Does canon law allow priests to hold any currencies or assets with the view of making a profit off them? For example: investing in the stock market, investing in deflationary currencies/assets like cryptocurrencies, etc.?

Europe underwent major economic upheavals during the creation of Protestantism (cf. E. Michael Jones, *Barren Metal* or *Goy Guide to World History* ). Is this one reason why Protestants upheld iconoclasm ? Was it a sense of necessity or utilitarianism (that having a minimally decorated church is better than having no church at all) that inspired or justified their iconoclasm ? In other words: Was there an economic reason for Protestants' iconoclasm ?

Is usury a form of extortion? St. Paul lists extortion among the mortal sins in 1 Cor. 6:10 : "…nor extortioners (άρπαγες, *rapaces*, "the rapacious"), shall possess the kingdom of God." Ex. 22:25 relates extortion and usury: "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner [*exactor*], nor oppress them with usuries."

What cannot licitly be bought and sold, according to Thomist Catholic moral theologians? (I know buying/selling relics is forbidden.)

Kinsella, *The Wife Desired* p. 77 claims: >It has been stated that money is the root of all evil. [1 Tim. 6:10 : "the desire of money is the root of all evils"; cf. *Summa Theologica* I-II q. 84 a. 1 ] Money represents the material possessions of this world, the things which militate against the spirit and the good in mankind. Because money and selfishness are boon companions and because there is selfishness or lack of love in all evil, the truth of the statement becomes clearer. > >Money is a consequence of original sin. We never should have had to bother with it except for Adam’s disloyalty and fall. We could almost say that money in itself is an evil. Yet, out of evil good often comes. [St. Augustine does say that "to use evil well is not a sin." ] Christ and Redemption was a good to come out of the evil of Adam’s sin. According to Catholic theologians, is money a consequence of Original Sin? This seems related to whether the Church-State distinction is a consequence of Original Sin: "The Augustinian tradition has in fact presented the state, having solely in mind the supernatural order, as a punishment for original sin." (Jaki, O.S.B., *New Trends in Ecclesiology* p. 18); *Integralism* ch. 5 thesis "(ii) The distinction in title to temporal and spiritual authority results from the Fall of man." Yet, even before the Fall, there still would have been a hierarchical temporal order; however, it would've been strictly patriarchal (fathers of families the only political leaders): thesis "(xvi) The need for non-patriarchal rule derives from the Fall of man." (*ibid.* , ch. 3). Thus, it seems money could have existed before the Fall, but it would've been restricted to direct commerce between families. On the other hand, why would money, trade, or private property even be needed before the Fall, if there were no scarce resources Garden of Eden?

When is money first mentioned in Holy Scriptures? And what is the Hebrew word for it? cf. my previous question: "Is money a consequence of Original Sin? "

The economy of God is unbeatable and without peer, as evidenced for example by the fact that, even as semiconductor design and engineering is approaching atom-scale electronics, human and animal brains are still orders of magnitude more energy-efficient and capable than the world's most sophisticated microchips. God has also succeeded at creating enormous fusion reactors the universe throughout while scientists still struggle to get hints of the feasibility of such technology under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. This question is for young earth creationists who believe that all other stars, galaxies and objects in the cosmos were created attendant to the Creation of this Earth, and that there is no life on other worlds (other than perhaps spirits or eternal beings pertaining to, or known by the people on this Earth), or that this Earth is otherwise unique in terms of theological significance or its place in the universe in some pre-eminent way. I refer to these beliefs as "geocentrist" models because they make everything in the universe effectively revolve around this Earth and its purposes. I do not say they deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but they still make everything in the universe effectively accessories to this Earth and its Creation. What reasons do they give for why God with such mind-boggling extravagance would create so many other galaxies, stars, solar systems and even planets--given for example the gargantuan amounts of energy that each star outputs--if not a one of them sustains life of its own, or has any other purpose except towards this Earth and its populace? That would actually make life on Earth less energy-efficient than the most primitive creations of mankind, by a large margin. Obviously there are other ways to measure this, but again, why waste the vast, vast, vast (with many zeros added on for good measure) majority of starlight and creative effort on something so far away that our telescopes cannot resolve 99.999999% it to more than a mere point of light? God is doubtless generous, with trillions of photons devoted to striking our eyes each second, and efficiency isn't everything, but is He wasteful? This is a natural question asked by those who ponder why God would create so many quintillions of stars, but only one with life in its system? Why would He break the pattern of sustainable life on other worlds, forfeiting the opportunity to have and redeem quadrillions of quintillions more of His children, when the resources are clearly there and already organized to sustain life? Or if they are not organized in such a fashion to sustain life, surely He has the intelligence to do it--is there some other limitation or reason why, other than simply that He can? To be clear, this is not *my* question or criticism, but rather is a natural question or criticism levied by some secular scientists and engineers regarding common interpretations of Genesis. They might have a point, not against God's ways, but that should help us to correct our own misunderstandings. What can we say that will address the criticism and instruct our own ways?

