As is so often the case, it profits
those of us whose understanding of a given topic is insufficient to consider
what Thomas Aquinas has to say on the subject:
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. On
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.
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.
The Philosopher is Aristotle. And it's
worth noting how, centuries ago, Aquinas logically concluded the inevitable
consequences that we are empirically observing, which is that taking usury for
money lent will lead to an unjust form of inequality.
Contrary to the assertion of economists like Murray Rothbard, the gradual acceptance of usury across the West was not a civilizational advance, but rather, a slow descent into misrule and barbarism.
Contrary to the assertion of economists like Murray Rothbard, the gradual acceptance of usury across the West was not a civilizational advance, but rather, a slow descent into misrule and barbarism.
