Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica

Question III: Whether it is lawful to lend on the pact that the borrower confer an office or an ecclesiastical benefice

English · Latin · Both

1.

D. Bonaventure TEACHES that this is usury in speculo animae, cap. 2. §. Item, ut dictum est. Aragon follows him quaest. 78. art. 2. disp. 2. Medina sum. lib. 1. cap. 14. §. 23. Lopez part. 1. cap. 56. Medina, Complut. quaest. 4. de usuris, Reginaldus tract. 2. lib. 25. cap. 11. num. 202. Rebell. part. 2. lib. 2. quaest. 14. num. 23. who proclaim it a simoniacal usury. For it is usury insofar as he intends utility from the loan; but simony hands over a spiritual thing. So also Tanner. num. 89. Nauar. super caput si foeneratoris, 14. quaest. 15. Bensseldius quaest. 4. in cap. Consuluit.

2.

DIANA p. p. Tract. 8. resol. 61. admonishes, with Peter Navarro, that an agreement introducing the (immediate) conferral of a benefice would not be usury, because an obligation to do an act, lasting only a short time, is not estimable by price: Therefore, to lend with an agreement that the borrower immediately confer a benefice is not usury. The same is said by Malder. 2. 2. tract. 5. cap. 3. dub. 6. who says that, if anyone gives a loan, not as the price of an Ecclesiastical benefice, but to provoke in this way the friendship of the dearer man, or to bestow a grace which he does not wish to bestow unless the other immediately gratifies him by conferring a benefice, it is probable that it is neither simony nor usury.

3.

AND Lessius lib. 2. cap. 20. dub. 9. num. 64. asserts: If you lend to another with an agreement that he confer an Ecclesiastical benefice, it is partly usury, partly Simony; provided that agreement be of justice, otherwise if it be of friendship. But Bassaeus, under the word Usura, primo, num. 7. et 2. num. 3. seems to wish that it be Simony, not usury, if the agreement was not entered into from justice.