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.?

At Matthew 26:14-15 we read: > Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver. I would like to know if the amount of money Judas was paid had any specific significance, or was it a random amount offered for the life of Jesus by the High Priests? What do the Catholic teachings say on the subject ?

When Jesus [cleared the money changers from the Temple](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple) , he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in [Luke 13:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A17&version=NIVUK)) . Bible references for the story: - [Matthew 21:12-13](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13&version=NIVUK) - [Mark 11:15-19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A15-19&version=NIVUK) - [Luke 19:45–48](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A45%E2%80%9348&version=NIVUK) - [John 2:13–16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A13%E2%80%9316&version=NIVUK) *(possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)*

Within American evangelicalism a debate has recently been reignited on economic policy, and I've been astonished at the number of people saying that some or all taxation should be considered to be theft. This recent debate got started with a blog post by Rick Phillips on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's Reformation21 site, entitled ["Socialism Is Evil"](http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/socialism-is-evil.php) : > So, biblically speaking, why is socialism evil? ... Because socialism is a system based on stealing. The whole point of socialism is for the government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds of peoples' work, in order to give it to others. (Note the compulsory aspect of socialism, which so differs from voluntary forms of communalism.) This activity is the very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: "You shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15). ... While there is a legitimate basis for government taxation, the simple taking of one's possessions in order to give them to others is not one of them. Socialism is evil because it inherently involves stealing. R. C. Sproul Jr [has written](http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/the-non-volunteer-state/) : > Now, in my political circles, there are plenty of hot-headed young men that love to make the claim, have as their own particular banner, “Taxation is theft.” I’m not sure what I think about that, I do believe certainly, at the very least, that any taxation above and beyond what is needed to do the biblically and constitutionally limited functions of government is in fact theft, but even if you don’t believe that, you have to recognize at least this, that taxation is done by force. That’s why it’s called taxation. That’s its defining quality. It is the government taking wealth from its citizens. You can say it’s not theft if you want, but it has in common with theft that you don’t have a choice. When a man comes up to you with a gun in his hand and he says “Your money or your life”, he doesn’t mean “I’m going to give you a choice. You can keep your life or you can keep your money.” There is no choice where you get to keep your money. If he takes your life, do you know what he’s going to do next? He’s going to take your money. He also [reportedly wrote](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/23/is-the-church-capitalist-is-the-american-church-too-compromised-with-the-culture/) : > I wonder if the author would affirm that any tax can be theft. His argument that Jesus said to pay our taxes, means that taxes can’t be theft is odd. I wonder if, because Jesus says we should give our shirt to someone who takes our coat that taking coats cannot be theft. And in [a comments section on theweeflea.com](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comments) , several other people agreed and put forwards arguments that taxation was theft: > Socialism is theft, as all taxation is theft. Yes, Christ told us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and because of that, I do… but that doesn’t negate the act of taxation being theft just like “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” doesn’t negate the first slap from being assault. If I saw someone getting punched in the face, especially if they are a non-Christian, I wouldn’t tell him “That’s not assault, as Christ told you to turn your other cheek as well.” No, it’s assault and all taxation is theft. How are we to react? Just like Christ told us. But it doesn’t absolve the aggressor (Caesar or an abuser) of their sin. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7091) > > Are you seriously saying that taxation is not theft, simply because Christ told His followers to pay Caesar? What about our non-believing neighbors that abhor paying taxes? I understand that Christ’s words are binding on my soul, they compel me, but my non-Christian neighbor doesn’t feel that way. Is it theft for him? Who will stick up for him? [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7097) > > So are taxes theft? Absolutely. We submit to paying those taxes only because the consequences of not paying them are worse. This is no different than a highway bandit that positions himself at the beginning of a route and demands all passers-by pay a toll in exchange for “safe passage” along the road. Is the bandit a thief? Or a champion of wealth redistribution? You are splitting hairs. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7101) As an outsider to the American situation, from a country which must seem extremely socialistic to those who hold views such as these (because of course *only* socialists could support universal health care), this taxation-is-theft idea seems like a political ideology its adherents have unquestioningly accepted, which they then confused with their theology, and have then desperately looked for any proof texts they can find to support their position. But is this the case? Or is there a longer theological history and background to this economic policy? Can this position be traced back to before the modern libertarian ideology arose?

To the best of my knowledge (which might be incomplete), pretty much all instances of tithing in the Bible involve agricultural produce or animals. Even in the time of Jesus, when money was commonplace in the Roman Empire, the Pharisees would tithe "mint, dill and cumin", as indicated by Matthew 23:23 (NIV): > "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give **a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin**. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals?