St. Francis De Sales offered a 4,000 crown pension to Theodore Beza; cf. this question . Jules Michelet, *Priests, Women and Families* p. 6 : >This man, of so sweet a temper, did not always confine his exertions to words of peace and persuasion. His zeal for converting led him to make use of less honorable means, such as interest, money, place, authority, fear; he made the Duke of Savoy go from village to village and expel the remaining few who refused to abjure their faith.* Money, all-powerful in this poor country, seemed to him so irresistible as an argument, that he went to Geneva to try and buy over old Theodore Beza, by offering him a pension of four thousand crowns from the Pope. Can financial incentives be used to make converts?

St. Francis De Sales offered a 4,000 crown pension to Theodore Beza. Jules Michelet, *Priests, Women and Families* p. 6 : >This man, of so sweet a temper, did not always confine his exertions to words of peace and persuasion. His zeal for converting led him to make use of less honorable means, such as interest, money, place, authority, fear; he made the Duke of Savoy go from village to village and expel the remaining few who refused to abjure their faith.* Money, all-powerful in this poor country, seemed to him so irresistible as an argument, that he went to Geneva to try and buy over old Theodore Beza, by offering him a pension of four thousand crowns from the Pope. Can financial incentives be used to make converts?

The Apostle Paul famously made an extensive series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean (in various company, and stopping off in some places for months or years, also getting shipwrecked at one point). These are described in Acts and in the letters. I am curious about the rough **financial cost** of these travels, in terms of the means of typical first-century people. Basically, how wealthy would you have to be in order to make these trips (assuming you're paying for it all yourself)? How much support might therefore have been required from other Christians in order to finance the voyages? I'm not after exact numbers - just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of "Paul could easily have paid for the whole thing out of his own money" to "this was a major outlay for the whole church community". [Image from Wikimedia Commons - JWooldridge CC-BY-SA](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap13.jpg)

As a Jew, I'm not very familiar with the concept of evangelism, but I was wondering recently about the cost of conversions and how effective they were. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any answers to my questions online. So here they are: - What percentage of attempted conversions succeed? Like, if you try to do outreach to a group, what percentage of those people will convert? - Is it harder to convert someone who's religious in another religion as opposed to a nonreligious person, and if so how much harder? Do different religions have different rates of conversion success? - Do different Christian denominations have significantly different conversion success rates? - How much does it cost per attempted conversion (if you outreach to a group this is the total cost divided by number of people in the group)? I'm not really sure where to ask this but I thought this might be a good place given that some people here have likely done missionary work before.

In an economy where transaction in cash is in vogue, one occasionally comes across a currency note or bill which has partially been damaged on account of prolonged use, or has been taped over. One's first effort is to "pass the buck" at the grocery store, by hiding the damage. If one is honest enough to disclose the damage before handing over the buck to the grocer, the latter simply refuses to accept it. So, one resorts to passing of the buck by deceit. My question therefore, is: Is it deceitful to transact with a damaged currency note/bill? What does the Catholic Church say about the occasional necessity of "passing the buck" that a believer has to face?

