On the Seventh Precept of the Decalogue

“1. This blessed, indeed more than blessed, law of love removes all property and ownership.” — False, erroneous, heretical. “2. The actual renunciation of the cordial will and of the temporal power of dominion or authority manifests and effects the most perfect state.” — Understood universally, false, erroneous, heretical. Conclusions concerning poverty of Dionysius Soulechat, a Minorite of the sect of the Fraticelli, condemned by Urban V in 1368.

Urban VIII, Brief Commissum nobis, 22 April 1639, § 2, prohibits “reducing the Indians to slavery; selling, buying, exchanging, or giving them; separating them from their wives and children; despoiling them of things and goods; leading and transporting them to other places; or depriving them of liberty in any manner whatsoever; retaining them in slavery; and also furnishing counsel, assistance, favor, and labor to those doing the aforesaid things, under any pretext and specious appearance whatsoever; or preaching or teaching that this is lawful; and otherwise cooperating in any manner whatsoever in the aforesaid things.” Cf. the Letter to the Bishops of Brazil of Leo XIII, 5 May 1888; C. 2107. “1. It is lawful to capture by force or fraud Negroes and other uncivilized persons who are hostile to no one. 2. It is lawful to buy, sell, and make other contracts concerning Negroes and other uncivilized persons hostile to no one who have been captured by force or fraud. 3. When Negroes and other uncivilized persons unjustly captured have been mixed with others who can justly be sold, it is lawful to buy them all, or, as they say, the good and the bad. 4. Buyers of Negroes or other uncivilized persons are not bound to inquire into the title of their servitude, whether they are slaves justly or unjustly, although they know that very many of them were unjustly captured. 5. Possessors of Negroes or other uncivilized persons hostile to no one who were captured by force or fraud are not bound to manumit them. 6. The captors, buyers, and possessors of Negroes and other uncivilized persons hostile to no one who were captured by force or fraud are not bound to compensate their injuries. 7. It is lawful for possessors to expose Negroes and other slaves by private authority to manifest danger of death, to wound, burn, or kill them. 8. It is lawful to baptize Negroes and other unbelievers capable of the doctrine of faith without instruction in the mysteries of faith necessary for salvation, and likewise to leave them without such instruction after they have been baptized. 9. Masters of Negroes and other slaves are not bound to prevent them from living in concubinage. 10. It is lawful to retain captives in slavery after baptism, whether or not they are slaves justly. 11. It is lawful to buy Negroes from heretics mediately or immediately, and after the purchase or gift, or any other contract, for them to remain their slaves, and likewise to sell them to heretics. Resp. To 1. It is not lawful. To 2. It is not lawful. To 3. It is not lawful. To 4. They are bound. To 5. They are bound. To 6. They are bound. To 7. It is not lawful. To 8. It is not lawful, except at the moment of death. To 9. They are bound. To 10. In the negative, if unjustly enslaved. To 11. In the negative, when bad faith exists.” Holy Office, 20 March 1686; C. 2100.

“For a long time Cambodian Christians have bought Laotians and others from neighboring peoples for their service, and they do this even if there is a founded doubt, or sometimes they know with certainty, that those slaves were carried away by theft in their own country. — Resp. First it must be distinguished whether the Laotian captives who are offered for sale by kidnappers were taken from their legitimate master, or rather, though free and their own masters, fell into the unjust slavery of the kidnappers. In the first case it is not lawful to buy them; for although they are unjustly detained by the kidnappers, nevertheless it is wicked to buy another’s goods carried off by theft against the owner’s will. In the second case it must again likewise be distinguished whether the Laotians refuse to sell themselves to the Christians or consent to it. If they refuse, they can in no way be bought, for the captives themselves are masters of their own liberty, although it was unjustly taken from them by theft through the kidnappers. But if, after they have been fully instructed that the right to liberty belongs to them, from which they fell only through the injury of others, they voluntarily and of their own accord and from their own free will, as masters of their own affairs, offer themselves to the Christians so that they may be received by them and retained in slavery, with the prudent design that, freed from the graver and harsh slavery of the kidnappers, from which it was not granted to them to free themselves in another manner, they may obtain a milder slavery among Christian buyers, among whom they can also easily persuade themselves that they can come to knowledge of the worship of the true God and profess it with an inestimable advantage to their souls—in these circumstances it can indeed be permitted to Christians, regard also being had for the favor of the faith, that they may acquire captives of this kind for themselves at a just price and reduce and retain them in their own servitude, provided that they have this intention: to treat them according to the precepts of Christian charity and to take care also that they be imbued with the rudiments of the faith, so that, if it can be done, through their conversion to the true faith they may be freely and happily brought into the liberty of the children of God, which is in the Catholic Church alone, no coercion, however, being employed, but only opportune persuasions and exhortations.” Holy Office, 12 September 1776; C. 2101.

