SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 78, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Lawful to Ask for Any Other Kind of Consideration for

Money Lent?

Objection 1: It would seem that one may ask for some other kind of

consideration for money lent. For everyone may lawfully seek to

indemnify himself. Now sometimes a man suffers loss through lending

money. Therefore he may lawfully ask for or even exact something else

besides the money lent.

Obj. 2: Further, as stated in _Ethic._ v, 5, one is in duty bound by

a point of honor, to repay anyone who has done us a favor. Now to

lend money to one who is in straits is to do him a favor for which he

should be grateful. Therefore the recipient of a loan, is bound by a

natural debt to repay something. Now it does not seem unlawful to

bind oneself to an obligation of the natural law. Therefore it is not

unlawful, in lending money to anyone, to demand some sort of

compensation as condition of the loan.

Obj. 3: Further, just as there is real remuneration, so is there

verbal remuneration, and remuneration by service, as a gloss says on

Isa. 33:15, "Blessed is he that shaketh his hands from all bribes

[*Vulg.: 'Which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings? . . .

He that shaketh his hands from all bribes.']." Now it is lawful to

accept service or praise from one to whom one has lent money.

Therefore in like manner it is lawful to accept any other kind of

remuneration.

Obj. 4: Further, seemingly the relation of gift to gift is the same

as of loan to loan. But it is lawful to accept money for money given.

Therefore it is lawful to accept repayment by loan in return for a

loan granted.

Obj. 5: Further, the lender, by transferring his ownership of a sum

of money removes the money further from himself than he who entrusts

it to a merchant or craftsman. Now it is lawful to receive interest

for money entrusted to a merchant or craftsman. Therefore it is also

lawful to receive interest for money lent.

Obj. 6: Further, a man may accept a pledge for money lent, the use of

which pledge he might sell for a price: as when a man mortgages his

land or the house wherein he dwells. Therefore it is lawful to

receive interest for money lent.

Obj. 7: Further, it sometimes happens that a man raises the price of

his goods under guise of loan, or buys another's goods at a low

figure; or raises his price through delay in being paid, and lowers

his price that he may be paid the sooner. Now in all these cases

there seems to be payment for a loan of money: nor does it appear to

be manifestly illicit. Therefore it seems to be lawful to expect or

exact some consideration for money lent.

_On the contrary,_ Among other conditions requisite in a just man it

is stated (Ezech. 18:17) that he "hath not taken usury and increase."

_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1), a thing

is reckoned as money "if its value can be measured by money."

Consequently, just as it is a sin against justice, to take money, by

tacit or express agreement, in return for lending money or anything

else that is consumed by being used, so also is it a like sin, by

tacit or express agreement to receive anything whose price can be

measured by money. Yet there would be no sin in receiving something

of the kind, not as exacting it, nor yet as though it were due on

account of some agreement tacit or expressed, but as a gratuity:

since, even before lending the money, one could accept a gratuity,

nor is one in a worse condition through lending.

On the other hand it is lawful to exact compensation for a loan, in

respect of such things as are not appreciated by a measure of money,

for instance, benevolence, and love for the lender, and so forth.

Reply Obj. 1: A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the

borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he

ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid

a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss

than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender

with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for

compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his

money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be

prevented in many ways from having.

Reply Obj. 2: Repayment for a favor may be made in two ways. In one

way, as a debt of justice; and to such a debt a man may be bound by a

fixed contract; and its amount is measured according to the favor

received. Wherefore the borrower of money or any such thing the use

of which is its consumption is not bound to repay more than he

received in loan: and consequently it is against justice if he be

obliged to pay back more. In another way a man's obligation to

repayment for favor received is based on a debt of friendship, and

the nature of this debt depends more on the feeling with which the

favor was conferred than on the greatness of the favor itself. This

debt does not carry with it a civil obligation, involving a kind of

necessity that would exclude the spontaneous nature of such a

repayment.

Reply Obj. 3: If a man were, in return for money lent, as though

there had been an agreement tacit or expressed, to expect or exact

repayment in the shape of some remuneration of service or words, it

would be the same as if he expected or exacted some real

remuneration, because both can be priced at a money value, as may be

seen in the case of those who offer for hire the labor which they

exercise by work or by tongue. If on the other hand the remuneration

by service or words be given not as an obligation, but as a favor,

which is not to be appreciated at a money value, it is lawful to

take, exact, and expect it.

Reply Obj. 4: Money cannot be sold for a greater sum than the amount

lent, which has to be paid back: nor should the loan be made with a

demand or expectation of aught else but of a feeling of benevolence

which cannot be priced at a pecuniary value, and which can be the

basis of a spontaneous loan. Now the obligation to lend in return at

some future time is repugnant to such a feeling, because again an

obligation of this kind has its pecuniary value. Consequently it is

lawful for the lender to borrow something else at the same time, but

it is unlawful for him to bind the borrower to grant him a loan at

some future time.

Reply Obj. 5: He who lends money transfers the ownership of the money

to the borrower. Hence the borrower holds the money at his own risk

and is bound to pay it all back: wherefore the lender must not exact

more. On the other hand he that entrusts his money to a merchant or

craftsman so as to form a kind of society, does not transfer the

ownership of his money to them, for it remains his, so that at his

risk the merchant speculates with it, or the craftsman uses it for

his craft, and consequently he may lawfully demand as something

belonging to him, part of the profits derived from his money.

Reply Obj. 6: If a man in return for money lent to him pledges

something that can be valued at a price, the lender must allow for

the use of that thing towards the repayment of the loan. Else if he

wishes the gratuitous use of that thing in addition to repayment, it

is the same as if he took money for lending, and that is usury,

unless perhaps it were such a thing as friends are wont to lend to

one another gratis, as in the case of the loan of a book.

Reply Obj. 7: If a man wish to sell his goods at a higher price than

that which is just, so that he may wait for the buyer to pay, it is

manifestly a case of usury: because this waiting for the payment of

the price has the character of a loan, so that whatever he demands

beyond the just price in consideration of this delay, is like a price

for a loan, which pertains to usury. In like manner if a buyer wishes

to buy goods at a lower price than what is just, for the reason that

he pays for the goods before they can be delivered, it is a sin of

usury; because again this anticipated payment of money has the

character of a loan, the price of which is the rebate on the just

price of the goods sold. On the other hand if a man wishes to allow a

rebate on the just price in order that he may have his money sooner,

he is not guilty of the sin of usury.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 512 / 1128 题