stdClass Object ( [id] => 18558 [title] => And somewhere between Judas and Mary Magdalene the European economy was born [alias] => and-somewhere-between-judas-and-mary-magdalene-the-european-economy-was-born [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/6 - Analysis. The devaluation of labour and the market is the result of archaic and Greco-Roman cultures and erroneous "theological" ideas.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 13/12/2020
The "treasurer-traitor" became the image of those who sell to earn, of every shameful form of trade, and while uniting the image of three different women of the Gospels, Mary became the symbol of pious waste for worship and the common good.
Associating the figure of Judas with the ethics of European economy is not something that comes naturally, but we must do so if we really want to understand it. Judas Iscariot is the traitor, he is the "treasurer" of the community of the twelve, but he is also a "bad merchant" for the very small sum, thirty denarii, which he asked for in exchange for his betrayal. An infamous and low sum when compared with other famous amounts of money in the Bible (Sarah's tomb, Jeremiah's field in Anathoth). In the Middle Ages, Judas the economist, Judas the traitor and Judas the bad merchant eventually intertwined, giving life to the popular legends of Judas. In "Saint Brendan’s epic voyage"/"La Navigazione di San Brentano" (10th century), after his father dreamed that his son would kill him, Judah, the new Oedipus, is abandoned in Jerusalem where he enters Herod's court, where he becomes a thief, then kills his father and marries his mother, finally ending up in the community of the apostles.
As historian Giacomo Todeschini showed us in his essential work "Like Judas"/"Come Giuda" (2011), the figure of Judas became the icon of the medieval Jew in European cities, when the semantic ambivalence between Judas/Jews ended up associating Jews as such to the sin of Judas as well, (European anti-Semitism also developed and matured in the economic and financial spheres). In the second millennium, in the eyes of popular piety, of art and a lot of theology, Judas also became the face of every economic operator who worked for a profit. Not just the usurer, but every person who acted to make a profit; hence, the merchants, the artisans, the employees, all associated to the treasurer of the twelve because, like him, they sold something to get money.
There are many factors behind the ethical and spiritual devaluation of labour and work in the Middle Ages, some inherited from the Greco-Roman world, (manual work is an activity reserved for slaves), and from archaic cultures, (whoever touches matter is impure). However, the menacing shadow of Judas lurking over every job aimed at earning money was also important (Amintore Fanfani, "History of work in Italy"/“Storia del lavoro in Italia”). A distrust that included both the community economists and the custodians of the monasteries. Judas thus became a sort of backward "patron saint" to those who sold anything in exchange for money, an activity not too different from that of prostitutes, (meritrici in Italian, from merere: to earn). It was in fact, within this religious context that the expression "mercenary work" was born, applied for all forms of wage or monetary compensation.
This ethical form of suspicion would then run across all the Middle Ages and modernity. In the influential "Manual for confessors"/“Manuale per i confessori” by Abbot Gaume (I’m referring to the fourth edition which I own: Naples, 1852), we read the following: «This last recommendation is interesting, based on the idea that asking for a price that is higher than the initial cost is a sin, a theft. As if to say: any increase in the price of goods by those who trade them is undue, because trade does not create added value and therefore does not justify any form of profit. A bizarre idea, which for centuries has led to consider traders as usurpers of the wealth of their customers. A "theological" idea, and not just a consequence of a primitive theory of value (linked to the thing itself) or of a still static economic structure, where trade is seen as a "zero-sum game" (if the seller earns + 1, whoever buys loses -1)».
At the same time, although assimilated to the figure Judas, "mercenary" traders and workers were still tolerated and (with the grave exception of the Jews) allowed to live their lives and work, in the name of the same tolerance that Jesus and the eleven had had for Judas, even knowing that he was a "thief". This tolerance also inspired the "Golden Legend" ("La Leggenda Aurea") of Jacobus de Varagine, where Judas Iscariot, who finds himself in hell, has his conviction being temporarily condoned and suspended on some holidays (Christmas, All Saints...). The underlying theological interpretation is the association between the betrayal of Judas and the paradoxical benefit wrought by his sin: the salvation of the cross. In the cycle by Pietro Lorenzetti in the lower basilica of St. Francis in Assisi, Jesus is represented in the double gesture of both moving away from Judas while blessing what is happening. The same paradoxical benefit of mercenary workers. A theological reading also supported in the Gospel by the parable of the unjust steward praised by Jesus - which is also the only place where the Greek word oikonomia appears in the Gospels (Luke 16, 1-9). Jesus does not praise Judas, but Judas is the only apostle whom Jesus calls «friend» in the Gospels: «Do what you came for, friend!» (Matthew 26,50). Even in these unique words, something of great importance is hidden in the Bible.
Medieval civilization therefore generated a negative idea of paid work and earnings. The services that some men did for others in exchange for money were despised, they were not seen as an expression of mutual assistance or mutual benefit, but as a form of servitude, which in this case, however, did not belittle the master, but the servant. How is it possible this contempt for work ended up producing capitalism in modern times? We may find a first clue in another, even more unlikely, evangelical protagonist of European economic ethics: Mary Magdalene. A much loved figure in the Gospels, very central in the Gnostic apocryphal ones (the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip). The Mary Magdalene of popular piety and medieval Christian traditions is not however only the Mary of Magdala of the Gospels. She is rather a "construction", the result of a combination of several women: the one properly called Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus «had driven seven demons» (Mark 16,9), Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the sinner, present in the four Gospels, who enters a house in Bethany where Jesus found himself and pours a jar of perfume on his head (or feet). At a certain point in the history of the Church, the Magdalene became the fusion of these three women - an important role was played in this by Gregory the Great, in Homily 33, in Rome in 593.
In John's version of the episode with the sinner, we find Judas at the scene. John takes up the account of the Synoptic Gospels (where the sinner of the house of Bethany remains anonymous: Mark 14,1-9), and transforms that woman into Mary, sister of Lazarus: «Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet... but one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it» (John 12,3-6). Judas a traitor, a thief, a miser; Mary, the good prodigal woman, who squanders a sum ten times greater than what Judas will eventually ask for, to honour Jesus. Over the centuries the polar contrast between Judas and Mary, who in the meantime had become Mary Magdalene, would prove to be decisive. Judas would become the image of someone who sells to earn, an icon of every shameful trade and mercenary work; the Magdalene, a symbol of the good use of wealth, of pious waste, of expenditure for worship, and therefore for the church and for the common good. The money earned by working is that of Judas; the money invested in order to be spent in worship is instead pious and holy. Magdalene becomes the anti-Judas, in part due to her relationship with money. As Todeschini once again shows us, over the centuries the Magdalene would be increasingly represented in popular piety and in great art as a rich, luxurious, noble woman, a holy sinner because she had decided to use her past wealth for a holy purpose. The money of the former harlot became holy, while the worker's money became a form of prostitution.
Hence, we arrive at the very centre of this story. Wealth from being bad becomes good if used for worship, for ecclesiastical and public works: the economy of magnificence is thus born. The money earned to live and provide for one's family live is like that of Judas, while that spent on public worship is like that of Magdalene. It does not even matter if this money comes from debt: «All happiness together combine to make a man happy, who, having nothing of his own, knows how to live with that of others» ("The happy Debtor"/"Il Debitor felice", Nuzio Petroni da Trevi, late sixteenth century). Similarly, Francesco Berni: «Do, my kinsman, even loans, often take, at an interest, and let others worry about it: because one will always design the cloth, while another will weave it» ("In praise of the debt"/"In lode del debito", 1548). These theological stories are also behind the present tensions over the debt between the countries of the North and those of the South of Europe. Private wealth and profit can be transformed into good and civil wealth if one leaves the economy of Judas behind and chooses the economy of the Magdalene instead. A vision that we also find in the foundation of the Monti di Pietà. Bernardine of Feltre said: «You thought that the Monte was useful only to the poor. I, on the other hand, say that it is necessary for the poor for their material needs, as it is necessary for the rich for their souls" (Sermons II).
One last thought. The great merchant, the banker, and therefore the great actors of the economy and finance, do not incur the condemnation of Judas, because they earn enough wealth to donate a part of it to worship, to the church, to the Common Good, in life or at least in death... Hence, Judas has increasingly become the image of the small merchant, the artisan and the small entrepreneur. The bad reputation with which the concept of "profit" was passed down to us was not earned by the big economic operators, because the shameful profit became the small one of our fellow citizens. Many centuries have passed, capitalism and its new Protestant work-vocation ethic has arrived. But are we sure that that old stigma about "normal" earnings has been cancelled? When Adam Smith wanted to give a face to those who did not act in business out of "benevolence", perhaps not by chance, he found it in the image «of the butcher, the brewer and the baker» (1776), not in those of the administrators of the East India Company nor of the great English and Dutch bankers. In this economy "small is bad". Today as in the past, when the enemy of the Common Good is not the large multinational but the local merchant, "salvation" is entrusted to a "lottery receipt" that transforms, in spite of them, private vices into public virtues. Thus, the face of Judas did not become that of the great capitalist, but that of the worker-entrepreneur next door. Until when?
[fulltext] => [checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-12-13 06:03:13 [created_by] => 4501 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:35:54 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-12-13 06:03:13 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"images\/2020\/12\/13\/201213-editoriale-avvenire.png","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 765 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 0 [ordering] => 27 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => lourdes.hercules.91@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-12-13 06:03:13 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( ) ) [slug] => 18558:and-somewhere-between-judas-and-mary-magdalene-the-european-economy-was-born [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/6 - Analysis. The devaluation of labour and the market is the result of archaic and Greco-Roman cultures and erroneous "theological" ideas.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 13/12/2020
The "treasurer-traitor" became the image of those who sell to earn, of every shameful form of trade, and while uniting the image of three different women of the Gospels, Mary became the symbol of pious waste for worship and the common good.