“34. Likewise, whether he believes that it is lawful for ecclesiastical persons without sin to have possessions and temporal goods of this world.” Articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned, from the Bull Inter cunctas of Martin V. Cf. no. 498.

“25. Besides the power inhering in the episcopate, there is another temporal power attributed by the civil government, expressly or tacitly conceded, and therefore revocable by the civil government whenever it pleases. — 26. The Church does not have a native and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing. — 27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff are altogether to be excluded from every care and ownership of temporal things. — 75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church dispute among themselves concerning the compatibility of the temporal kingdom with the spiritual. — 76. The abrogation of the civil dominion which the Apostolic See possesses would conduce especially to the liberty and felicity of the Church.” Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

“10. It is contrary to Sacred Scripture that ecclesiastical men should have possessions. — 16. Temporal lords can at their own discretion take temporal goods from the Church when those possessing them habitually transgress, that is, transgress by habit and not only in act. — 32. To enrich the clergy is contrary to the rule of Christ. — 33. Pope Sylvester and Emperor Constantine erred by endowing the Church. — 36. The Pope with all his clerics who have possessions are heretics because they have possessions; and those consenting to them, namely all secular lords and the other laity, are heretics. — 39. The Emperor and secular lords were seduced by the devil to enrich the Church with temporal goods. — 44. Augustine, Benedict, and Bernard are damned unless they repented of this: that they had possessions and instituted and entered religious orders; and thus, from the Pope down to the last religious, all are heretics.” Propositions of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“Moreover, according to the decree of the most blessed Pope Stephen, We establish that laymen, although religious, have no faculty whatsoever of disposing of ecclesiastical things; but according to the canons of the Apostles, let the Bishop have the care of all ecclesiastical affairs and dispense them as though God were beholding. Therefore, if any prince or other layman should claim for himself the administration of ecclesiastical things or possessions, let him be judged sacrilegious.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 4.

“We believe that alms, sacrifice, and other benefits can profit the faithful departed. We confess and believe that those remaining in the world and possessing their own goods, giving alms and other benefits from their goods, and observing the Lord’s precepts, can be saved. We believe that tithes, first fruits, and offerings are to be paid to clerics by the Lord’s precept.” Profession of Faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

“18. Tithes are pure alms, and parishioners can at their own discretion take them away on account of the sins of their prelates.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned by the Council of Constance.

Concerning the recent suppression of tithes in Italy, cf. Letter of the Sacred Penitentiary, 25 August 1887; A. S. S., vol. 20, p. 205 ff. Cf. also nos. 701, 704, 1331.

“Whether the salaries which are paid in Belgium by the Government to pastors and canons take on the character of benefices or ecclesiastical goods, and have annexed to them the obligation inhering in these goods, namely, the strict and canonical obligation of expending the surplus upon the poor or pious causes, and of residence under the penalty of not making the fruits one’s own? — Resp. It has already at another time been answered in the affirmative by the Holy See, upon the advice of a secret Congregation.” Sacred Penitentiary, 19 January 1819.

“The Sacred Penitentiary, having been consulted whether that response should be applied to the salaries which are paid by the Government to pastors and Canons of the Kingdom of France, judged that the response should be: In the affirmative.” 19 August 1821.

“Whether the response for Belgium of 19 January should be applied only to the fixed salaries of 1,000 livres for Parish Priests and 750 livres for Administrators, or whether it should be extended to the offerings of the faithful? — Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part; in the negative as regards the second.” Sacred Penitentiary; Gury-Ballerini, no. 563.

Cf. On Particular States, no. 7.

“Without possession prescription does not proceed.” Rule of Law 3 in the Liber Sextus.

“Because all that is not of faith is sin, We define by synodal judgment that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid without good faith, since generally every Constitution and custom which cannot be observed without mortal sin must be derogated. Hence it is necessary that he who prescribes have at no part of the time consciousness that the thing belongs to another.” Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Decrees, chapter 41, On Prescriptions.

