Utrum Mutuare ad Usuram sit Peccatum Mortale, II

1280px-el_greco_059

I respond, it is to be said that to give money in loan at usury is a mortal sin.  Nor is it only a sin because it is prohibited; but rather is prohibited because it is secundum se a sin.  For it is against natural justice.  And this is manifest, if we should rightly consider the account of usury.  For it is called usury from use, fom this, to wit, that a certain price is accepted for the use of money, as if the use itself of the money lent were being sold.  It is to be considered, however, that of diverse things there is a diverse use.  For there are certain things of which the use is the consumption of the substance of the things themselves, as the proper use of wine is that it should be drunk, and in this the substance of the wine is consumed; and likewise the proper use of wheat or bread is that is should be eaten, which is the consumption of the wheat itself or bread; so also the proper use of money is that it should be expended for the exchange of other things.  For numismata are invented for the sake of exchange, as the philosopher says in Politics, VII.  But there are certain things the use of which is not the consumption of the substance of the thing itself, as the use of a house is inhabitation.  It is not, however, of the account of inhabitation that the house should be destroyed; if however it should happen that the house by the inhabiting should be in something bettered or worsened, this is per accidens; and the same is to be said about a horse or a cloak, and other things of this sort.  Because, however, a thing of this sort is not consumed through use strictly speaking, therefore differently either the thing itself or the use is able to be given or sold, or either together.  For someone is able to sell a house, retaining to himself the use of the house for a time; and likewise someone is able to sell the use of a house, retaining to himself the property and ownership of the house.  But in those things of which the use is consumption, the use of the thing is not other than the thing itself, whence to whomever is given the use of such a thing, is given also the ownership of the thing itself, and conversely.

When, therefore, someone lends money under this pact, that the money should be restored to him whole, and further wishes to have a certain price for the use of the money, it is manifest that he sells separately the use of the money and the substance itself of the money.  The use, however, of money, as has been said, is not other than its substance; whence either he sells what is not, or else he sells the same twice, to wit the money itself of which the use is consumption of it.  And this is manifestly against the account of natural justice.  Whence, to lend money for usury is secundum se a mortal sin: and there is the same account regarding all other things of which the substance is consumed through use; as is manifest in wine, wheat, and other things of this sort.

Utrum Mutuare ad Usuram sit Peccatum Mortale, I

vieja_usurera_alta_resolucion

Fourth, it is asked whether to lend money at usury is a mortal sin.

And it seems that {it is} not.