Associating the figure of Judas with the ethics of European economy is not something that comes naturally, but we must do so if we really want to understand it. Judas Iscariot is the traitor, he is the "treasurer" of the community of the twelve, but he is also a "bad merchant" for the very small sum, thirty denarii, which he asked for in exchange for his betrayal. An infamous and low sum when compared with other famous amounts of money in the Bible (Sarah's tomb, Jeremiah's field in Anathoth). In the Middle Ages, Judas the economist, Judas the traitor and Judas the bad merchant eventually intertwined, giving life to the popular legends of Judas. In "Saint Brendan’s epic voyage"/"La Navigazione di San Brentano" (10th century), after his father dreamed that his son would kill him, Judah, the new Oedipus, is abandoned in Jerusalem where he enters Herod's court, where he becomes a thief, then kills his father and marries his mother, finally ending up in the community of the apostles.
As historian Giacomo Todeschini showed us in his essential work "Like Judas"/"Come Giuda" (2011), the figure of Judas became the icon of the medieval Jew in European cities, when the semantic ambivalence between Judas/Jews ended up associating Jews as such to the sin of Judas as well, (European anti-Semitism also developed and matured in the economic and financial spheres). In the second millennium, in the eyes of popular piety, of art and a lot of theology, Judas also became the face of every economic operator who worked for a profit. Not just the usurer, but every person who acted to make a profit; hence, the merchants, the artisans, the employees, all associated to the treasurer of the twelve because, like him, they sold something to get money.
There are many factors behind the ethical and spiritual devaluation of labour and work in the Middle Ages, some inherited from the Greco-Roman world, (manual work is an activity reserved for slaves), and from archaic cultures, (whoever touches matter is impure). However, the menacing shadow of Judas lurking over every job aimed at earning money was also important (Amintore Fanfani, "History of work in Italy"/“Storia del lavoro in Italia”). A distrust that included both the community economists and the custodians of the monasteries. Judas thus became a sort of backward "patron saint" to those who sold anything in exchange for money, an activity not too different from that of prostitutes, (meritrici in Italian, from merere: to earn). It was in fact, within this religious context that the expression "mercenary work" was born, applied for all forms of wage or monetary compensation.
This ethical form of suspicion would then run across all the Middle Ages and modernity. In the influential "Manual for confessors"/“Manuale per i confessori” by Abbot Gaume (I’m referring to the fourth edition which I own: Naples, 1852), we read the following: «This last recommendation is interesting, based on the idea that asking for a price that is higher than the initial cost is a sin, a theft. As if to say: any increase in the price of goods by those who trade them is undue, because trade does not create added value and therefore does not justify any form of profit. A bizarre idea, which for centuries has led to consider traders as usurpers of the wealth of their customers. A "theological" idea, and not just a consequence of a primitive theory of value (linked to the thing itself) or of a still static economic structure, where trade is seen as a "zero-sum game" (if the seller earns + 1, whoever buys loses -1)».
At the same time, although assimilated to the figure Judas, "mercenary" traders and workers were still tolerated and (with the grave exception of the Jews) allowed to live their lives and work, in the name of the same tolerance that Jesus and the eleven had had for Judas, even knowing that he was a "thief". This tolerance also inspired the "Golden Legend" ("La Leggenda Aurea") of Jacobus de Varagine, where Judas Iscariot, who finds himself in hell, has his conviction being temporarily condoned and suspended on some holidays (Christmas, All Saints...). The underlying theological interpretation is the association between the betrayal of Judas and the paradoxical benefit wrought by his sin: the salvation of the cross. In the cycle by Pietro Lorenzetti in the lower basilica of St. Francis in Assisi, Jesus is represented in the double gesture of both moving away from Judas while blessing what is happening. The same paradoxical benefit of mercenary workers. A theological reading also supported in the Gospel by the parable of the unjust steward praised by Jesus - which is also the only place where the Greek word oikonomia appears in the Gospels (Luke 16, 1-9). Jesus does not praise Judas, but Judas is the only apostle whom Jesus calls «friend» in the Gospels: «Do what you came for, friend!» (Matthew 26,50). Even in these unique words, something of great importance is hidden in the Bible.
Medieval civilization therefore generated a negative idea of paid work and earnings. The services that some men did for others in exchange for money were despised, they were not seen as an expression of mutual assistance or mutual benefit, but as a form of servitude, which in this case, however, did not belittle the master, but the servant. How is it possible this contempt for work ended up producing capitalism in modern times? We may find a first clue in another, even more unlikely, evangelical protagonist of European economic ethics: Mary Magdalene. A much loved figure in the Gospels, very central in the Gnostic apocryphal ones (the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip). The Mary Magdalene of popular piety and medieval Christian traditions is not however only the Mary of Magdala of the Gospels. She is rather a "construction", the result of a combination of several women: the one properly called Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus «had driven seven demons» (Mark 16,9), Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the sinner, present in the four Gospels, who enters a house in Bethany where Jesus found himself and pours a jar of perfume on his head (or feet). At a certain point in the history of the Church, the Magdalene became the fusion of these three women - an important role was played in this by Gregory the Great, in Homily 33, in Rome in 593.
In John's version of the episode with the sinner, we find Judas at the scene. John takes up the account of the Synoptic Gospels (where the sinner of the house of Bethany remains anonymous: Mark 14,1-9), and transforms that woman into Mary, sister of Lazarus: «Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet... but one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it» (John 12,3-6). Judas a traitor, a thief, a miser; Mary, the good prodigal woman, who squanders a sum ten times greater than what Judas will eventually ask for, to honour Jesus. Over the centuries the polar contrast between Judas and Mary, who in the meantime had become Mary Magdalene, would prove to be decisive. Judas would become the image of someone who sells to earn, an icon of every shameful trade and mercenary work; the Magdalene, a symbol of the good use of wealth, of pious waste, of expenditure for worship, and therefore for the church and for the common good. The money earned by working is that of Judas; the money invested in order to be spent in worship is instead pious and holy. Magdalene becomes the anti-Judas, in part due to her relationship with money. As Todeschini once again shows us, over the centuries the Magdalene would be increasingly represented in popular piety and in great art as a rich, luxurious, noble woman, a holy sinner because she had decided to use her past wealth for a holy purpose. The money of the former harlot became holy, while the worker's money became a form of prostitution.
Hence, we arrive at the very centre of this story. Wealth from being bad becomes good if used for worship, for ecclesiastical and public works: the economy of magnificence is thus born. The money earned to live and provide for one's family live is like that of Judas, while that spent on public worship is like that of Magdalene. It does not even matter if this money comes from debt: «All happiness together combine to make a man happy, who, having nothing of his own, knows how to live with that of others» ("The happy Debtor"/"Il Debitor felice", Nuzio Petroni da Trevi, late sixteenth century). Similarly, Francesco Berni: «Do, my kinsman, even loans, often take, at an interest, and let others worry about it: because one will always design the cloth, while another will weave it» ("In praise of the debt"/"In lode del debito", 1548). These theological stories are also behind the present tensions over the debt between the countries of the North and those of the South of Europe. Private wealth and profit can be transformed into good and civil wealth if one leaves the economy of Judas behind and chooses the economy of the Magdalene instead. A vision that we also find in the foundation of the Monti di Pietà. Bernardine of Feltre said: «You thought that the Monte was useful only to the poor. I, on the other hand, say that it is necessary for the poor for their material needs, as it is necessary for the rich for their souls" (Sermons II).
One last thought. The great merchant, the banker, and therefore the great actors of the economy and finance, do not incur the condemnation of Judas, because they earn enough wealth to donate a part of it to worship, to the church, to the Common Good, in life or at least in death... Hence, Judas has increasingly become the image of the small merchant, the artisan and the small entrepreneur. The bad reputation with which the concept of "profit" was passed down to us was not earned by the big economic operators, because the shameful profit became the small one of our fellow citizens. Many centuries have passed, capitalism and its new Protestant work-vocation ethic has arrived. But are we sure that that old stigma about "normal" earnings has been cancelled? When Adam Smith wanted to give a face to those who did not act in business out of "benevolence", perhaps not by chance, he found it in the image «of the butcher, the brewer and the baker» (1776), not in those of the administrators of the East India Company nor of the great English and Dutch bankers. In this economy "small is bad". Today as in the past, when the enemy of the Common Good is not the large multinational but the local merchant, "salvation" is entrusted to a "lottery receipt" that transforms, in spite of them, private vices into public virtues. Thus, the face of Judas did not become that of the great capitalist, but that of the worker-entrepreneur next door. Until when?
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-odd )
stdClass Object ( [id] => 18559 [title] => And free Franciscan poverty gave money its real value [alias] => and-free-franciscan-poverty-gave-money-its-real-value [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/5 - Since the friars did not actually make use of money, they became the masters of another economy instead, because we have the coins of Judas but we also have those of the Good Samaritan.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 06/12/2020
The refusal of any kind of wealth of the first followers of the Saint of Assisi produced a series of fundamental economic innovations and kept a prophecy still capable of the future alive.
The very high form poverty of Francis was something unique in history. A mad, absolute, and entirely imprudent kind of love, the essence of anti-common sense. A radical rejection of money and wealth that generated the deepest understanding of the nature of the economy.
[fulltext] =>In the beginning of Francis’s vocation there was money. In his last sale, «He prepares a horse, gets in the saddle, taking scarlet cloths with him, and leaves quickly for Foligno. There, according to his custom, he sells all the goods, and, lucky merchant, even the horse! On the way back, free from all his burdens, he thinks about the work to which he should allocate that money» (Thomas of Celano, "First Life of St Francis"/"Vita Prima", 333-334). Free from all burdens: young Francis experiences the selling of all his goods as a liberation from all burdens. Felix Mercator: Francis gets rid of a little because he wants everything. No higher interest rate had ever been seen. When the priest of San Damiano refuses his money, Francis, «with his true contempt for wealth, throws it out of a small window» (Thomas of Celano, "First Life of St Francis"/"Vita Prima", 335).