“We lately received your questions, that certain usurers make those to whom they give money at interest take an oath that they will not seek the return of the interest and will raise no question concerning the interest they have paid. We therefore answer that, every appeal being removed, you are by ecclesiastical censure to compel the usurers themselves, before payment of the interest, to desist from exacting it, or to restore it after it has been paid, lest it happen that they carry away advantage from deceit and fraud.” Chapter Tuas dudum 13, On Usury.

Whether a simple condition added in a written instrument, that restitution (of the money) is not to be made otherwise than in coined money, loses its force even in the forum of conscience through a subsequent civil law invalidating it? — Resp. Regularly in the affirmative, unless particular circumstances stand in the way, concerning which recourse must be made in particular cases, those circumstances being diligently explained.” Sacred Penitentiary, 21 January 1783; A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 209 ff.

“Eudorius, a bachelor destitute of necessary heirs and gravely ill, in order to provide for his soul determined to expend part of his goods upon pious works. For this purpose he instituted Boniface as universal legatee by a testament furnished with the required forms. He delivered to Boniface, however, a private writing in which he manifests his pious will and asks him to execute it faithfully. But after Eudorius died, Boniface kept the whole inheritance, on the ground that he possessed it by a valid testament. It is asked whether he can be safe in conscience. — Resp. In the case set forth, Boniface is bound in conscience to fulfill the will of Eudorius, certainly known in the forum of conscience.” Sacred Penitentiary, 23 June 1844. Cf. no. 1057.

“General responses…. 1. A monk, even one furnished with a perpetual and absolute Apostolic Indult of secularization, cannot dispose of goods without the special good pleasure of the Apostolic See. 2. If he lacks the faculty of disposing in the said Indult, or has not legitimately used it, a distinction must be made among the goods left by him: namely, goods which belonged to the monastery and which he himself brought with him on leaving the cloister, or which came to him in any manner, as also goods, if he had any, proceeding from them, remain with his monastery. But concerning other goods acquired by such a monk outside the cloister otherwise than from goods belonging to the religious order, judgment is to be made according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII, where the said Constitution is in force. 3. The right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed monk who dies outside the cloister, who obtained an Apostolic Indult of remaining outside the cloister for a time, retaining the habit or laying aside the garment of his Order, belongs to his monastery.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 4 January 1862. The cited Constitution of Gregory establishes that the goods of regulars living outside the cloister, from whatever source they came, belong under the name of spoils to the Apostolic Camera. Cf. the following number.

“1. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed regular who dies outside the cloister, who obtained an Apostolic Indult to remain outside the cloister for a time, retaining the habit or laying aside the garment of his Order? — 2. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed regular who, in the unhappy time preceding, was expelled from the Monastery by public force and stripped of the garment of his Order, and whom reasonable causes prevented from returning to his Monastery and reassuming the garment of his Order during the subsequent time of tranquility? — 3. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to an inheritance and legacy, and of disposing of the same acquisitions, especially if the disposition was for pious causes and in favor of the religious order? — Resp. To 1. Such an inheritance is to be judged according to the provisions of common ecclesiastical law, namely, that it belongs to the deceased’s own religious order. — To 2. If the religious of whom there is question did not enjoy an absolute Indult of perpetual secularization, as in the preceding response. But if he did enjoy it, a distinction must be made among the goods left by him: namely, goods which belonged to the religious order and which he himself brought with him on leaving the cloister, or which came to him in any manner, as also goods, if he had any, proceeding from them, remain with that religious order. But concerning the other goods acquired by such a religious outside the cloister otherwise than from goods belonging to the religious order, judgment is to be made according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII. — To 3. If the said religious has legitimately used an Apostolic Indult of disposing of goods, as in the case, namely, by making an altogether legitimate disposition of the same goods, the right in question belongs to the one in whose favor the disposition was made.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 26 June 1829. Cf. nos. 1037, 1047.

