Now we're arguing that usury isn't a sin? I have oft times seen it ignored, but rarely defended. Usury is, at its essence, taking advantage of someone who cannot afford a good now by forcing them to pay you extra for it in the future; it is a taking advantage of those who do not have by those who have and seek to increase their wealth at the expense of the disadvantaged. It remains today what it always was an enriching of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
If things like this evolve to become acceptable to christian moral theology how can we claim to have some absolute moral code that places our theology above atheistic humanist philosophy? In fact, it would seem that Christian moral theology has the potential to be even more realistic, since we can (as we have before, consider the inquisition) overturn our moral principle of love of neighbour on the basis that we are 'doing God's will'. At least atheists don't have that cop-out, potentially making their moral code more stable and more absolute.