>>508777299
I don't understand your issue here re. the church and people buying liquor. How is that the church's fault? The church officially was against that and priests preached against drinking too much (so being a drunk or dependant) and exploiting people... what else can it do while respecting choice and (unlike now) that your money is yours, and not having absolute power over secular authorities or people? It can tell people what to do or not to do, that it is a sin, it can tell secular officials "do not do it"... do not accept bribes, think of the people...
Those things that Jews got rich from, those areas... I mean prostitution dens, usury, preying on getting poor men to be dependant drunks... all of that was condemned by the church, it's a sin, you shouldn't engage, those activities should be illegal (it was prohibited and banned when the church was strongest, so some existed but it was not widespread, it was very contained), should clamp down on it... how is it the churches fault that there were people who didn't follow it's teachings and corrupt secular officials. So at least in medieval times the church had more power, so when it said things, people had to listen more, but in these last few centuries, as it's power weakened... what could it do?

>>508778008
>jews received the privilege of usury
Where? How? That's an insane statement and false. The Church condemned usury and said Christian princes shouldn't engage or deal with any Jews that are exploiting their people, the church also called for princes and secular authorities to not work against Christians opposing Jews or clamping down or boycotting Jews for doing things like usury or things that hurt the Christian population.