|
Objection 1: It would seem that a man is bound to restore whatever
profits he has made out of money gotten by usury. For the Apostle
says (Rm. 11:16): "If the root be holy, so are the
branches." Therefore likewise if the root be rotten so are the
branches. But the root was infected with usury. Therefore whatever
profit is made therefrom is infected with usury. Therefore he is bound
to restore it.
Objection 2: Further, it is laid down (Extra, De Usuris, in
the Decretal: 'Cum tu sicut asseris'): "Property accruing from
usury must be sold, and the price repaid to the persons from whom the
usury was extorted." Therefore, likewise, whatever else is acquired
from usurious money must be restored.
Objection 3: Further, that which a man buys with the proceeds of
usury is due to him by reason of the money he paid for it. Therefore
he has no more right to the thing purchased than to the money he paid.
But he was bound to restore the money gained through usury. Therefore
he is also bound to restore what he acquired with it.
On the contrary, A man may lawfully hold what he has lawfully
acquired. Now that which is acquired by the proceeds of usury is
sometimes lawfully acquired. Therefore it may be lawfully retained.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), there are certain
things whose use is their consumption, and which do not admit of
usufruct, according to law (ibid., ad 3). Wherefore if such like
things be extorted by means of usury, for instance money, wheat, wine
and so forth, the lender is not bound to restore more than he received
(since what is acquired by such things is the fruit not of the thing
but of human industry), unless indeed the other party by losing some
of his own goods be injured through the lender retaining them: for then
he is bound to make good the loss.
On the other hand, there are certain things whose use is not their
consumption: such things admit of usufruct, for instance house or land
property and so forth. Wherefore if a man has by usury extorted from
another his house or land, he is bound to restore not only the house or
land but also the fruits accruing to him therefrom, since they are the
fruits of things owned by another man and consequently are due to him.
Reply to Objection 1: The root has not only the character of
matter, as money made by usury has; but has also somewhat the
character of an active cause, in so far as it administers nourishment.
Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: Further, Property acquired from usury does
not belong to the person who paid usury, but to the person who bought
it. Yet he that paid usury has a certain claim on that property just
as he has on the other goods of the usurer. Hence it is not prescribed
that such property should be assigned to the persons who paid usury,
since the property is perhaps worth more than what they paid in usury,
but it is commanded that the property be sold, and the price be
restored, of course according to the amount taken in usury.
Reply to Objection 3: The proceeds of money taken in usury are due
to the person who acquired them not by reason of the usurious money as
instrumental cause, but on account of his own industry as principal
cause. Wherefore he has more right to the goods acquired with usurious
money than to the usurious money itself.
|
|