Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 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.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accipere usuram pro pecunia mutuata non sit peccatum. Nullus enim peccat ex hoc quod sequitur exemplum christi.

Sed dominus de seipso dicit, Luc. XIX, ego veniens cum usuris exegissem illam, scilicet pecuniam mutuatam.

Ergo non est peccatum accipere usuram pro mutuo pecuniae.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut dicitur in psalm., lex domini immaculata, quia scilicet peccatum prohibet. Sed in lege divina conceditur aliqua usura, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, non faenerabis fratri tuo ad usuram pecuniam, nec fruges nec quamlibet aliam rem, sed alieno.

Et, quod plus est, etiam in praemium repromittitur pro lege servata, secundum illud Deut. XXVIII, faenerabis gentibus multis; et ipse a nullo faenus accipies.

Ergo accipere usuram non est peccatum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, in rebus humanis determinatur iustitia per leges civiles. Sed secundum eas conceditur usuras accipere.

Ergo videtur non esse illicitum.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, praetermittere consilia non obligat ad peccatum.

Sed Luc. VI inter alia consilia ponitur, date mutuum, nihil inde sperantes.

Ergo accipere usuram non est peccatum.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, pretium accipere quo eo quod quis facere non tenetur, non videtur esse secundum se peccatum. Sed non in quolibet casu tenetur pecuniam habens eam proximo mutuare.

Ergo licet ei aliquando pro mutuo accipere pretium.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, argentum monetatum, et in vasa formatum, non differt specie. Sed licet accipere pretium pro vasis argenteis accommodatis. Ergo etiam licet accipere pretium pro mutuo argenti monetati. Usura ergo non est secundum se peccatum.

Argumentum 7

Praeterea, quilibet potest licite accipere rem quam ei dominus rei voluntarie tradit. Sed ille qui accipit mutuum voluntarie tradit usuram. Ergo ille qui mutuat licite potest accipere.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXII, si pecuniam mutuam dederis populo meo pauperi qui habitat tecum, non urgebis eum quasi exactor, nec usuris opprimes.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod accipere usuram pro pecunia mutuata est secundum se iniustum, quia venditur id quod non est, per quod manifeste inaequalitas constituitur, quae iustitiae contrariatur.

Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod quaedam res sunt quarum usus est ipsarum rerum consumptio, sicut vinum consumimus eo utendo ad potum, et triticum consumimus eo utendo ad cibum. Unde in talibus non debet seorsum computari usus rei a re ipsa, sed cuicumque conceditur usus, ex hoc ipso conceditur res. Et propter hoc in talibus per mutuum transfertur dominium. Si quis ergo seorsum vellet vendere vinum et seorsum vellet vendere usum vini, venderet eandem rem bis, vel venderet id quod non est. Unde manifeste per iniustitiam peccaret. Et simili ratione, iniustitiam committit qui mutuat vinum aut triticum petens sibi duas recompensationes, unam quidem restitutionem aequalis rei, aliam vero pretium usus, quod usura dicitur.

Quaedam vero sunt quorum usus non est ipsa rei consumptio, sicut usus domus est inhabitatio, non autem dissipatio. Et ideo in talibus seorsum potest utrumque concedi, puta cum aliquis tradit alteri dominium domus, reservato sibi usu ad aliquod tempus; vel e converso cum quis concedit alicui usum domus, reservato sibi eius dominio. Et propter hoc licite potest homo accipere pretium pro usu domus, et praeter hoc petere domum commodatam, sicut patet in conductione et locatione domus.

Pecunia autem, secundum philosophum, in V ethic. Et in I polit., principaliter est inventa ad commutationes faciendas, et ita proprius et principalis pecuniae usus est ipsius consumptio sive distractio, secundum quod in commutationes expenditur. Et propter hoc secundum se est illicitum pro usu pecuniae mutuatae accipere pretium, quod dicitur usura.