“1. Whether pensions which are paid from the public treasury to regulars living outside the cloister are to be regarded as ecclesiastical pensions, so that by their nature they are subject to spoil? And insofar as the answer is negative: — 2. To whom, after their death, belongs the right of receiving the unpaid installments of the said pensions, if the professed regulars have obtained an Apostolic Indult to remain outside the cloister either for a time or perpetually? — 3. To whom does the same right belong if regulars of this kind have obtained an Indult of making a testament and disposing? — 4. To whom does the aforesaid right belong if there is question of regulars who emitted only simple vows? — Resp. To 1. In the negative. — To 2. If the Indult was temporary, they belong to the deceased’s own religious order; if perpetual, to the Sacred Congregation of Spoils, according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII. — To 3. The right in question belongs to the one in whose favor the disposition was made, if the regular legitimately used the Apostolic Indult of disposing of goods; insofar as he did not legitimately use the same Indult, the resolution given in the second response is to be observed. — To 4. They belong neither to the religious order nor to the Sacred Congregation of Spoils, but to his heirs, whether coming by intestacy or by testament.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 June 1836.

“…In order to cut off all causes of doubt and controversy concerning this matter, by the counsel of Our Venerable Brethren, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church placed over the affairs and consultations of bishops and regulars, by Our Apostolic authority We decree and command the following. I. Cardinal Bishops are bound, with respect to sacred utensils, by the law enacted in the Constitution of Saint Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis, with the exception, however, of the suburbicarian Cardinal Bishops, and likewise with the exception of Cardinal Abbots Nullius who dwell in the Roman Curia, whose sacred utensils, regard being had for the cited Constitution Aequum est of Urban VIII, Our predecessor, will belong to the pontifical sacristy. II. The derogatory clauses of the Constitution of Saint Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis providentia, customarily appended in Letters in the form of a Brief beginning De benignitate Sedis Apostolicae, remaining in force, in the other Brief beginning Cum fel. rec. Urbanus VIII let the clause by which the same Constitution of Pius is declared saved be removed, and let the following be substituted in its place: If you shall have presided over abbatial, cathedral, metropolitan, or patriarchal churches, or if by Apostolic concession and dispensation you shall have obtained any others in title, administration, or commendam, We vehemently exhort you, just as Benedict XIV, Our predecessor, already exhorted Cardinals in his Constitution beginning Inter arduas, that in disposing of the aforesaid things you keep those churches before your eyes and prefer them to the others. What We have prescribed in this article We extend to each Cardinal who, before the publication of these Letters, obtained the aforesaid faculty of making a testament and disposing, just as if it were expressed in the respective Indults. III. We declare that the sacred utensils which, by force of the Constitution of Saint Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis, are owed to cathedral churches are these: namely, miters, chasubles, copes, tunicles, dalmatics, sandals, gloves, albs with cinctures, linen amices, and similar things; likewise missals, graduals, books of plainchant and music, pontificals, and the other book entitled Canon of the Mass; likewise chalices, patens, pyxes, monstrances, thuribles, a vessel for holy water with an aspergillum, a basin with a ewer, vessels for the sacred oils, and cruets together with basins and a bell, hand candlesticks, pax-bredes, archiepiscopal crosses, candlesticks with a cross for the use of the altar, a pastoral staff, a faldstool, and other sacred things, whether vestments, ornaments, or vessels, even if any of them by their nature are suitable for profane use, provided that they have been destined not accidentally but permanently for divine worship and sacred functions; with the exception of rings and pectoral crosses, even with sacred relics, and all utensils of any kind which are legitimately proved to have been acquired by the deceased Bishops with goods not belonging to the church and which are not established to have been donated to the church. Therefore We will that Bishops are bound and ought to draw up in authentic form an inventory of sacred utensils, in which they shall state, according to the truth of the matter, when they were acquired, and by a special notation describe those which they acquired for themselves from the revenues and proceeds of the church, lest otherwise all those things have to be presumed to have been acquired from the revenues of the church. But as regards the sacred utensils of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church which belong to the sacristy of the chapel of the Supreme Pontiff, We will that no account be taken of the quality and nature of the revenues with which they were acquired; and besides those which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution of Urban VIII beginning Aequum est, We will that the following, expressed only by general words, be understood: sandals, gloves, linen amices, albs with cinctures, likewise pyxes, monstrances, vessels for holy water with an aspergillum, vessels for the sacred oils, and cruets with basins and a bell, finally a pastoral staff, a faldstool, hand candlesticks, pax-bredes, a thurible, and similar things, with the exception of rings and pectoral crosses, even with sacred relics. IV. When a Bishop has successively governed two or more churches, We will that the sacred utensils be divided proportionally among the cathedral churches, account being taken of revenues and time, according to the Constitution of Saint Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis. V. But where any Bishop has simultaneously presided over two or more united churches, or churches granted in perpetual administration, which have their own proper and distinct chapter and cathedral church, We declare that the sacred utensils are to be divided in equal shares among each of the cathedral churches, insofar as the revenues of those same churches united or granted in perpetual administration are not divided but perpetually constitute one episcopal mensa; but if the revenues have been divided and separated, We will that the division be made among the individual cathedral churches proportionally according to revenues. VI. But if it is established that a Bishop who through translation successively presided over two churches acquired for himself all the sacred utensils from the revenues of only one church, there will be no place for division, but the same sacred utensils will belong only to the cathedral church of that diocese from the proceeds of whose episcopal mensa they were acquired.” Pius IX, Brief Cum illud, 1 June 1847.

