|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not a sin to take usury for
money lent. For no man sins through following the example of Christ.
But Our Lord said of Himself (Lk. 19:23): "At My coming
I might have exacted it," i.e. the money lent, "with usury."
Therefore it is not a sin to take usury for lending money.
Objection 2: Further, according to Ps. 18:8, "The law of
the Lord is unspotted," because, to wit, it forbids sin. Now
usury of a kind is allowed in the Divine law, according to Dt.
23:19,20: "Thou shalt not fenerate to thy brother money, nor
corn, nor any other thing, but to the stranger": nay more, it is
even promised as a reward for the observance of the Law, according to
Dt. 28:12: "Thou shalt fenerate to many nations, and shalt
not borrow of any one." Therefore it is not a sin to take usury.
Objection 3: Further, in human affairs justice is determined by
civil laws. Now civil law allows usury to be taken. Therefore it
seems to be lawful.
Objection 4: Further, the counsels are not binding under sin.
But, among other counsels we find (Lk. 6:35): "Lend,
hoping for nothing thereby." Therefore it is not a sin to take
usury.
Objection 5: Further, it does not seem to be in itself sinful to
accept a price for doing what one is not bound to do. But one who has
money is not bound in every case to lend it to his neighbor. Therefore
it is lawful for him sometimes to accept a price for lending it.
Objection 6: Further, silver made into coins does not differ
specifically from silver made into a vessel. But it is lawful to
accept a price for the loan of a silver vessel. Therefore it is also
lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver coin. Therefore
usury is not in itself a sin.
Objection 7: Further, anyone may lawfully accept a thing which its
owner freely gives him. Now he who accepts the loan, freely gives the
usury. Therefore he who lends may lawfully take the usury.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:25): "If thou lend
money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou
shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with
usuries."
I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself,
because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads
to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this
evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which
consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for
drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such
like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the
thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted
the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to
transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine
separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing
twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would
evidently commit a sin of injustice. In like manner he commits an
injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz.
one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price
of the use, which is called usury.
On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist
in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to
destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for
instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house
while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he
may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For
this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house,
and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he
has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit.
i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and
consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or
alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very
nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which
payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other
ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has
taken in usury.
Reply to Objection 1: In this passage usury must be taken
figuratively for the increase of spiritual goods which God exacts from
us, for He wishes us ever to advance in the goods which we receive
from Him: and this is for our own profit not for His.
Reply to Objection 2: The Jews were forbidden to take usury from
their brethren, i.e. from other Jews. By this we are given to
understand that to take usury from any man is evil simply, because we
ought to treat every man as our neighbor and brother, especially in the
state of the Gospel, whereto all are called. Hence it is said
without any distinction in Ps. 14:5: "He that hath not put out
his money to usury," and (Ezech. 18:8): "Who hath not taken
usury." They were permitted, however, to take usury from
foreigners, not as though it were lawful, but in order to avoid a
greater evil, lest, to wit, through avarice to which they were prone
according to Is. 56:11, they should take usury from the Jews
who were worshippers of God.
Where we find it promised to them as a reward, "Thou shalt fenerate
to many nations," etc., fenerating is to be taken in a broad sense
for lending, as in Ecclus. 29:10, where we read: "Many have
refused to fenerate, not out of wickedness," i.e. they would not
lend. Accordingly the Jews are promised in reward an abundance of
wealth, so that they would be able to lend to others.
Reply to Objection 3: Human laws leave certain things unpunished,
on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would
be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and
punishments appointed for them. Wherefore human law has permitted
usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing with justice, but
lest the advantage of many should be hindered. Hence it is that in
civil law [Inst. II, iv, de Usufructu] it is stated that
"those things according to natural reason and civil law which are
consumed by being used, do not admit of usufruct," and that "the
senate did not (nor could it) appoint a usufruct to such things, but
established a quasi-usufruct," namely by permitting usury. Moreover
the Philosopher, led by natural reason, says (Polit. i, 3) that
"to make money by usury is exceedingly unnatural."
Reply to Objection 4: A man is not always bound to lend, and for
this reason it is placed among the counsels. Yet it is a matter of
precept not to seek profit by lending: although it may be called a
matter of counsel in comparison with the maxims of the Pharisees, who
deemed some kinds of usury to be lawful, just as love of one's enemies
is a matter of counsel. Or again, He speaks here not of the hope of
usurious gain, but of the hope which is put in man. For we ought not
to lend or do any good deed through hope in man, but only through hope
in God.
Reply to Objection 5: He that is not bound to lend, may accept
repayment for what he has done, but he must not exact more. Now he is
repaid according to equality of justice if he is repaid as much as he
lent. Wherefore if he exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which
has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a
price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.
Reply to Objection 6: The principal use of a silver vessel is not
its consumption, and so one may lawfully sell its use while retaining
one's ownership of it. On the other hand the principal use of silver
money is sinking it in exchange, so that it is not lawful to sell its
use and at the same time expect the restitution of the amount lent. It
must be observed, however, that the secondary use of silver vessels
may be an exchange, and such use may not be lawfully sold. In like
manner there may be some secondary use of silver money; for instance,
a man might lend coins for show, or to be used as security.
Reply to Objection 7: He who gives usury does not give it
voluntarily simply, but under a certain necessity, in so far as he
needs to borrow money which the owner is unwilling to lend without
usury.
|
|