In the Rule of 1221 Francis tells us in what sense he has a "true contempt for wealth". As Paolo Evangelisti, (whom I thank), explains to us in his fundamental essay, "Franciscan money between norm and interpretation", the relationship of the friars with money occupies a central place therein: «No friar shall in any way take with him or receive from others or allow pecuniary or money to be received... for we must not have or attribute to pecuniary matters and money greater utility than to stones» (The Unconfirmed Rule, Chapter VIII). Money and pecuniary matters, that is, coins and all goods with an exchange value.
The friars were soon defined as «strangers to money». It was not only forbidden for Franciscans to receive coins: they could not even touch them with their hands, not even with a piece of wood, nor carry them in a saddlebag or pouch. As if a coin was in itself an impure thing. A radical, total, absolute refusal. The first Franciscan commentators on the Rule of Francis (Ugo di Digne, Bonaventura, Olivi...) dwelt a lot on the prohibition of receiving and handling money because they considered it a fundamental element of Franciscan identity, an essential attribute of the nature of their charism. In the first generations of Franciscans, the estrangement from money and all things monetary was total, radical and unconditional: as Francis interpreted the gospel sine glossa (literally), those Franciscans also tried to interpret Francis sine glossa. And saved him.
Hence, while money began to invade European cities and lay Franciscans handled coins every day, monasteries continued to grow in their properties and churches and cathedrals shone with their magnificence, Franciscans remained clinging to the spire of the highest form of poverty with all their might, and made it their first and foremost prestige. Pauperism credibility, understood as a separation from money became the great goal of the Franciscan movement. In order to have it, first everything had to be sacrificed, because it was clear that if this very high form of poverty translated as a non-monetary life vanished so would the Franciscan prophecy. Starting with the clothing, to which Francis had dedicated particular attention, (of «basic price and colour»), in the Rule. The habit does not make the monk, but the habit makes the friar: «And all the friars shall wear humble robes and they may be allowed to patch them up with sackcloth and other pieces of cloth» (Chapter II). Not only did the convents not have anything, but in their churches, sober in architecture, furnishings and bell towers devoid of turrets, there was also not to be any collector for coins. What we would call, an obsession with money, which also involved the work of the friars.
As it is written in the Rule: «And let the friars who know how to work do so and practice the profession they already know... And for the work they do they may receive everything necessary, except money» (Chapter VII). Why? What is the reason for this absolute rejection of money? It is not easy to answer, because in the heart of the great charisms there is always a veil that makes the vision of their most secret intimacy imperfect. However, one can always deduct a few things, above all by exploring the tradition of the early centuries of the Franciscan movement. Bartolus of Saxoferrato, for example, offers us some interesting elements. In reiterating that a friar who works has a right to be rewarded, he not only excludes any monetary reward, he also excludes the possibility of stipulating a contract to establish the amount of the reward: «Provided they do not stipulate a contract or an agreement concerning a reward» (Quoted in Paolo Evangelisti’s aforementioned essay, p.258). This is a second prohibition, which appears equally bizarre to us, especially when seen from our perspective. However, we can always put forth a hypothesis. Establishing a fee for his work, that is, before the work was done, could lead the friar to make money the very reason for his work, the reward could hence become his very motivation for working. Perhaps, what we have here is a first root to the distinction between incentive and reward: the (non-monetary) reward could only be accepted if it was a reward, not an incentive. A reward, in fact, is a reward for virtuous behaviour that would have been carried out even without said reward; an incentive, on the other hand, is the reason for a given action, which would not have happened at all without that incentive. A reward, therefore, is a meeting of reciprocity and freedom, and requires an essential component of gratuitousness in those who act. So much so that the reward, for the Franciscans, should not be a certainty, and the friar who did not receive a reward for his work was recommended to resort to alms.
This allows us to grasp an essential, and by now entirely forgotten, dimension of our work as well. In affirming that the reward must not be the motivation for working, the ancient Franciscans are telling us that our wages today should not be the only and perhaps not even the primary motivation for our work either; and when it does in fact become the only and primary motivation, our work loses its sense of freedom. Another key to entering the Franciscan monetary paradox is offered by Friar Angelo Clareno, another great Franciscan teacher: «I call communion the most perfect life from which all personal possession is foreign». Human goods, according to the friar from the Marche region, like the wealth of angels «are not a delimited good, they are not a good that must be distributed among many and divided», (quoted in Paolo Evangelisti’s essay, pp. 226-227). Hence, we are faced with another very important theoretical innovation here, perhaps the first definition of those goods that economic theory (Paul Samuelson) calls "public goods", which are in fact a form of common goods. The first characteristic of public goods is in fact their indivisibility because, as is the case with national security or with the atmosphere (common public goods), it is not possible to divide the good in question and assign it to different consumers, because all users "use" the whole and the same public good: «Therefore these goods, remaining intact among individuals, make everyone equally rich and hence do not give anyone any reasons for individual appropriation, subject to controversy or contention" (Friar Angelo Clareno).
Hence, we now find ourselves at the very centre of our discussion. The Franciscan revolution consisted in treating goods as public and common goods: every good is a common, therefore an indivisible good and not appropriable by a single individual. So public that it belongs to everyone, and not only to the Franciscan community. The cosmic fraternity of the Canticle of Brother Sun makes a return, as also expressed in other passages of the Rule and Constitutions: «The friars, wherever they find themselves, in hermitages or anywhere else, are careful not to appropriate any place and not to contend with anyone" (Rule, VII). That absolute prohibition on handling money and on owning something (sine proprio) was therefore a high road to safeguard this essential "public" dimension of all assets. It is the apotheosis of gratuitousness: giving up a human ability and freedom (using money), which is part of the repertoire of every adult human being, to be the guarantors and custodians of a common value instead. Francis as a sentinel of the common and non-appropriable vocation of the goods of the earth: «They long to possess nothing, to have nothing of their own, but to possess everything, together« (Friar Angelo Clareno).
However, there is still one more thing to be said. By renouncing the reward, the Franciscans of the first and second hour discovered the true value of things. They became experts in economic estimation, taxation, the market, advisors to politicians for public debt, real theorists of money. Few have written about economics and even finance as the Franciscans of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries have. That "hedge" enabled them to see the infinite. That very absolute dimension of gratuitousness - "the source is not for me" - made the Franciscans great experts and connoisseurs of money and economics, both theoretical and practical. By not being users, they became masters of money: the great generativity of true chastity. And over the centuries, observing the work of real merchants they understood that money is not only constituted by the coins of Judas, because the Gospel features the two coins of the Good Samaritan as well, the Good Samaritan who handled money and thus was able to use it in the service of fraternity. By not using money, they came to understand money, by radically renouncing wealth, they came to understand wealth, and by being merchants for the kingdom of heaven, they understood the merchants of the kingdoms of the earth - and some of these merchants came to understand and continue to understand Francis.
The hundreds of Monti di Pietà that the Franciscan Friar Minors founded (without actually owning them) from the second half of the fifteenth century would not have been born without that total fidelity to the non-use of money. Those different kind of banks were the mature arrival of that ancient chastity, of that enormous competence that blossomed from the non-negotiable prohibition of handling money: not being able to handle it for themselves, they handled it for the poor; using their expertise only for the Common Good. The hymn in verse composed following the death of the Franciscan Marco da Montegallo, reads: «Thanks to you, the Monti shine in the illustrious cities of Italy. You founded the Monti di Pietà to relieve the poor» (Vicenza, 1496).
If in 2020, eight hundred years after the Unconfirmed Rule, thousands of young economists gathered around Francis in Assisi, and were able to repeat "all goods are common goods", it is because for centuries the Franciscans have done all that is possible, and impossible, to save their very high poverty, in order to not lose their greatest treasure: pauperism credibility. They have suffered ecclesiastical condemnation, experienced heresies, a thousand failures and accusations of naivety, but above all, they have kept their faith in the most paradoxical fact of their charism. Thereby, they have saved themselves and many others as well. What makes prophecies alive and enduring is the resilience to the wise recommendations of prudence surrounding them. Charisms can only be saved by those who live them sine glossa, by those who guard its queries, and avoid being sucked in by the excellent reasons put forth by common sense.
[checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-12-06 06:12:12 [created_by] => 4501 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:34:38 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-12-06 06:12:12 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"images\/2020\/12\/06\/201206-editoriale-avvenire.png","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 1230 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 11831 [ordering] => 26 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => lourdes.hercules.91@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-12-06 06:12:12 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( ) ) [slug] => 18559:and-free-franciscan-poverty-gave-money-its-real-value [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/5 - Since the friars did not actually make use of money, they became the masters of another economy instead, because we have the coins of Judas but we also have those of the Good Samaritan.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 06/12/2020
The refusal of any kind of wealth of the first followers of the Saint of Assisi produced a series of fundamental economic innovations and kept a prophecy still capable of the future alive.
The very high form poverty of Francis was something unique in history. A mad, absolute, and entirely imprudent kind of love, the essence of anti-common sense. A radical rejection of money and wealth that generated the deepest understanding of the nature of the economy.
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-even )
stdClass Object ( [id] => 18561 [title] => Time is a common good, even if we have forgotten it [alias] => time-is-a-common-good-even-if-we-have-forgotten-it [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/4 - Analysis - In biblical humanism there is the «Sabbath» and yet all days belong to God, then «mixed time» came and today...
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 29/11/2020
"Time is a child playing. The kingdom belongs to a child".
Heraclitus, FragmentsWe began to sell and buy time when Purgatory entered the religious discourse and with it the bargaining on the time of the dead and therefore also of the living. We can clearly see the effects of the destruction of time in the environmental issue, where the destruction of the future takes place in an economy entirely focused on the present.