“By command of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, We wish it to be earnestly commended to the Most Reverend Bishops that they take care that the particles of the most holy wood which, enclosed in cases, they carry suspended before their breast be transmitted to their Successors, so that after their death, by the zeal and labor of the cathedral chapter or of him who, while the see is vacant, has discharged the functions of the Bishop, they may come to these Successors by the legitimate right of inheritance. In this manner new Bishops will have no necessity of seeking others elsewhere, not without difficulty, but all will have them ready at hand as things assigned and destined to themselves and to their office, to be transmitted in due time to the others who shall follow.

“This is to be understood only of the relics of the Cross. For concerning the cases skillfully fashioned from precious metal in the form of a cross, they shall determine what seems more opportune; after the particles of the most holy wood have been removed, these may freely be given or bequeathed to whomever they please, and even be divided and sold by private heirs, every appearance of unseemly or profane commerce being removed. For they are estimable by price.” Letter of the Cardinal Vicar, 25 March 1889; A. S. S., vol. 21, p. 696 ff.

“Peter, recently deceased, in a testament concerning profane causes left a legacy of one thousand florins in favor of a pious cause. That testament, as lacking a certain extrinsic solemnity required by civil law, is altogether null. The testament having been rescinded, John, who entered upon the inheritance as heir by intestacy, altogether refuses to furnish the pious legacy of one thousand florins, appealing to the opinion of His Eminence D’Annibale: ‘So long as the Holy See has not spoken, I think that those outside the Pontifical territory who do not fulfill legacies for pious causes in a testament invalid under civil law ought not to be disturbed.’ Can and ought I bind John, under denial of absolution, to discharge this pious legacy? — Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary, after maturely considering the matters set forth, responds: The practice of this Sacred Tribunal in similar cases is that pious legacies are generally regarded as valid and obligatory in the forum of conscience; nevertheless, heirs are readily admitted to a composition with the Church or the pious cause to which the legacy was made.” 10 January 1901. Cf. no. 1030.

“43. An annual legacy left for a soul does not last more than ten years.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 18 March 1666.

“That is the proper interpretation of usury, namely, when from the use of a thing which does not produce, without any labor, expense, or risk, gain and profit are sought….” Leo X at the Fifth Ecumenical Lateran Council, Bull Inter multiplices, issued in Session 5 on 4 May 1515.

“If anyone should fall into that error so as to presume pertinaciously to affirm that to practice usury is not a sin, We decree that he is to be punished as a heretic.” Clementine, sole chapter, On Usury, § 2.

“Moreover, We condemn that detestable and disgraceful insatiable rapacity of moneylenders, repudiated by divine and human laws through Scripture in the Old and New Testaments, and We sequester them from every ecclesiastical consolation, commanding that no Archbishop, no Bishop, no Abbot of any Order, or anyone in an order or among the clergy presume to receive usurers except with the greatest caution; but throughout their whole life let them be regarded as infamous, and unless they repent, let them be deprived of Christian burial.” Second Lateran Council, 1139, canon 13.

Cf. Leo IX at the Synod of Reims; Third Lateran Council, canon 25; Gregory X at the Second General Council of Lyons, in the Liber Sextus, book 5, title 5, chapters 1 and 2. Many appear to have regarded this sanction of the Council as only a positive prohibition. Hence Alexander III, chapter Super eo 4, On Usury, declares that no dispensation can be made for receiving money at usury, not even so that the poor who are held in Saracen captivity might be freed by that money, just as Sacred Scripture prohibits lying to save the life of another. In the same title, chapter Cum tu 5 rejects the exception of certain persons that only those usuries received after the Decree of the Second Lateran Council are to be restored. Finally, chapter Tua nos 9 of the same title establishes that the heirs themselves, whether sons or strangers, are bound to restitution. By many Decrees in the same title Innocent III also urges the observance of these Decretals.

