Question VIII: Whether it is lawful to seek a loan from a usurer

This question supposes what I said Tract. de Charitate, disp. 18. et quae de scandalo, quaest. 4. That it is licit, in necessity, to ask from someone with right intention that which he himself will culpably do, not asking of him that he commit a sin, but only that which I am owed, as a supper from him who serves only meat on a day of fasting.

I assert first, that it is not licit to ask a money loan from a usurer under usury. So D. Thom. quaest. 78. art. 4. Nauar. cap. 17. num. 262. Couar. part. 1. §. 1. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 21. puncto 4. for it is to cooperate in sin, indeed to induce to the act.

I assert second, that it is not licit to ask a loan from a usurer without necessity. So Valencia, citing Sylvestrum verb. usura 7. quaest. 1. Richardus 4. dist. 15. art. 5. quaest. 5. ad 2. Gabriel. ibi, quaest. 11. art. 3. dub. 14. and others, who all confess it to be a mortal sin. D. Thom. seems to think the same; nevertheless they do not admit that it is licit to ask even out of necessity under usury; against Molinam disp. 335. Sanchez lib. 3. decal. c. 8. n. 27. Caspensem disp. 5. sect. 13. who, in necessity, grant that a loan at usury can be requested.

It is proved indeed that one can ask for a loan in grave necessity, for instance from the decency of one's state, because thus he uses his own right, nor does he act formally toward fault.

But in extreme necessity it is licit to ask even under usury, if he cannot otherwise, renouncing his own Right; nor is he inviting to sin, but only exposing to the usurer himself, so that he may choose to make usury rather than homicide, allowing him to perish, as Valencia says; and in this way Nauar. cap. 17. num. 263. Sylvester verb. usura, 7. quaest. 1. are understood; for it is licit to propose the lesser evil, as I said Tract. de Charitate, Disputatione 18. quae est de scandalo, quaestione 4.