Time belongs to God. So the usurer, who sells time, profits from a good that is not really his in the first place. This was also one of the oldest arguments against interest-bearing loans. However, in this divine nature of time there is something else that is very important in order to understand the birth of capitalism: «The usurer acts against the universal natural law, because he sells time, which is a common good of all creatures. Hence, since the usurer sells what actually belongs to all creatures, he harms all creatures in general; even rocks and stones, whence it appears that even if men stayed silent in front of the usurers, stones would cry out». In his "Summa Aurea", William of Auxerre (1160-1229) adds an important dimension to this, an expression of biblical humanism. Time really belongs to God, and so it is «common to all creatures». It is a common good, and as such, it cannot be traded for profit. It would be private appropriation of a common good. Time, would hence not only be a divine good, but also a global and cosmic common good («the stones»).
[fulltext] =>Biblical humanity learned of the nature of time especially during the Babylonian exile. That is where the concept of the Sabbath really matured, a day with a time of a different quality that with its mere presence makes all time not appropriable. Because if there is a day of the week not available to man, as it finds itself outside his domain and empire, then there is also a chrism of gratuitousness on all time that firmly places it outside any acquisitive and commercial area. This is also the reason why the ban on interest-bearing loans matured in Israel during that same exile. Biblical time is a gift and the whole earth is a never reached promised land. Perhaps the most important biblical legacy is this non-predatory relationship with time and the earth. Furthermore, biblical time carries the sign of sin inscribed in it. The exit from the cyclic time of Eden and the entry into historical time is the result of a disorder in the relationship between humans, between humans and creation (the snake) and between creation and God. The time of men was born wounded, even if that wound generated the blessing of the Covenant and a different salvation. Biblical humanism also invented historical and linear time, because history moves towards an end, it has a beginning and constantly looks forward. In short, the Bible invented the future, and therefore the past. Its time is not cyclical, mythical or circular. The Covenant and the expectation of the Messiah have given time a direction, effectively placing an arrow, a sense, at the tip of the time line. Then Christianity further strengthened and radicalized this linear nature of time, through the incarnation and resurrection.
However, there is a necessary tension between linear time and the idea of time as a common good. As long as the world remained static and intrinsically slow, the Church managed to keep them both together, with the help of different tools. First of all in the monasteries, with the organization of liturgy. Liturgical time is a mechanism that traps the linear flow of time within a circular rhythm, where ritual time overcomes historical time. Time-quantity flows and passes, but time-quality, marked by the liturgy, gives human time a divine and therefore eternal stamp. Monasteries enchanted people because they promised eternal life, to defeat death. In the life of the laity, calendars, feasts, bells, the rhythm of life and seasons, the cyclical times of the liturgical year, then tried to bend linear time to contain it within the constant and perennial cycle of religion. Space was marked and underlined by images and sacred signs, shrines, tabernacles, and distances measured in "Ave Maria". Hence, time continued to pass, yet on a deep level it remained the same. It was as if time had two levels: a more superficial one that flowed linearly, and a deeper one that remained unchanged because it was divine. In this humanism, therefore, there were no cultural and concrete pre-conditions to make loans at interest legitimate. Therefore, whoever asked for compensation for a time that did not change in depth, was committing an act against nature - against the very nature of time.
When did all this go awry? When it began to change the world. As in the case of art, and the first attempts, back in the days of Giotto, to introduce depth and real space within frescoes, producing a perspective where time and movement entered the paintings. The days of William of Auxerre were also those of Joachim of Fiore and his theology of the near advent of the "age of the Spirit", which would follow that of the Father (the Old Testament) and that of the Son (the New Testament ). His was a qualitative vision of time, guided by a dynamic mechanism. The end of Joachim's life (1202) intersects with the beginning of that of Francis. The Franciscans left the walls of the monasteries and went back to being nomads and beggars in the streets. Pilgrimages also picked up again during those same years. And with this movement, the sense of time began to change.
The merchants were yet another group of great walkers and crossers of space: «All humans must aspire to the purchase of Virtues, from which Glory is born; and among the many paths which lead to it, three in particular are the most common. One, weapons, the other, letters, and the third, shops. The first is dangerous, the second is quiet and the third is tiring» (Giovanni Domenico Peri, "The Merchant"/"Il Negoziante", 1672). The advent of the merchants was in fact decisive for the revolution of the concept of time. Merchants travel across cities and regions, organize complex operations, and create a new relationship with time. They lives on time: they have to foresee market fluctuations, inflation, wars, and famines. They must speculate (word that comes from specula, specere: look far) on the differentials of the prices of coins, which at that time were many indeed, including the "imaginary currency" present on European markets between Charlemagne and the French revolution. The merchants invented new contracts (exchange letters, commenda), they created the first forms of insurance, learning to live with risk. Even farmers depended on time and risk, but time in the countryside and of the seasons was once something that was merely "suffered", unmanageable, free and master of itself. Not so for the merchants: they anticipate time, control it, and enslave it, making it the first element of their business. Becoming time experts. In their profession, the present becomes the future (bills of exchange) and the future becomes the present (discount). For a farmer, time is a constraint, for a merchant it is his first opportunity. The farmer will continue to measure distances in "Ave Marias", the merchant with the help of maps and astrolabes. The farmer lives in a place, the merchant inhabits space.
The merchant hence trades with time, and thus economic time ceases to be the time of the Church. It was the Church itself, however, that made time trading lawful, or at least possible. It did so with the creation of Purgatory. In this same period, in fact, the reality of Purgatory exploded in Europe (already present in the early Christian centuries), which played a central role in changing the notion of time (Jacques Le Goff). With Purgatory, the binary structure that had dominated the first millennium - hell/heaven, city of God/city of man, virtue/vice... - evolves into a ternary one. Before time began to be sold by merchants and bankers with the legitimacy of the interest rate, time had already began being sold with the concept of Purgatory. Because, seen from this perspective, Purgatory is nothing more than the possibility of buying time on earth for the benefit of the dead. Praying and paying indulgences for the dead means making time an object of exchange. In a binary and polar vision of heaven/hell, time cannot ever be for sale, because there is no way on earth to influence the heavens. With the introduction of the "third way" of Purgatory, actions on earth began to change the time of the dead. And if we can haggle the time of the dead, we can trade with that of the living as well.
The transition from a world "of two" to a world "of three" then developed, within Christianity itself, a space for imperfection, of intermediate realities, of a middle ground, of compromises, of amnesties, of the orange colour in traffic lights; mediations between prohibition and lawfulness, and between divine time and mercantile time. Cases, distinctions, and differences sprang up or amplified further: those between emerging damage and loss of profit, between interest-profit and interest-annuities. Time left the exclusive domain of God and religion. At first, it became a shared and contested domain between God and man. The ancient divine and common good nature of the time did not disappear; it became partial but remained alive and operative, and allowed during many centuries to distinguish between licit and illicit use of time, between good interests and usurious interests, between virtuous and dishonest merchants, between entrepreneurs and speculators. The merchants had gotten hold of a few threads of the rope of time but at the other end the hand of God and therefore of the community remained firm. This time with mixed ownership has allowed the development of the European economy, and, at the same time, has kept it anchored to the communities.
And with this form of "mixed time" we have hence reached the threshold of modernity, when time has become a mere human affair, and therefore completely and only a commodity. By losing its link with the divine, time has also lost its nature as a common good. And by erasing time as a common good, we have also effectively lost the sense of the common Good itself. Nevertheless, even if we treat it as a private commodity, time remains a common good and therefore subject to the "tragedy of the commons": by using it with a privatist logic, we are destroying it, without realizing it. We can clearly see the destruction of time through the issue of the environment, where the destruction of time is becoming the destruction of the future in an economy entirely focused on the present. A time that was not yet entirely a commodity and still a common good, helped to bind generations together, giving children time to become better than their fathers and mothers. We must immediately reinvent a non-predatory relationship with time and space together. Young people must help us, without them we will not make it, because our generation has forgotten what a good relationship with time and with the earth truly is. We can ask this of the young, we must ask it of the children.
[checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-11-29 01:12:46 [created_by] => 4501 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:37:37 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-11-29 01:12:46 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"images\/2020\/11\/29\/201129-editoriale-avvenire.png","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 1068 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 9833 [ordering] => 13 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => lourdes.hercules.91@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-11-29 01:12:46 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [tag_id] => 18 [id] => 18 [parent_id] => 1 [lft] => 33 [rgt] => 34 [level] => 1 [path] => luigino-bruni [title] => Luigino Bruni [alias] => luigino-bruni [note] => [description] => [published] => 1 [checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [access] => 1 [params] => {"tag_layout":"","tag_link_class":"label label-info"} [metadesc] => [metakey] => [metadata] => {"author":"","robots":""} [created_user_id] => 611 [created_time] => 2015-11-14 21:22:09 [created_by_alias] => [modified_user_id] => 609 [modified_time] => 2020-08-01 10:35:46 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {} [hits] => 65730 [language] => * [version] => 1 [publish_up] => 2015-11-14 20:22:09 [publish_down] => 2015-11-14 20:22:09 ) ) ) [slug] => 18561:time-is-a-common-good-even-if-we-have-forgotten-it [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/4 - Analysis - In biblical humanism there is the «Sabbath» and yet all days belong to God, then «mixed time» came and today...
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 29/11/2020
"Time is a child playing. The kingdom belongs to a child".
Heraclitus, FragmentsWe began to sell and buy time when Purgatory entered the religious discourse and with it the bargaining on the time of the dead and therefore also of the living. We can clearly see the effects of the destruction of time in the environmental issue, where the destruction of the future takes place in an economy entirely focused on the present.