“Your devotion consulted Us whether, in the judgment of souls, he ought to be judged as a usurer who, being unwilling otherwise to give a loan, lends money with this purpose: that, although every agreement ceases, he nevertheless receive more than the principal; and whether he is involved in the same guilt of crime who, as it is commonly said, does not otherwise grant the pledge of an oath until, although without exaction, he receives some emolument therefrom; and whether a merchant ought to be condemned to a similar penalty who sells his merchandise for a much greater price if a longer delay is extended for making payment than if the price is paid to him immediately. But because what is to be held in these cases is clearly known from the Gospel of Luke, in which it is said, Lend, hoping for nothing thereby, men of this kind, on account of the intention of gain which they have, since every usury and excess is prohibited in the law, are to be judged as acting wickedly and are efficaciously to be induced in the judgment of souls to restore the things thus received.” Chapter Consuluit 10, On Usury.

“One lending a certain quantity of money to a man sailing or going to a fair, because he has taken the risk upon himself and is to receive something beyond the principal, is to be judged a usurer. He also who gives ten solidi so that at another time the same number of measures of grain, wine, or oil may be returned to him—concerning which, although they may then be worth more, it is reasonably doubtful whether at the time of payment they will be worth more or less—is not for this reason to be reputed a usurer. By reason of this doubt he also is excused who sells cloth, grain, wine, oil, and other merchandise so that at a fixed term he may receive more for them than they are then worth, provided, however, that he was not going to sell them at the time of the contract.” Chapter Naviganti 19, On Usury. — He has taken the risk upon himself: “It is condemned that, since a loan ought to be made gratuitously, to lend only by binding the borrower to a contract of insurance or partnership is usury…. By force of the loan he cannot compel another who perhaps did not need insurance. For perhaps no danger threatened there, but it was feigned.” Soto, On Justice and Right, book 1, question 4, article 2.

“41. Since money counted out is more valuable than money to be counted out, and there is no one who does not value present money more than future money, a creditor can exact something beyond the principal from the borrower and by this title be excused from usury. — 42. It is not usury when something beyond the principal is exacted as due from benevolence and gratitude, but only if it is exacted as due from justice.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“Is usury contrary to every law, even natural law? — Resp. In the affirmative.” Holy Office, 9 May 1821; C. 2130.

“42. It is lawful for one who lends to exact something beyond the principal if he binds himself not to seek the return of the principal until a certain time.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“The Mounts of Piety instituted by commonwealths and thus far approved and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See, in which, for their expenses and indemnity, something moderate is received beyond the principal solely for the expenses of the ministers and of other things pertaining to their preservation, only for their indemnity and without profit to the same Mounts, neither present the appearance of evil nor furnish an incentive to sin, nor are they in any manner to be disapproved; rather, a loan of this kind is meritorious and ought to be praised and approved, and is by no means to be regarded as usurious.” Leo X, Constitution Inter multiplices, 4 May 1515.

“Whether the increase which has long been received is to be permitted so that it may be expended upon the said pious uses; or whether it ought rather to be reduced to what is sufficient for the expenses and preservation of the same Mount? — Resp. In the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second, and according to the mind.” The mind of the Sacred Congregation was as follows: “That the principle of not exacting an increase upon the loan given should remain firm, except for that which is necessary for the expenses and preservation of the Mount; that the Bishop, a calculation having been made, should determine the proportionate portion to be paid beyond the principal on this title. But as to that which beyond this portion was received according to a custom long introduced, to be expended for pious uses and especially for the maintenance of the church of a very poor village and for relieving the hunger of the poor, insofar as could be done in the dearness of grain, the Bishop could permit the same custom to be observed, yet in such a manner that a book should be established in which the proportionate portions would be noted under distinct headings: those which belonged to the Mount, and those which belonged to other uses, so that it could be known what sum is given under a title of justice and what is received as a gratuitous and pious offering. The Bishop shall take care that the people are informed of this matter by a prudent explanation, whether through the parish priest or in another manner, according as the Bishop himself shall judge prudently.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 December 1838; A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 27 ff.