I met a priest who stated that an economic system based upon shared property is the best and holiest possible system. The priest has made a few interesting Biblical arguments. In his opinion: - Such an economic system was given to people by Christ himself. He had had abstained from worldly goods during His earthen life; and also His Apostles, under His teaching, during and after His earthen life were living in a commune with no private property, with Judas Iscariot given the duty to administrate common wealths. - All Christians, not only the Apostles, from the earliest days of the Church and until about 100 A.D., were living in such communes, as testified by the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles are also the Biblical basis for the claim that such communism is the “correct” system people should live in, since it was imposed by the Apostles. - In this system love is at its highest, because everyone is given what they need and everyone work towards the good of the whole community. - After around 100 A.D. the Church allowed private property; they, however, did this only because there was much hostility towards this system among Christians themselves, so the Church allowed some sinless imperfection out of realism. - Modern Marxists borrowed the idea of Communism from Christianity. Their vice was that they attempted to impose it by force and through revolution rather than through sanctifying people’s hearts. Also, modern Marxists actually failed to even implement Communism; rather, they enforced a system that actually had little in common with true communism. Does the Church teach that an economic system with no private property is best and holiest possible economic system, but one with private property is needed due to people’s imperfection? If the Church does not teach so, how does it interpret the relevant verses of the Acts of the Apostles? Acts 4:32–37 : > The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. (…) There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated "son of encouragement"), a Levite, a Cypriot by birth,sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles. With annotation: > [32-37] This is the second summary characterizing the Jerusalem community (…). It emphasizes the system of the distribution of goods and introduces Barnabas, (…) who, as noted here (…), endeared himself to the community by a donation of money through the sale of property. This sharing of material possessions continues a practice that Luke describes during the historical ministry of Jesus (⇒ Luke 8:3) and is in accord with the sayings of Jesus in Luke's gospel (⇒ Luke 12:33; ⇒ 16:9, ⇒ 11, ⇒ 13). So, judging from this annotation, it would seem that indeed the Bible wants such a system to be imposed. However, CCC 2401 and CCC 1883.1885 seem to say something contrary: (other interesting parts are CCC 2211 , CCC 2402-2406 and CCC 2407 ) > 1883 (…) the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. > > 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order. > > 2401 (…) For the sake of the common good, it [the Seventh Commandment] requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world's goods to God and to fraternal charity. How can CCC 1883.1885 and 2401 be reconciled with the aforementioned annotation to the Bible?

In response to Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Pope Francis' *Evangelii Gaudium * (text ), Christopher Hale said that "to call the Holy Father a proponent [of] 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive. Francis’s critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church’s social teaching." "Pure Marxism" aside, can anyone explain, in light of *Evangelii Gaudium*, what, if any, is the different perspective on capitalism that distinguishes Pope Francis from Ratzinger?

Communism, as formulated by Karl Marx, incorporates several ideas including state mandated atheism, a removal of social classes, and a collective economic system. Of these, the first is obviously incompatible with Christianity. However, it is sometimes said that the second two are similar to Christianity. This question focuses only on the last idea - a collective economic system where private property no longer exists in any meaningful way. The first-century church, as described in Acts, does seem to embrace this idea in some ways. For example, Acts 2:45: > And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (ESV) However, this was a voluntary act. While voluntary collectivism is thus encouraged, this is perhaps different than forced collectivism, as practiced under communism. Even in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) where the couple die not for failing to share their property, Peter implies that it would be morally acceptable to keep some property ("And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?") - the couple died for their deception, not their lack of complete generosity. Among Christian theologians or denominations who view (forced) collectivism as incompatible with Christianity, what theological/moral arguments against it have been offered?

We had a discussion about giving to the poor as many Christians tend to do. Our small group had a big argument on who qualifies as "the poor". Some said it is anyone in need, others said is only believers who are struggling, and then some picked places in the middle to stand. Basically we were just all giving our opinions and had to solid ground to stand on. Sometimes I feel like the whole idea isn't about the poor, but rather me. That by giving I show care for others, I trust God to care for me, I show others God cares for them, that I'm not attached to material things or making an idol out of them by hoarding, etc. Are there any details on "the poor" in the old testament? I ask because, if the bible doesn't focus on who the poor are or try to qualify them, then maybe I shouldn't either. Maybe there is something back in the Pentateuch which I have not read all of. **Do you know any Old Testament passages that help define who the poor are?** **Is there any Jewish oral history that relates to this topic?**

In the most recent encyclical Laudato si' , Pope Francis condemns consumerism. What does he mean by the word consumerism? And what does he see wrong with it? > To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues When someone consumes something, it means that the consumer enjoys and benefits from it. Why is it wrong?

In the news I saw an American politician praying for growing stock market prices. Isn't this considered blasphemy, according to Christian beliefs, like praying to the golden calf?