Time belongs to God. So the usurer, who sells time, profits from a good that is not really his in the first place. This was also one of the oldest arguments against interest-bearing loans. However, in this divine nature of time there is something else that is very important in order to understand the birth of capitalism: «The usurer acts against the universal natural law, because he sells time, which is a common good of all creatures. Hence, since the usurer sells what actually belongs to all creatures, he harms all creatures in general; even rocks and stones, whence it appears that even if men stayed silent in front of the usurers, stones would cry out». In his "Summa Aurea", William of Auxerre (1160-1229) adds an important dimension to this, an expression of biblical humanism. Time really belongs to God, and so it is «common to all creatures». It is a common good, and as such, it cannot be traded for profit. It would be private appropriation of a common good. Time, would hence not only be a divine good, but also a global and cosmic common good («the stones»).
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-odd )
stdClass Object ( [id] => 18537 [title] => There is also a good kind of profit and it is never called usury [alias] => there-is-also-a-good-kind-of-profit-and-it-is-never-called-usury [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/3 - The analysis. The great theological debate on the nature of interests and a crucial discernment made by the Franciscans
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 22/11/2020
History is not fiction, Providence also speaks to us through concrete events, and the Spirit can breathe within the realms of a contract too
There was a time in Europe when Popes issued Decrees to resolve disputes regarding banks and interest. When "the economy of salvation" and "the salvation of the economy" were both at the centre of the commitment of Christians, of the intelligence of theologians, and of the eyes of public opinion. When the debates on the Eucharist and those on the legitimacy of usury had the same theological and human dignity, because the Church and the people knew perfectly well that people also lived and died due to a lack of credit or too many bad loans.
[fulltext] =>Debates that were so heated that a papal Decree was needed to put an end to the long controversy surrounding the Monti di Pietà (without being completely successful). The controversy concerned above all the interests those banks charged for their loans, which their opponents considered usury. While recognizing the reasons of the opponents as plausible, Pope Leo X confirmed the legitimacy of the banks and their practice to request the payment of an interest on their loans, «provided that it is intended exclusively for the expenses of the employees and other things related to the maintenance of the organization, and provided that no profit is made» (Inter Multiplices, 1515). The Decree therefore stated that the Monti were not incurring the sin of usury (pecunias licite mutuant), that they in fact were not usurious institutions for the sole fact of asking for the payment of an interest rate (generally around 5% per annum). The same Decree reiterated the definition of usury: «Because this is the true meaning of usury: when a thing produces gain for the sole use of the thing itself (ex usu rei), without any work, expense or risk involved». No work ... no risk.
Hence, the interest loans of the Monti di Pietà were not considered to be usury, provided that the interest was not a mere expression of profit, but a legitimate reimbursement of the bank's operating expenses. So much so that, in the last section of the Decree, Pope Leo X takes care to specify that the ideal remains the non-payment of interests (at least partial) by the poor, when public or philanthropic funds can cover management costs in a way that they are not born «entirely by the poor». The centre of the controversy was therefore the purpose of the interest, the essence or "spirit" of that small sum added to the capital. The spirit was not to be profit, but cost coverage.
However, this "spirit" that exactly what was being questioned by the opponents of the Franciscan minors. Among these, the monk Nicolò Bariani, from Piacenza, who in 1494 published a booklet that made a lot of noise: De Montis Impietatis. Bariani was an Augustinian and therefore trained in the biblical and patristic view on money and interest. For him any sum of money paid in return that exceeded the initially lent capital was usury, and therefore illegal, including those of the Monti di Pietà. The Franciscans, on the other hand, made a distinction between different kinds of interest. How? And on the basis of what "theory" could they distinguish a usurious florin from a legitimate one?
What is clear is that the debate between theologians on economics and usury was utterly exciting, controversial, tough and harsh, ever since the thirteenth century. Above all, however, it was brilliant, and still leaves us amazed many centuries later by its intelligence and depth. More than being just theologians, The Franciscans were careful observers of reality, especially that of the new Italian and European cities. They were far less interested in abstract and deductive disputes (including Aristotelian ones), and much more interested in understanding people's actual behaviours. For this purpose, they observed the practices of the merchants, thereby getting to know the economic and civil changes in a very dynamic time. And they carried out an essential practice in any attempt to understand a complex reality: discernment. They distinguished, separated, ordered phenomena that might appear similar regarding certain aspects but were very different concerning others, and which things-aspects were the really decisive ones at that given time and place. In the workshop constituted by the merchant cities of the 13th-15th centuries, they understood, for example, that the merchants who included an added value in the price of an asset, to compensate them for the risk of highly uncertain businesses carried out at sea or on land, or the money changer that in Genoa or Venice had to take into account the fluctuations of currencies and inflation, in fact did very different jobs from those carried out by professional usurer money lenders, leading peaceful and comfortable lives by their desks, (as stated by Alessandro d'Alessandria, Tractatus de usuris, early XIV sec.). All three groups paid or demanded interest on their money, that much is true, and this common element was enough for many preaching monks to condemn them all as usurers. The Franciscans however considered the three situations to be very different in substance, although similar in form. And this brings up the great theme of the difference between profit and revenue.
First of all, however, we must take a rather strange medieval friendship seriously, the one between the Franciscans and the merchants. Francis began his story in Assisi by distinguishing himself and rejecting the economy and wealth of his father Bernardone, a merchant; and shortly after, the Franciscans found themselves allies of the merchants in the Italian and European cities of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Another generative paradox. Meanwhile, there is a concrete fact in here as well: unlike other religious orders, more than any other religious families, since the time of Francis, the Franciscans had developed a secular order: the Third Order. Many lay people were in fact part of their charismatic community, and many of them were merchants. They knew them; they were their brothers. Rather than judge them, they were their friends, and they knew their hearts. One can easily imagine that the first good words spoken about the market and profit were born during a fraternity meal, when a merchant-brother confided in them talking about his difficult and sometimes even risky job. And having looked into the soul of the merchants, those theologians consequently saw a different soul in the market as well. They began by feeling love and esteem for the merchants and then moved on to the markets. And that is how they came to understand them, both back in the day as well as today, because there can be no true knowledge without love-agape. There is a strong message of Christian theology in all of this: history is not fiction, Providence speaks through concrete events as well, and the Spirit can breathe within the contract of a merchant and within the workshop of an artisan as well.
And so, by looking at and loving the world, they realized that those merchants were not usurers, even when they had to ask for or pay interest. This is the essence of the inner spirit of that form of profit, the spirit of that kind of capitalism. And this lead them to realise that it was the very idea of a formal and abstract condemnation of interest on money that had to be rethought and modified, because not all kinds of interest were the same. There was a type of interest that was merely a just compensation for some of the aspects inherent to the actual economic and commercial activity involved. They understood that if the merchants did not include risk remuneration in their contracts, their activity would not be able to develop, eventually bringing about serious damage to the cities - the Franciscans clearly understood the function of the common good of honest merchants (the "boni mercanti"). Paying an insurance premium for maritime schemes (foedus nauticus) or to those who lent capital for a long commercial mission in the East, was very different from taking usury money from a bank. The usury part is in its essence, the spirit, not the actual material sum of money paid as interest, because sometimes that money was simply a necessary and good collateral component of a business operation.
And it that merchant was in a position to be able to lend money to other merchants - merchants and bankers at the beginning were highly intertwined professions and activities - here is another good reason to ask for the payment of an interest rate: loss of profit. That is, if merchant Lapo lends 1,000 florins to his colleague Duccio and thus renounces to using that money himself, it is only fair for Duccio to reward Lapo with an interest for the gain that his colleague was unable to obtain due to his loan – a medieval equivalence to the modern term "opportunity cost". Hence, in essence this interest was good, provided, however, that the person lending the money was a merchant and that the hypothetical alternative use of the money therefore was a productive one, not a mere sterile loan. In the case of good merchants, what seemed at first glance to be usury was merely a compensation for the uncertainty, for the inflation, for the variability of the markets in question. So much so, that in many cities merchants were considered to be, if not actual indigents, paupers, because they lived and were radically dependent on uncertainty.
Hence, now we get to the decisive distinction: the one between profit and revenue, entirely forgotten today. In the eyes of those Franciscan theologians and economists, if the interest involved comes in the shape of a good merchant's profit, it is legitimate; if on the other hand that same sum of money is constituted by mere yield or revenue, it is usury. Profit is the remuneration for the lawful and risky activity of a merchant, a gain that comes as a reward for his work, risk, expertise and innovation, in short his precious profession. Revenue, on the other hand, is a gain that comes from the mere fact of exercising a position of power over money, without any work and without running any real business risks. This is why, while discussing the pecuniary penalties that could be added to a mortgage to protect oneself from a delayed repayment, Fra Angelo da Chivasso states that it is in fact a legitimate claim, unless the request is made by a person who «usually lends money by practicing usury».
But how does one distinguish between the different types of merchants who lend money? This is where the Franciscan canonists and theologians gave their best, writing long digressions on the exceptions of usury and on thousands of concrete cases. Fame or name recognition always played an essential role, a collective judgment expressed by an expert community made up of honest merchants. We cannot understand medieval and early modern economic ethics without taking this collective aspect of the market and merchants into consideration. The social body, with its widespread intelligence, knew how to distinguish a usurer from a merchant. The economic activities that damage and kill, and the ones that enable us to live, are intertwined every day, in every part of the economy and in every complex area of life. Only those who, for the love of their people, know how to penetrate the living marrow of this intertwining can truly serve the economy and life. The rest is just abstract moralism, which almost always ends up doing harm to honest people, a fact as true back then and as it is today. The Economy of Francesco knew all this, the Economy of Francesco still knows all this.
[checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-11-21 18:46:59 [created_by] => 64 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:38:58 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-11-21 18:46:59 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"images\/2020\/12\/11\/201122-editoriale-avvenire1.jpg","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 983 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 11205 [ordering] => 42 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => ferrucci.anto@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-11-21 18:46:59 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( ) ) [slug] => 18537:there-is-also-a-good-kind-of-profit-and-it-is-never-called-usury [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/3 - The analysis. The great theological debate on the nature of interests and a crucial discernment made by the Franciscans
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 22/11/2020
History is not fiction, Providence also speaks to us through concrete events, and the Spirit can breathe within the realms of a contract too
There was a time in Europe when Popes issued Decrees to resolve disputes regarding banks and interest. When "the economy of salvation" and "the salvation of the economy" were both at the centre of the commitment of Christians, of the intelligence of theologians, and of the eyes of public opinion. When the debates on the Eucharist and those on the legitimacy of usury had the same theological and human dignity, because the Church and the people knew perfectly well that people also lived and died due to a lack of credit or too many bad loans.
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-even )
stdClass Object ( [id] => 18539 [title] => Not to love the world but to take care of humanity [alias] => not-to-love-the-world-but-to-take-care-of-humanity [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/2 - Monti di Pietà and Monti Frumentari speak of an original plural finance and the equity action of the Church.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 15/11/2020
"It is forbidden for appraisers to accept gifts or courtesies from pawn owners, or from other people in order to give effects a higher or lower estimate, but they must be loyal, just, and sincere in their duties, under penalty of ten Scudi for each altered estimate".
From the Archives of the Monte di Pietà of Imola
In the Middle Ages, divine mystery was contemplated in the mystery of the human condition and the poor, not the Pope, were the real first representatives of Christ on earth.
The Renaissance, a golden age in Italian history, was not only the time of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Leon Battista Alberti, Pico della Mirandola, Machiavelli and the Medici. It was also an extraordinary age for the work of the many Franciscan builders of the Monti di Pietà. Without taking this charismatic humanism into consideration, we cannot really understand modern Italy and Europe, and we cannot really understand what the Catholic Church really represented between the Middle Ages and modern times. These various credit institutions radically changed Italian finance from the mid-fifteenth century until at least the nineteenth century, when those seeds flourished into rural banks and savings banks. The bank in Italy was born plural, and not just for profit.
[fulltext] =>Let us dwell on these images of the Monti di Pietà. First of all, piety, that is, the image of the dead Christ in the arms of Mary. Why piety as an image of the buildings, chapels, banners of the Monti di Pietà? That image was already used by aid agencies and medieval hospitals. It symbolized one of the central moments of the Christian faith, much loved by the people of those centuries who knew the pain of life especially well, in particular the mothers and women who came to experience the death of so many, too many, sons and husbands. It was represented in almost all churches and by the greatest artists (Titian, Rubens, Michelangelo). A meeting between Christian piety and what was inherited from the Romans (the "pious" Aeneas), which linked it above all to children caring for their elderly parents. Its symbol in the icons was the pelican or the stork: the Roman civilization called the law that obliged children to take care of their parents, lex ciconiaria, as legend had it that storks did just that, take care of their parents. Popular piety is always greater than the theologies and dogmas of religions.
In those centuries, that central scene of faith was therefore translated as a form of piety-love towards one's neighbour, in particular for those who suffered: «The other wept, so that - because of pity - I fainted, as if I had met my death. And then I fell as a dead body falls» (Dante, Inferno, 5). Theology immediately became anthropology, Christianity itself revealed the face of God together with the face of the poor. Those believers, much more interested back then than we are today in heaven and hell, were able to give the name of "piety" to the most intimate embrace between man-God and his Mother. The divine mystery was eagerly contemplated and the mystery of man was beloved. In this aspect, the Middle Ages were all light. For the Franciscans, teachers of piety and charity, it was so natural to see a fruit of the same root of piety and mercy in the birth of those different Monti - piety, charity and mercy, three different words for theology, deeply intertwined and superimposed in popular piety.
The most popular effigy of Bernardino da Feltre, which represents him next to a mountain and holding two drapes with two phrases from the New Testament (in Latin) on them, is stupendous. The first: «Do not love the world» (1 John 2,15), the second: «Look after him» (Luke 10,35). Two phrases that together express the humanism of the Monti di Pietà. They did not love or follow the logic of the world (which in John is a symbol of evil), yet they took care of it. «Look after him» is in fact one of the sentences with which the parable of the Good Samaritan concludes, when he entrusts the half-dead man to the innkeeper: «‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have’». A perfect phrase for the Monti, because in it the Gospel of Luke associates an entrepreneur (the innkeeper) with the most beautiful act of piety in the New Testament. The Samaritan does not ask the innkeeper to host the victim for free - according to a certain logic he could have and should in fact have done so. No, instead he recognizes a fair price to be paid to those who were doing their job. And those "two pieces of silver" served to reconcile piety with economy - if money in the Gospels had only been represented by the thirty coins paid to Judas, it would have been a terrible message for all those who have to use money to live and let live. Perhaps it was not intentional, but those two sentences also represent the distillation of the battle of the Franciscans in favour of the payment of an interest rate on the loans of the Monti.
Other details help to enrich the story of that first spring season of solidarity finance. After a long period of preparation - the process often began with the preaching of the friar in time of Lent – the day the Bank was finally inaugurated, the community made a procession from the Franciscan church to the seat of the bank. With girls cheering and with children dressed in white holding the banner of the Monte. Wondrous. Pietro Avogadro described one of them, which took place in Verona in 1490: «An image created with such artistic skill and admirable genius as to be estimated among only the rarest masterpieces, was carried in procession to the sound of trumpets and flutes, towards the Monte di Pietà. The work was set on a broad base made up of canvases. The sides contained the symbols of all the virtues, of admirable splendour: in the centre, the Pietà, the inanimate body of Jesus in the arms of his mother, and then his favourite apostle. This sacred rite was overseen by thirty men assigned to worship, who, while carrying the image from the Monte itself, showcased this highly sacred moment, with the greatest of commitment and edification». Sacred, beautiful and solemn processions such as those in honour of the patron saint, the Madonna and Corpus Domini. For those Franciscans and the people a procession to honour the foundation of a bank was no less sacred than other functions - let us not forget that in the Middle Ages the first representative of Christ in the world was not the Pope: it was the poor. Even a different kind of bank can become a piece of heaven. The processions to celebrate the Eucharist and the Saints, which are never alternated with processions that celebrate the poor, too often end up losing the scent of the Gospel. This too speaks of the prophetic force of Francis' charism.
All this in the Centre-North part of the country. What about the South? The Monti had the greatest diffusion especially from the beginning of the seventeenth century (although Monte de l'Aquila was among the first, in 1466) in the Kingdom of Naples, also following a difficult and long economic crisis. With two characteristics: they were not always born from Franciscans or from ecclesiastics at all, and they were almost all free loan institutions, despite the Church having made the interest rate lawful with the Decree of Pope Leo X in 1515 regarding the Monti di Pietà. Being small institutions in general, most often housed in Convents and in parishes, they did not have large expenses, and were often supported by philanthropic institutions. This absolute "gratuitousness" did not help the duration and growth of the Monti di Pietà in the South, on the contrary, it complicated it. Antonio Genovesi wrote the following on the matter: «Around the beginning of the 16th century, the so-called Monti di Pietà were born in some parts of Italy... To relieve these bloody wears, a group of men who loved humanity established private entities with little funding, in which small sums were lent for free and larger sums with not much interest at all. These Monti were first administered with unscrupulous fidelity, since they are all the very first human establishments made in the fervour of virtue» (Lessons in Civil Economy, 1767).
However, what really developed the most in the South, also given its particular economic-productive structure, were the Frumentari Monti (also called wheat or numerary banks, and other similar names, in Sardinia, and in other Catholic countries of Europe). They were rural credit institutions, which also grew thanks to the great incentive provided by Pope Orsini (Benedict XIII), born in Gravina di Puglia, (the first one was founded when he was still the bishop of Benevento, in 1678). Even Lucerne Franciscan St. Francesco Antonio Fasani (1681 -1742), dedicated himself to the birth of credit for the poor. This wheat was honoured with the same care as the manna and the Eucharistic bread, because even this grain provided to give life.
The Frumentari Monti used wheat as a numerary. Sometimes they were born as complementary entities to the Monti di Pietà (which provided monetary credit). In fact, credit piety took many different forms in that civil and economic renaissance in Italy. Among these, the Monti of the dowry, Monti of the damsels or matrimonial Monti that were born with the main purpose of guaranteeing a dowry to the poorest girls.
In the second half of the eighteenth century, there were over 500 Frumentari Monti in the Kingdom of Naples, encouraged and supported by the main theorists of civil economy (A. Broggia, G.M. Galanti, J.B. Jannucci and D. Terlizzi de Feudis). The Wheat Banks were not free of charge, in part because interest paid in kind had always been less controversial than interest paid in money. The farmers estimated the grain "at level" (with the container) and returned it "full", the difference between the two quantities constituted the interest, estimated on average to around 5%.
The Frumentari Monti developed as a way of overcoming a type of agrarian contract, called “alla voce”, which was very widespread in the South since the Middle Ages. This contract was particularly vexatious and usurious for peasants, and fuelled the development of veritable parasitism and exploitation against the workers of the land. Trojano Odazi, a pupil of Genovesi and editor of the Milanese edition of his "Lessons" (1768), helped to demonstrate that the "alla voce" contract was a halter contract. In fact, in those contracts the merchant, who possessed the precious required liquidity, advanced money to the farmer at the time of sowing. The farmer then had to deliver a certain amount of wheat (or oil, wine, cheese) at the time of harvest to the merchant. The contract did not actually mention an established price, because that would have been established "verbally" (alla voce), that is the price announced in the square (the most important ones were Crotone, Gallipoli and Potenza) during the time of harvest. Obviously, however, the price of a product is lower at harvest time, as there is an excess of supply; and so the farmer ended up paying an interest of around 100% (per semester) on the cash advance received.
