> "Akkumulere, akkumulere...(forts.)".
Det påvises at kjerka stille og rolig har foretatt en glidende
overgang til å late som om bibelen ikke har et klart forbud mot rente
på utlån. Nå har den katolske kjerka "i praksis" endret dette til
forbud mot "for høy" rente på utlån, men snakker helst ikke om
temaet hvis de ikke må...
Når det gjelder vår egen protestantiske andedam, så ser det ikke ut
som om de mener noe om dette i det hele tatt. Merkelig, egentlig, siden
mange av dem er pokker så bibel-tro når det gjelder f.eks. homofili
eller kvinnelige prester.
Det som følger nedenfor er klippet fra utkastet til ei ny bok av
belgieren Bernard Lietaer, fhv. økonomiprofessor og vellykka
valutaspekulant. Nå er han innbitt motstander av rente på
pengeplasseringer, og arbeider sammen med andre for at pengesystemene
verden over skal reformeres.
Utkastet til boka hans finnes på Web, med URL
http://www.transaction.net/money/book/index.html
Jeg har også liggende en artikkel av Lietaer på mitt eget nettsted, se
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/finans/others/interest-free-money.txt
B. Lietaer anbefales!
hilsen
Trond Andresen
**********************************
THE FUTURE OF MONEY:
BEYOND GREED AND SCARCITY
TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM
by Bernard A. Lietaer
......
......
The full implications of applying interest on the loans are probably
the least understood of the ... characteristics (of money). Again, we
somehow believe that interest on money is intrinsic to the process,
forgetting that for most of history that was definitely not the case.
In fact, all three revealed religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
emphatically outlawed "usury", defined as any interest on money. Only
Islamic leaders still remind anyone of this rule today. But it is
interesting that up into the nineteenth century, for example, the
Catholic Church remained prominently in battle against the sin of
usury. It is only in the early years of this century that it "forgot"
about this sin, and suddenly redefined it as "charging excessive
interest".
Technically in Judaism, usury was only prohibited among Jews, which
enabled them to lend with interest to non-Jews, and became one of the
reasons for their unpopularity in the Middle Ages "Unto thy brother
thou shalt not lend upon usury, that the Lord thy god may bless thee in
all that thou settest thine hands to" Deuteronomy 23:20
Islam is more encompassing in its condemnation: "What ye put out at
usury to increase it with the substance of others, hall hove no
increase from God" Koran Sura 30:38
Given that the modern world has evolved mostly under Christian
influence, it is this religion's change of direction over time which is
really relevant. The emphasis on the teachings of the Christian Church
about usury can only be compared with today's emphasis on the sex and
abortion sins. It was definitely one of the most persistent dogmas of
the Church. One of the earlier Church fathers, Clement of Alexandria
specified already "the law prohibits a brother from taking usury;
designating as a brother not only him who is born of the same parents,
but also one of the same race and sentiments... Do not regard this
command as marked by philanthropy".
The litany of councils specifically repeating this practice as the most
despicable is really impressive: the Council of Elvira (305-306BC), of
Carthage (348), of Arles (314), or Nice (325), of Taragona (516),of
Aix-la-Chapelle (789), of Paris (829), of Tours (1153), the Lateran
Council (1179), of Lyons (1274), of Vienne (1311). This last one was
perhaps even more sweeping than the previous ones : any rulers who
would not criminally punish anybody in their realms committing usury
(even if the rulers themselves did not do it!) would be
excommunicated. Since the practice was often concealed beneath various
devices, money lenders were compelled to show their accounts to the
ecclesiastical authorities. The fifth Lateran council (1512-1517)
reiterated the definition of the sin of usury as "receiving any
interest on money" once again.
The very first time that the original doctrine was questioned was in
1822. A woman from Lyons, France, had received interest on money and
was refused absolution unless she returned the ill gotten gains. Bishop
Rhedon requested a clarification from Rome which responded "Let the
petitioner be informed that a reply will be given her question when the
proper time comes; ...meanwhile she may receive sacramental absolution,
if she is fully prepared to submit to the instructions of the Holy
See". A forthcoming resolution was promised again in 1830, and from
the Office of Propaganda in 1873. This promised clarification in fact
never came. The sin of usury was never officially repealed, simply
forgotten. The Canon Law of 1917 (Canon #1543), still operational
today, suddenly makes it obligatory for Bishops to invest "As the
administrators are bound to fulfill their office with the solicitude of
of a good father of a family, they shall invest the surplus revenue of
the church to the benefit of the church".
Later still usury is redefined as "the charging of excessive interest."
The period when the Church started "forgetting" the sin of usury
corresponds to a tremendous increase in the Church's own capital
holdings (i.e. sources of funds), and a decline in its vast ownership
of land (i.e. use of funds) in Western Europe. Estelle and Mario
Carota, two Mexican Catholics, in the hope of providing relief to Latin
American countries when they were reeling under the debt crisis of the
1980's, made a formal request to the Vatican to clarify its position on
usury in 1985. They were informed by no less an authority than the
Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by
Cardinal Ratzinger, that there had never been a new definition of the
doctrine of usury. That "there has never been any change", but that
there is unfortunately not one expert left in Rome in this topic,
because they all have specialized in the issues of sex and abortion
instead. Their attempts at finding an expert opinion among the Jesuits,
Augustinians, Dominicans, Salvatorians, and even professors of moral
theology in Third World seminaries teaching theology of economic
justice failed to turn up anybody who remembered the forgotten Doctrine
of Usury.
....