  1. For, no mortal sin is conceded in divine law. But to give a loan at usury is conceded in the divine law; for it is said (Deut. 23:19) “You shall not lend to your brother money at usury, nor the fruits of the earth, nor whatever other thing, but to a stranger.”
  2. But it is to be said, that this is not conceded to the people, but is more permitted on account of its hardness, just as also the letter of divorce. But against {this}, that which is permitted as evil is not promised as the reward of justice: for what is promised as a reward, is induced as good and to be desired.  But to give a loan at usury is promised in the law of God as the reward of justice; for it is said (Deut. 28:12) “You will lend to many nations, and from none shall you yourself take a loan.”  Therefore, to give a loan at usury is not a mortal sin.
  3. Beyond these things, to act beyond a counsel is not a sin: because as is said (1 Cor. 7:28) a woman does not sin if she marry, although she acts beyond the counsel of virginity. But to give a loan without usury, is put among the counsels; for it is said (Luke 6:27, 35) “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… and give a loan hoping nothing thence;” in which usury is prohibited, as many expound.  Therefore, to give a loan at usury is not a mortal sin.
  4. Beyond these, just as a man has dominion of his own house or horse, so also he has dominion of his own money. But a man is able to let his own house or horse for a price.  Therefore, by an equal reason a man is able to accept a reward for money which he lends.
  5. Beyond these, it does not seem to be an illicit pact, if someone should be obliged to that to which he is held by natural law; but a man is held by natural law that he recompense him who confers a benefit on him. He, however, who lends money, confers some benefit; for he comes under the necessity of the one needing.  Therefore, if for this benefit someone should oblige by a certain pact him to whom he lends to this, that he should retribute something to him, it does not seem to be an illicit pact.
  6. Beyond these, positive law is derived from natural law, as Tullius says in his rhetoric. But the civil law permits usuries.  Therefore, it is not against natural law to give a loan at usury.  Therefore, it is not a sin.
  7. Beyond these, if to give a loan at usury should be a sin, it is necessary that it be opposed to some virtue; and since it consists in a certain communication, to wit in a loan, it seems most to be opposed to justice, if it should be a sin: for justice is established about communications of this sort, as is said in the fifth book of the Ethics. But it is not opposed to justice: for it is not able to be said that he who pays usury suffers injustice; for neither is the unjust thing suffered from himself, because no one makes an injustice to himself, as the philosopher proves in the fifth book of the Ethics, nor even from another, because no injustice is suffered from another except through fraud or violence, of which neither is in the proposed; because willing and knowing he who accepts the loan pays the usury.  Therefore, in no way does he suffer an injustice; therefore neither does the usurer do an injustice; therefore he does not sin.
  8. But it is to be said, that there is a mixed violence: for he who accepts the loan wishes to give usury as if coerced. But, against {this}, the mixed violence has a place where some necessity is imminent, as is manifest in him who throws merchandise into the sea lest the ship should perish.  But sometimes someone accepts a loan at usury without a great necessity.  Therefore, at least in such a case, to grant a loan at usury is not a mortal sin.
  9. Beyond these, anyone is able to alienate that of which he is the master. But he who gives usury is the master of his own money, which he gives to the usurer.  Therefore, he is able to alienate it; and so the usurer who receives it, can licitly retain it.
  10. Beyond these, two persons concur in the contract of the loan, to wit the debtor and the creditor. But the creditor is able to dismiss with regard to that which is owed to him.  Therefore, also the debtor is able to give more without sin.
  11. Beyond these, it is much more grave to kill a man than to accept a price for lent money. But to kill a man is licit in some case.  Therefore much more is it licit to give money at usury in some case.
  12. Beyond these, that to which a man is obliged can licitly be exacted from him. But he who gives usury, has obliged himself to this when he accepted the loan.  Therefore the usurer can licitly exact {this}.
  13. Beyond these, simony is commited, whatever gift is accepted either by tongue, or by hand, or by flattery. If therefore to accept a gift by hand for lent money should be a mortal sin, by an equal reason it also seems that even should whatever flattery be accepted for lent money, it should be a mortal sin; which seems exceedingly harsh.
  14. Beyond these, interest is twofold. A certain one from this {fact} that something is not {accruing} to {the lender}, because to wit someone has not acquired what he would have been able to acquire, and to this someone is not obliged to pay interest.  Interest from this that something is {lacking} from {the lender} is otherwise, because to wit something is subtracted from someone from this which he had; and about such, an obligation to pay interest is born.  But it happens sometimes that someone suffers loss from lent money in this which he had.  Therefore, it seems that he is able for this to accept something to be between without sin.
  15. Beyond these, it seems more praiseworthy to grant someone money for something useful than for ostentation only. But when someone grants someone his money for the sake of ostentation, that he might show himself wealthy, he is able without sin to accept a price thence.  Therefore, much more, if he should grant his money for some necessity.
  16. Beyond these, the deeds of Christ are proposed to us in holy Sripture that we should imitate them, according to that of John (13:15) “I have given to you an example, that whatever I have done to you, so also you should do.” But the lord says, about himself, (Luke 19:23) “I coming should have exacted that with usury,” to wit the lent money.  Therefore, to exact usury is not a sin.
  17. Beyond these, whoever consents to someone sinning mortally, himself also sins mortally: for it is said (Romans 1:32) that they are worthy of death; and not only those who do those things, but also those who consent to those doing {them}. But he who accepts money in a loan at usuries, consents to the one accepting usuries.  If, therefore, to lend money at usuries is a mortal sin, also to accept money in a loan under usuries, will be a mortal sin; which seems to be false through the contrary custom of many good men.
  18. Beyond these, he who subministrates to the one sinning mortally, seems to sin, just as if someone should lend arms to a raging man, or to one wishing to murder. If, therefore, the usurer lending money at usuries sins mortally, it seems that also he who deposits monies with him sins mortally.
  19. But it is to be said, that if without necessity someone should accept money in a loan under usuries, or should deposit his own money with a usurer, he sins mortally; but if from necessity, he is excused from sin. But against {this}, the necessity of taking a loan under usuries is not able to be except to avoid some temporal loss.  But for no temporal loss ought we to consent to or minister material for the sin of another; because we ought more to love the soul of our neighbor than all temporal goods.  Therefore, for such a necessity the aforesaid are not excused from mortal sin.
  20. Beyond these, theft seems to be a greater sin than to give money in a loan at usury; because that is altogether involuntary, this however is in some way voluntary, on the part of him whose money is taken. But theft is sometimes able to be licit, as is manifest from the sons of Israel, who took from the Egyptians vessels in loan, which they did not return, as is said (Exodus 12:35-36).  Therefore, much more, to lend money at usury, is able to be without sin.