The observation of these injustices led those Franciscans, bishops, and men of good will to imitate the prophets: to observe, denounce, and act. Today there is no lack of new "alla voce", verbal contracts in our post-modern financial system. Unlike in past centuries, these oppressive contracts are not visible to the naked eye. But there are there. What is lacking are new Franciscans, new bishops, and men and women of good will to create new Frumentari Monti, wheat banks. There are some, but they are few and far between.
One of the places that will host the "Economy of Francesco" from November 19 to 21 will be the old Monte Frumentario in Assisi. A sign, a hope, and still the same call: «Take care of him».
[checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-11-15 05:39:34 [created_by] => 4501 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:41:12 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-11-15 05:39:34 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"images\/2020\/12\/11\/Schermata 2020-12-11 alle 07.06.36.jpg","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 621 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 10780 [ordering] => 43 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => lourdes.hercules.91@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-11-15 05:39:34 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( ) ) [slug] => 18539:not-to-love-the-world-but-to-take-care-of-humanity [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/2 - Monti di Pietà and Monti Frumentari speak of an original plural finance and the equity action of the Church.
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 15/11/2020
"It is forbidden for appraisers to accept gifts or courtesies from pawn owners, or from other people in order to give effects a higher or lower estimate, but they must be loyal, just, and sincere in their duties, under penalty of ten Scudi for each altered estimate".
From the Archives of the Monte di Pietà of Imola
In the Middle Ages, divine mystery was contemplated in the mystery of the human condition and the poor, not the Pope, were the real first representatives of Christ on earth.
The Renaissance, a golden age in Italian history, was not only the time of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Leon Battista Alberti, Pico della Mirandola, Machiavelli and the Medici. It was also an extraordinary age for the work of the many Franciscan builders of the Monti di Pietà. Without taking this charismatic humanism into consideration, we cannot really understand modern Italy and Europe, and we cannot really understand what the Catholic Church really represented between the Middle Ages and modern times. These various credit institutions radically changed Italian finance from the mid-fifteenth century until at least the nineteenth century, when those seeds flourished into rural banks and savings banks. The bank in Italy was born plural, and not just for profit.
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-odd )
stdClass Object ( [id] => 18541 [title] => This is why banks need a true secular holiness [alias] => this-is-why-banks-need-a-true-secular-holiness [introtext] =>The Market and the Temple/1 - As in other epochal phases in the past, the pandemic makes it clear that the economy should not be demonized, but converted
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 08/11/2020
The great lesson found in the foundation of the Monti di Pietà by the Franciscans tells us that we will not get out of this crisis in any way improved if we do not give life to new institutions first, including financial ones.
Great crises are always processes of "creative destruction". They make things that until yesterday seemed unshakable fall apart, and the resulting ashes give way to new things that were previously unthinkable. Throughout history, the great institutional changes have almost always been generated by collective moments of pain, by enormous social wounds that have sometimes even been able to give birth to a blessing. The religious wars between Catholics and Protestants gave rise to the stock exchange and central banks in many European countries in the seventeenth century. The Christian faith itself was no longer sufficient to guarantee commercial and financial exchange in Europe. Hence, it was necessary to create a new form of faith and a new source of trust (fides), something that was offered by new the economic and financial institutions from which capitalism flourished. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution created a serious credit crisis: Catholics and socialists responded by giving birth to rural banks, cooperative banks and savings banks. In the twentieth century, the world wars left us a legacy of new political and institutional innovations (from the European Community to the UN), but also new financial institutions (Bretton Woods). As if men were only able to look and aim higher together into that night, until finally seeing the stars, in moments of immense pain.
[fulltext] =>After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the monasteries also became an economic happening. While a world and an economy ended, a new world and a new oikonomia were being rebuilt within the walls of the abbeys: ora et labora. The builders of that new Europe understood that she would not be resurrected without resurrecting the labour market and the economy as well. And so, while they were saving the manuscripts and writings of Cicero and Isaiah, they also saved ancient minting of coins, accounting techniques, commercial codes, mercantile statutes, and above all, they made the monasteries a European network of hubs where fairs, businesses and exchange developed, because fides-trust was being safeguarded and nurtured there. The monks understood from reading the Gospel that the economy had a role that was much too important in life, and if it is not put at the service of life, it becomes the master of it. Hence, they took care of it.
Then, in the fifteenth century, the Franciscan movement generated the Monti di Pietà, in what was one of the most interesting and extraordinary, although largely underestimated and misunderstood, episodes of European economic history. The Monti di Pietà were decisive institutions for the Italian cities, for the poor, for families and for the economy as a whole. They were born from the tireless preaching of the observant Friars Minor, who from the mid-fifteenth century founded hundreds of them, especially in central and northern Italy. The cities began developing and became increasingly richer, but, as often happens, the enrichment of some (the bourgeoisie) did not bring with it the reduction of poverty but rather its increase. The Franciscans understood that there was a new form of "poverty Madonna" to be loved, and without any delay they gave birth to new banks, a new financial system that would also reach the excluded. And they did something amazing, which only an immense charisma like that of Francis could have generated. The banks, much more so yesterday than today, were icons of the "devil's dung", they were the "temples of mammon", the image of the she-wolf of greed. Francis began his story by saying "no" to that world of money, the most radical no that could have been imagined and that had in fact ever been imagined in Europe.
The banks of the time lent to the rich, and the poor often ended up in the hands of usurers. The fight against usury was the reason for the birth of the Monti di Pietà. Bernardino da Feltre, Giacomo della Marca, Giovanni da Capestrano, Domenico da Leonessa, Marco da Montegallo and many other friars made the foundation of the Monti their main work and effort - Savonarola also contributed to the foundation of the Monte di Firenze. Until 1515, there were sixty-six Friars Minor promoting the activity of the Monti di Pietà. Some of them have been proclaimed saints or blessed. It is wonderful that the Monte di Pietà was right in the centre of the effigy of these saints, (I personally recovered those of Bernardino da Feltre and Marco da Montegallo). The symbol of that Christian perfection was in fact a bank, which effectively turned from an icon of mortal sin into a symbol of Christian holiness. Like the Eucharist, like the sacraments and like the Gospel. An entirely biblical and evangelical secularity, which we have largely lost with the arrival of modern times, and which still leaves all those who (like me) believe that there are few things more "spiritual" than the double-entry method and a construction site, breathless.
Bernardino called the Monte di Pietà, the Monte of God (Monte di Dio): «Whoever helps one does well, he who helps two does better, and he who helps many does even more so. The Monte helps many. If you give money to a poor man so that he can buy bread or a pair of shoes, when he has spent the money, it is all over. However, if you deliver that money to the Monte you will help more people... Building churches, buying missals, chalices, vestments for mass, is a holy thing, but offering money to the Monte is holier still. Do not spend money on stone and lime, on churches, because everything will go up in smoke, spend it on what will not be lost, that is, giving to Christ in the poor» (The Sermons of Bernardino da Feltre, vol. II). The birth of the Monti was one of the most fascinating and generative paradoxes in European history. The dispossession of Francis, his total renunciation of his father Bernardone's economy and wealth, the act of "possessing nothing" and the "sine proprio" lead to the creation of banks two centuries later. And they were real banks, not charitable institutions, so much so that the foundation of the first bank of Ascoli Piceno in 1458, following the preaching of Marco da Montegallo, is not actually considered by some to be a real Monte due to the lack of payment of an interest on loans.
The issue of the interest on loans is in fact central. Bernardino da Feltre was the great advocate of the need for loans not to be entirely free; or rather, of the thesis that in order for the gratuity that animated the birth of the Monte to last and be sustainable it was necessary to pay an interest, albeit at the lowest rate possible. It was not an easy battle, because his opponents were theologians and jurists (many Dominicans) who accused the Monti of usury, precisely because of the payment of an interest greater than zero. Thus, Bernardino replied in the same Sermons: «Considering the greed of men and the lack of charity, it is better that those who resort to the Monte pay something and are served well, rather than not pay anything and be served badly. Do you want to be served badly? Then do not pay. Who could have greater experience regarding this than us friars? One comes to the convent, introduces oneself to the porter and says: I am willing to work your garden for free. He goes and does that, and shortly after, he asks for breakfast. That is fair and just» So, in the name of gratuitousness, many theologians actually prevented the birth of the Monti or publicly contested them, as in the case of the foundation of the Monte di Mantua in 1496.
This is one of the most important and convincing demonstrations of the difference between gratuitousness and that which is free: a contract, with the necessary payment, can contain more charis (gratuity) than an act of pure liberality. Gratuity in this case does not coincide with what is being given. The gratuitousness of the Monti was expressed in many other things: long-term lending (and not requesting the loan back within a month or a week, as the usurers did), asking for a rate that covered only the expenses, lending money only for real needs. If the borrower was unable to retrieve his pledge, he received more than what the Monte obtained from the sale. If possible, they lent money to everyone. They were non-profit institutions, or sine merito. Bernardino made a distinction between the interest that arose from a loan (wrongful) and the interest for a loan (to enable the existence of the Monte). In the name of pure gratuity, some Monti either did not begin their activity at all or soon ended up bankrupt, or became the property of some rich merchants who, by using the capital coming from community goods to cover the management costs, effectively transformed them into private goods and entities.
Finally, one rhetorical technique used by those Friars Minor, used above all by Marco da Montegallo, was particularly impressive. In order to show the seriousness of lending money to usurers, they compared the good that was done by lending to the Monte with the disproportionate wealth that the usurers obtained by investing that same sum. He wrote in his "Tabula della salute": «It needs to be known that with one hundred ducats given at thirty percent a year, after fifty years those hundred ducats that were the initial capital, including interest and accumulated capital, will have added up to: 49.750.556,7 ducats». An enormous sum, the result of compound interest (interest on interest), which must have greatly affected the imagination of his listeners - and ours. And in fact convinced them. Those Franciscans thus responded to the serious crisis of their time, giving birth to new banking institutions. They did this, because they knew the real needs of the people, and thus understood that in a great crisis it is also necessary to reform the economy and financial system, not just fear them, by creating new banks and not just criticizing the old ones.