Et sicut alia iniuste acquisita tenetur homo restituere, ita pecuniam quam per usuram accepit.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod usura ibi metaphorice accipitur pro superexcrescentia bonorum spiritualium, quam exigit deus volens ut in bonis acceptis ab eo semper proficiamus.

Quod est ad utilitatem nostram, non eius.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Iudaeis prohibitum fuit accipere usuram a fratribus suis, scilicet Iudaeis, per quod datur intelligi quod accipere usuram a quocumque homine est simpliciter malum; debemus enim omnem hominem habere quasi proximum et fratrem, praecipue in statu evangelii, ad quod omnes vocantur. Unde in psalm. Absolute dicitur, qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad usuram; et Ezech. XVIII, qui usuram non acceperit.

Quod autem ab extraneis usuram acciperent, non fuit eis concessum quasi licitum, sed permissum ad maius malum vitandum, ne scilicet a Iudaeis, deum colentibus, usuras acciperent, propter avaritiam, cui dediti erant, ut habetur Isaiae LVI.

Quod autem in praemium promittitur, faenerabis gentibus multis etc., faenus ibi large accipitur pro mutuo, sicut et Eccli. XXIX dicitur, multi non causa nequitiae non faenerati sunt, idest non mutuaverunt.

Promittitur ergo in praemium Iudaeis abundantia divitiarum, ex qua contingit quod aliis mutuare possint.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod leges humanae dimittunt aliqua peccata impunita propter conditiones hominum imperfectorum, in quibus multae utilitates impedirentur si omnia peccata districte prohiberentur poenis adhibitis. Et ideo usuras lex humana concessit, non quasi existimans eas esse secundum iustitiam, sed ne impedirentur utilitates multorum.

Unde in ipso iure civili dicitur quod res quae usu consumuntur neque ratione naturali neque civili recipiunt usumfructum, et quod senatus non fecit earum rerum usumfructum, nec enim poterat; sed quasi usumfructum constituit, concedens scilicet usuras.

Et philosophus, naturali ratione ductus, dicit, in I polit., quod usuraria acquisitio pecuniarum est maxime praeter naturam.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod dare mutuum non semper tenetur homo, et ideo quantum ad hoc ponitur inter consilia. Sed quod homo lucrum de mutuo non quaerat, hoc cadit sub ratione praecepti.

Potest tamen dici consilium per comparationem ad dicta Pharisaeorum, qui putabant usuram aliquam esse licitam, sicut et dilectio inimicorum est consilium.

Vel loquitur ibi non de spe usurarii lucri, sed de spe quae ponitur in homine.

Non enim debemus mutuum dare, vel quodcumque bonum facere, propter spem hominis, sed propter spem dei.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod ille qui mutuare non tenetur recompensationem potest accipere eius quod fecit, sed non amplius debet exigere. Recompensatur autem sibi secundum aequalitatem iustitiae si tantum ei reddatur quantum mutuavit. Unde si amplius exigat pro usufructu rei quae alium usum non habet nisi consumptionem substantiae, exigit pretium eius quod non est. Et ita est iniusta exactio.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod usus principalis vasorum argenteorum non est ipsa eorum consumptio, et ideo usus eorum potest vendi licite, servato dominio rei. Usus autem principalis pecuniae argenteae est distractio pecuniae in commutationes.

Unde non licet eius usum vendere cum hoc quod aliquis velit eius restitutionem quod mutuo dedit. Sciendum tamen quod secundarius usus argenteorum vasorum posset esse commutatio. Et talem usum eorum vendere non liceret. Et similiter potest esse aliquis alius secundarius usus pecuniae argenteae, ut puta si quis concederet pecuniam signatam ad ostentationem, vel ad ponendum loco pignoris.

Et talem usum pecuniae licite homo vendere potest.

Ad 7

Ad septimum dicendum quod ille qui dat usuram non simpliciter voluntarie dat, sed cum quadam necessitate, inquantum indiget pecuniam accipere mutuo, quam ille qui habet non vult sine usura mutuare.