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? "

What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

Luke 19:1-10 relates Zacchaeus’s transformative encounter with Jesus, which had the chief tax collector almost instantly promising to give half of his possessions to the poor, and paying back four-fold anyone he had cheated. In a sermon about that yesterday, it was said that often the last thing to be converted is a man’s wallet, but with Zacchaeus, it was the first thing to be converted! Given his wealthy status, what might half of his goods amount to, in cash term value, and roughly how much money could he have committed himself to repay to those he had cheated? Can this find a basis in traditional taxation systems of the Roman Empire back then? I'm assuming Zacchaeus, the 'chief' tax officer, was in charge of a group of other tax agents who had to give him their collections so that he pay Rome the annual amount it demanded, leaving the rest as his wages, so the more dishonest he was, the richer he would become.

What is the Old Testament verse that says that money gives one stability and security? I remember reading something along these lines in, I think, the Wisdom literature .

Did any heretical sect believe that money evil or that it is sinful to use money?

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?

I would like to hear some perspectives on the desire for riches based on some passages. Should one strive to be neither rich nor poor based on Proverbs 30:8? Proverbs 30:8 NIV: >Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Is it immoral to want to be rich based on some passages in 1 Timothy 6? 1 Timothy 6:6-10 NIV: >Of course, godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, so we cannot carry anything out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. How would one define "rich" in the context of these verses? In other words, according to the Bible, how do you know when you are rich or want to become rich? Would simply wanting to have more than food and clothing be pursuing riches?

If a Catholic Parish specifically raises money for the parish - say refurbishment of its church hall kitchen- can the Diocese hold onto the money for as long as it says it needs it? The parishioners are upset and want to put any future money raised for the refurbishment into a new separate bank account controlled by the Parish Finance committee!

In "How Should I Think about Money?" Dr RC Sproul states on page 41: >God instituted in the nation of Israel a law against the debasing of currency He further gives the example of coin clipping, which is reducing the actual metal content of a coin, thereby debasing it's actual value. However, he provides no scriptural reference for this statement. The only prohibition that comes to my mind is that condemning dishonest scales, like Proverbs 11:1, among many, but that is very different from debasing a unit of exchange (aka, currency).

There are many heresies referenced in the New Testament and even more that have surfaced in the centuries since it was written. One is alluded to in the account of Simon Magus. > 9Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in > the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone > great; 10and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving > attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power > of God.” 11And they were giving him attention because he had for a > long time astonished them with his magic arts. 12But when they > believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and > the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women > alike. 13Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he > continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles > taking place, he was constantly amazed. > 14Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15who came > down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. > 16For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been > baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they began laying their > hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 18Now when > Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the > apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give this authority > to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the > Holy Spirit.” 20But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with > you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! > 21“You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not > right before God. 22“Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and > pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be > forgiven you. 23“For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and > in the bondage of iniquity.” 24But Simon answered and said, “Pray to > the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may > come upon me.” Jesus clearly said that we cannot serve God and money and he cleansed the temple of money changers. The way money is handled in Christianity is the source of much confusion and heresy in the church today. Christianity can be a big and profitable business and many ministers acquire great wealth through it. Are there other heresies common in Christianity today that may affect people even more negatively than a money based heresy?

If I'm not wrong usury in its original biblical definition means charging **any amount** of money for lending money. So if you charge any percentage greater than zero as interest rate it must be a sin. Now my question is why is it considered a sin in Christianity? Does Christianity have a more technical and less non-religious answer for that? Like does usury hurt the economy of your country? Or what? I'm trying to understand if Christianity has an explanation to why usury is a bad practice and that's why I want a technical and non-religious answer.

This question is about the leadership in the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, such as the Directors of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, that are named in this Wikipedia article . In this article at wol.jw.org , I read about the "Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses". About this, the article says the following in paragraph 19 (emphasis mine): > **Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses.** Some perform > Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work, > serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as > Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. **They are all bound > by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,”** with which they agree to do > whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests, > to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment > without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that > are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living > up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time > service. I realize that "poverty" in this context does not need to refer to living in a clay hut that has no proper floor, running water, or electricity. Admittedly these people will have some "benefits" (room and board and health care and maybe transportation) because their role is related to the function that they serve in. But I am more interested of anything beyond that, especially for the top directors or the "governing body" in Jehovah's Witness organization. The question I wanted to ask is, are the top directors and the governing body in Jehovah's Witness organization also bound by this "Vow of Obedience and Poverty"? Or do they get some kind of market-based compensation (e.g. some CEO-level compensation) for their services? (I would prefer an answer from JWs on this question)

I’m having a discussion about abortion and taxes, and it was mentioned that Jehovah Witnesses have to pay taxes that fund blood transfusions. Do Jehovah Witnesses believe it is immoral to pay for blood transfusions through taxation?

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?