But against {these} is

  1. What Gregory of Nyssa says: “If someone should call the malignant invention of interest theft or homicide, he will not sin. For what does it refer to but to posess anything seized with the wall undermined, and, by necessity, to posess the illicit gains of interests?”  But murder and theft are mortal sins.  Therefore also to give money in a loan at usury is a mortal sin.
  2. Further, if the same is in the the same, and the opposite in the opposite, as the Philosopher says. But not to give money in loan at usury leads men to life; for it is said in Ezechiel (18:17), that “Who hath not taken usury (…) living he shall live;” and in the Psalms (14:5), “He that hath not put out his money to usury (…)” this one shall be blessed by the Lord.  Therefore, to take usury leads to death and removes Divine blessing.  It is therefore a mortal sin.
  3. Further, everything which is against a precept of the Divine law is a mortal sin. But to give money at usury is against a precept of the Divine law; for it is said in Exodus (22:25) “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries.”  Therefore to lend money at usury is a mortal sin.

 

Centennial

˜d
Frandelicious Sits in State While Promethean Pelagians are Beheaded

It is 2116, and excitement is in the air.  It is the Centennial.  Odes have been commissioned for the occasion.  All the festive symbols of Equality and Diversity have been brought out for this great celebration.  The Centennial is celebrated on the Feast of Infertility, which was established to supercede the suppressed feast of Easter.  The suppression of Easter was a result of the Great Restoration of his Supreme and Universal All-Holiness, Frandelicious, Supreme Head of the Church.  We must look back and consider all that we have gained, and from what a fate we were saved by this wonderful Individual, with gratitude to the Holy Spirit Of Surprises which he created within His Worshipful Breast.  So, keeping in mind our final end of contemplating eternally the Person Frandelicious in the Eternal Casa Santa Marta, we look back with joy in order to look forward with creativity, in an open mind and an open heart.

In the early 21st century the world was in a desperate situation indeed; the progress of centuries of love and equality was about to be erased in favor of feudalism, Latin liturgies, and toxic masculinity.  The most powerful nation on earth, the Untitled Sheets of America, elected that year an unqualified micro-agressor, Ronald K. Thump, as their president.  The toxic Communist Opressor Feudalists in Brussia had hacked all the voting machines of their midwest and ignorancebelt regions, in order to subvert the abundant motherly love flowing from the great secularist hero of that time, Mr. MacSporos.  Nonetheless, despite the fact that every real American had voted for an overflowingly charitable and compassionate person named Hickory Clinpound, in a spirit of propriety and infused love the votes of the voting machines were allowed to stand even though Thump was quite possibly the worst human being that had ever been manufactured.

Into this age sprang the Mighty Frandelicious, laying out his enemies with hearty and well-deserved blows.  This was no time to think, no time to believe fairy tales, said he, but to worship him and follow him once more into the breach.  “We must finish,” was his cry, “these pernicious, breeding, reptiles!”  “They show no mercy to the climate, therefore they deserve no mercy!”  His belt was hung round with the scalps of his foes.  Whereas many previous Pontiffs were not feared by scripture-reading fools and fundamentalists, he was imbued with the Inspired Surprise of recovering the rods and axe.  He would let none of these haters live!  He was no pansy Numa!

Most Glorious of all was his highly effective campaign against the tyrannical peasantry, especially of South America and the Phillipines, who perpetrated their offspring brazenly against a world striving for charity and hope.  “Stop breeding like rabbits, fools,” he said.  But they wouldn’t cooperate, so sterner measures were adopted.  Having learned from the protomartyr St. Karlos of Marxopolis that the only way to control production is to control the factories, he immediately set out to seize the means of production.  And this he did.  Whereas unimaginative popes and legislators before him thought it sufficient to undermine the disgusting breeding instution which they called “marriage” by ensuring that each marriage, whenever possible, was limited to a moderate market share by the natural means of family planning and ended, when feasible, in humiliation and destitution for the “father,” which was that age’s name for the oppressive taskmaster of human manufacture (hoping, in this, to effectively slow the manufactures to a bit below replacement), Our Lord Frandelicious brought to bear Prudence and Statemanship to eliminate and abolish that paradigm of patriarchal hatred altogether.  And this was his great acheivement: Holy Sterility!  The hard-hearted asceticism of ages wherein lack of offspring resulted from coldness and celibacy was eliminated and the Great Reformed Counsel of Sterility was adopted universally by all Frandelicians.  In honor of this, the Feast of Infertility was founded, replacing the condescending non-historical supernaturalistical mythos of resurrection.