Today we are in the midst of a world crisis not much different in size from the great crises of past centuries. New institutions will be needed, including financial and insurance ones, capable of managing the duration and the aftermath of Covid, which will leave the world even more unequal, with even poorer poor people. While we think about these innovations, the ancient creation of the Monti has some important lessons to teach us. The first one concerns the very nature of the economy and financial system. Banks and money are human creations; they are life and should not be demonized, because if we demonize them they will truly become demons. They should be treated as we treat life. Faced with a financial system that only serves to increase poverty, we can and must respond by creating a different financial system that reduces it.
Finally, this splendid Franciscan story suggests that even today it is probable that the new Monti di Pietà, which will more than certainly be very different from those of the fifteenth century, will not arise from wealthy merchants and profit oriented bankers, (who were always the first enemies of the foundation of the Monti). They will arise from those who know the poor, those who esteem them and love them, because they have received a charisma. Not necessarily from the poor, but certainly from friends of the poor. The friars were not the owners of the Monti; they were merely the promoters, the activators of the creation processes of those banks. Today we need new "Franciscans", connoisseurs and carers of the poor who, instead of cursing the economy and financial system, simply work to create a different one. A new secular holiness, new "effigies" with businesses and banks at the centre.
[checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [catid] => 1160 [created] => 2020-11-08 05:34:55 [created_by] => 4501 [created_by_alias] => Luigino Bruni [state] => 1 [modified] => 2021-03-01 11:41:57 [modified_by] => 64 [modified_by_name] => Antonella Ferrucci [publish_up] => 2020-11-08 05:34:55 [publish_down] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {"urla":false,"urlatext":"","targeta":"","urlb":false,"urlbtext":"","targetb":"","urlc":false,"urlctext":"","targetc":""} [attribs] => {"article_layout":"","show_title":"","link_titles":"","show_tags":"","show_intro":"","info_block_position":"","info_block_show_title":"","show_category":"","link_category":"","show_parent_category":"","link_parent_category":"","show_associations":"","show_author":"","link_author":"","show_create_date":"","show_modify_date":"","show_publish_date":"","show_item_navigation":"","show_icons":"","show_print_icon":"","show_email_icon":"","show_vote":"","show_hits":"","show_noauth":"","urls_position":"","alternative_readmore":"","article_page_title":"","show_publishing_options":"","show_article_options":"","show_urls_images_backend":"","show_urls_images_frontend":"","helix_ultimate_image":"images\/2020\/12\/11\/Schermata 2020-12-11 alle 07.06.24.jpg","helix_ultimate_image_alt_txt":"","spfeatured_image":"","helix_ultimate_article_format":"standard","helix_ultimate_audio":"","helix_ultimate_gallery":"","helix_ultimate_video":""} [metadata] => {"robots":"","author":"","rights":"","xreference":""} [metakey] => [metadesc] => [access] => 1 [hits] => 650 [xreference] => [featured] => 1 [language] => en-GB [on_img_default] => [readmore] => 10361 [ordering] => 44 [category_title] => EN - The Market and the Temple [category_route] => oikonomia/it-la-fiera-e-il-tempio [category_access] => 1 [category_alias] => en-the-market-and-the-temple [published] => 1 [parents_published] => 1 [lft] => 106 [author] => Luigino Bruni [author_email] => lourdes.hercules.91@gmail.com [parent_title] => Oikonomia [parent_id] => 1025 [parent_route] => oikonomia [parent_alias] => oikonomia [rating] => 0 [rating_count] => 0 [alternative_readmore] => [layout] => [params] => Joomla\Registry\Registry Object ( [data:protected] => stdClass Object ( [article_layout] => _:default [show_title] => 1 [link_titles] => 1 [show_intro] => 1 [info_block_position] => 0 [info_block_show_title] => 1 [show_category] => 1 [link_category] => 1 [show_parent_category] => 1 [link_parent_category] => 1 [show_associations] => 0 [flags] => 1 [show_author] => 0 [link_author] => 0 [show_create_date] => 1 [show_modify_date] => 0 [show_publish_date] => 1 [show_item_navigation] => 1 [show_vote] => 0 [show_readmore] => 0 [show_readmore_title] => 0 [readmore_limit] => 100 [show_tags] => 1 [show_icons] => 1 [show_print_icon] => 1 [show_email_icon] => 1 [show_hits] => 0 [record_hits] => 1 [show_noauth] => 0 [urls_position] => 1 [captcha] => [show_publishing_options] => 1 [show_article_options] => 1 [save_history] => 1 [history_limit] => 10 [show_urls_images_frontend] => 0 [show_urls_images_backend] => 1 [targeta] => 0 [targetb] => 0 [targetc] => 0 [float_intro] => left [float_fulltext] => left [category_layout] => _:blog [show_category_heading_title_text] => 0 [show_category_title] => 0 [show_description] => 0 [show_description_image] => 0 [maxLevel] => 0 [show_empty_categories] => 0 [show_no_articles] => 0 [show_subcat_desc] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles] => 0 [show_cat_tags] => 1 [show_base_description] => 1 [maxLevelcat] => -1 [show_empty_categories_cat] => 0 [show_subcat_desc_cat] => 0 [show_cat_num_articles_cat] => 0 [num_leading_articles] => 0 [num_intro_articles] => 14 [num_columns] => 2 [num_links] => 0 [multi_column_order] => 1 [show_subcategory_content] => -1 [show_pagination_limit] => 1 [filter_field] => hide [show_headings] => 1 [list_show_date] => 0 [date_format] => [list_show_hits] => 1 [list_show_author] => 1 [list_show_votes] => 0 [list_show_ratings] => 0 [orderby_pri] => none [orderby_sec] => rdate [order_date] => published [show_pagination] => 2 [show_pagination_results] => 1 [show_featured] => show [show_feed_link] => 1 [feed_summary] => 0 [feed_show_readmore] => 0 [sef_advanced] => 1 [sef_ids] => 1 [custom_fields_enable] => 1 [show_page_heading] => 0 [layout_type] => blog [menu_text] => 1 [menu_show] => 1 [secure] => 0 [helixultimatemenulayout] => {"width":600,"menualign":"right","megamenu":0,"showtitle":1,"faicon":"","customclass":"","dropdown":"right","badge":"","badge_position":"","badge_bg_color":"","badge_text_color":"","layout":[]} [helixultimate_enable_page_title] => 1 [helixultimate_page_title_alt] => Oikonomia [helixultimate_page_subtitle] => Sul Confine e Oltre [helixultimate_page_title_heading] => h2 [page_title] => The Market and the Temple [page_description] => [page_rights] => [robots] => [access-view] => 1 ) [initialized:protected] => 1 [separator] => . ) [displayDate] => 2020-11-08 05:34:55 [tags] => Joomla\CMS\Helper\TagsHelper Object ( [tagsChanged:protected] => [replaceTags:protected] => [typeAlias] => [itemTags] => Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [tag_id] => 18 [id] => 18 [parent_id] => 1 [lft] => 33 [rgt] => 34 [level] => 1 [path] => luigino-bruni [title] => Luigino Bruni [alias] => luigino-bruni [note] => [description] => [published] => 1 [checked_out] => 0 [checked_out_time] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [access] => 1 [params] => {"tag_layout":"","tag_link_class":"label label-info"} [metadesc] => [metakey] => [metadata] => {"author":"","robots":""} [created_user_id] => 611 [created_time] => 2015-11-14 21:22:09 [created_by_alias] => [modified_user_id] => 609 [modified_time] => 2020-08-01 10:35:46 [images] => {"image_intro":"","float_intro":"","image_intro_alt":"","image_intro_caption":"","image_fulltext":"","float_fulltext":"","image_fulltext_alt":"","image_fulltext_caption":""} [urls] => {} [hits] => 65730 [language] => * [version] => 1 [publish_up] => 2015-11-14 20:22:09 [publish_down] => 2015-11-14 20:22:09 ) ) ) [slug] => 18541:this-is-why-banks-need-a-true-secular-holiness [parent_slug] => 1025:oikonomia [catslug] => 1160:en-the-market-and-the-temple [event] => stdClass Object ( [afterDisplayTitle] => [beforeDisplayContent] => [afterDisplayContent] => ) [text] =>The Market and the Temple/1 - As in other epochal phases in the past, the pandemic makes it clear that the economy should not be demonized, but converted
By Luigino Bruni
Published in Avvenire 08/11/2020
The great lesson found in the foundation of the Monti di Pietà by the Franciscans tells us that we will not get out of this crisis in any way improved if we do not give life to new institutions first, including financial ones.
Great crises are always processes of "creative destruction". They make things that until yesterday seemed unshakable fall apart, and the resulting ashes give way to new things that were previously unthinkable. Throughout history, the great institutional changes have almost always been generated by collective moments of pain, by enormous social wounds that have sometimes even been able to give birth to a blessing. The religious wars between Catholics and Protestants gave rise to the stock exchange and central banks in many European countries in the seventeenth century. The Christian faith itself was no longer sufficient to guarantee commercial and financial exchange in Europe. Hence, it was necessary to create a new form of faith and a new source of trust (fides), something that was offered by new the economic and financial institutions from which capitalism flourished. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution created a serious credit crisis: Catholics and socialists responded by giving birth to rural banks, cooperative banks and savings banks. In the twentieth century, the world wars left us a legacy of new political and institutional innovations (from the European Community to the UN), but also new financial institutions (Bretton Woods). As if men were only able to look and aim higher together into that night, until finally seeing the stars, in moments of immense pain.
[jcfields] => Array ( ) [type] => intro [oddeven] => item-even )