplyDelete***No, not an issue in any debate.***
but also whether his Church's evaluation of it has changed?
***His Church? Do you mean his evaluation, or the Church’s evaluation? “his Church” is Roman Catholic, but all Catholic churches condemn usury. There is no question of evaluation, since there is a definitive teaching.***
Did he mention that he addressed that issue in his 2005 book "A Church That Can and Cannot Change"?
***We did not talk about that particular book, since we established the Judge had not changed his views.***
I took the link to your interview from Michael Hoffman's site: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/debt-relief-for-europe-and-america.html. There he states that ". . . Noonan still affirms [that] usury is any interest on loans of money; period." The first paragraph of your summary of your interview bears this out.
ReplyDeleteAs I read further, however, I noticed that, as I had expected, the (arguably germane) matter of identifying the specific action that falls under the prohibition did not come up. There was a chance that it might have, for Judge Noonan's 2005 book has an extended, nuanced discussion of it. That nuancing -- or the "tarting up" ad libitum, as one (NOT you) might tendentiously describe what he did -- confines the target of the condemnation to a vanishingly small area.
(I say "as I had expected," because a few years ago a Catholic critic of usury cited and praised Judge Noonan's 1957 work, but only alluded to, and registered his disapproval of, his 2005 work. See Christopher A. Ferrara, The Church and the Libertarian, Remnant Press, 2010.)
As a consequence of those distinctions Judge Noonan could consistently and sincerely say both that he "had not changed his views" on charging interest on a loan (where "views" might simply means his historical knowledge) and also that action that once fell under the rubric "charging interest on a loan" no longer does. At least, his Church (by which I meant the Christian communion to which he formally belongs) has over the past few centuries made such distinctions, and they materially affect how Catholics understand the teaching.
Judge Noonan was in front of you, and the subject was usury, yet you did not ask him about his more recent book, even though it bore upon the interpretation of "unchanged views" (his and the Church's). I'm only noting a missed opportunity to query, not looking for one to debate the morality of usury.
I haven't read his most recent book, and doubt I ever will. The seminal work was the 1950s opus, the one to which all roads claiming the Church changed its teaching lead, Christian and Islamic and otherwise. He hasn't changed his view the Church changed its teaching. I disagree with his conclusions in the book that matters. He says the church changed its teaching, and the Church has not. Nothing written since then by him modifies the status quo.
ReplyDeleteI guess I missed this post a couple of years ago... write him, meet him, and ask him the question yourself. And let us know what he says.
John