“It very frequently happens that questions concerning profit from a loan are referred to the Apostolic See, for which provision in similar cases has been made by a resolution given by the Roman Congregations. Therefore, in order that the superiors of the missions may have at hand the necessary knowledge of the things thus far decreed concerning this matter, it seemed opportune to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Christian Name to publish all the aforementioned resolutions together with the Constitution Vix pervenit of Pope Benedict XIV; and it pleased the same Sacred Congregation that they be sent to all Bishops, Vicars, and Prefects Apostolic dependent upon it.

Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 13 January 1780, to the Most Reverend Lord Vicar Apostolic N. N. — “Since equality is required in contracts in order that they be just, nothing is to be received in a loan by force of the loan, as has often been defined, beyond the principal sum. But if it should happen that profit ceases for the lender, or loss emerges, or danger of losing the principal threatens, or unusual labors must be undertaken for its recovery, compensation for these things can indeed be sought, with two conditions, however, always kept before one’s eyes: the first, that some new title from among these actually concurs; the second, that nothing more be exacted than it truly demands. Therefore, all contracts in which either an interest is feigned which is to be compensated, or more is sought than an adequate compensation requires, depart from the rule of justice and are subject to restitution. It is therefore evident that those act imprudently and unlawfully, and commit themselves to the manifest danger of injustice, who, because the danger which We have indicated commonly occurs in such a place, always demand profit, and always the same profit, as though danger always intervened and, when it was present, always demanded the same remuneration. Nor are they excused because they receive a lesser usury than that which is permitted by the law of the kingdom; for a thing is not therefore right because it departs less from justice unless it is altogether conformed to the form of right, and human actions are to be weighed not by human law but by divine law and natural law, which holds fast to equity. Only those conduct themselves rightly who, attending to individual cases, seek compensation only when danger truly intervenes, and then seek no other compensation than that which corresponds to the gravity of the danger, which is therefore to be estimated by the judgment of upright and prudent men.”

Sacred Roman Inquisition, 18 March 1784, to the Most Reverend Lord Vicar Apostolic D. D. M., concerning a question of a loan. — “And this in the first place is certain: by reason of the loan immediately and precisely, nothing is to be received beyond the principal. But if something is received by reason of danger probably imminent, lenders are not to be disturbed, provided that account is taken of the quality of the danger and of its probability, and proportion is observed between the danger and that which is received. In these very words it was thus defined by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 12 September 1645, whose decree issued for the Chinese missions is appended here. The following doubt was:

“In the aforesaid kingdom it has been sanctioned by law that in a loan thirty percent may be received, without regard for ceasing profit or emerging loss. It is asked whether it is lawful for the Chinese, for a loan of their money, although neither ceasing profit nor emerging loss intervenes, to receive the aforesaid quantity of thirty percent fixed by the law of the kingdom; and the reason for doubting is that in recovering the money there is some danger, namely, that the one who receives the loan may flee, or that he may delay in paying, or that it may be necessary to seek it back before a judge, or because of other things of this kind.

“The Most Eminent Fathers judged that by reason of the loan immediately and precisely, nothing is to be received beyond the principal; but if they receive something by reason of danger probably imminent, as in the case, they are not to be disturbed, provided that account is taken of the quality of the danger and of its probability, and proportion is observed between the danger and that which is received.

“At the supplication of the same Congregation, Our Most Holy Lord, in order to preserve uniformity in preaching and its practice, by strictly commanding all and each of the missionaries of whatsoever Order, religious institute, and institution, even of the Society of Jesus, now or hereafter existing in the kingdoms of the Chinese or of China, under pain of latae sententiae excommunication specially reserved to His Holiness and to the Holy Apostolic See, commanded that they diligently observe the aforesaid answers and resolutions, and use them in practice, and cause them to be observed and practiced by those to whom it shall pertain, until His Holiness or the Holy Apostolic See shall ordain otherwise.

“It can now be asked what the danger must be, and what its account and nature, so that, when this title concurs, the lender can receive something beyond the principal. In this question it must be held as certain that not every danger is to be judged sufficiently apt and suitable for some profit to be received from a loan. For since the title from which arises a just and legitimate cause for duly exacting something more beyond the principal owed from the loan must always be extrinsic, and neither connected with nor innate in the nature of the loan, it plainly follows that, if the danger proceeds only from those circumstances which are common there to all lenders and cannot be separated from the very nature of the loan, then certainly any profit sought from the loan can in no way be cleansed of the stain of usury. Therefore, since plague, fires, persecutions by the Turks, and other misfortunes of this kind, although more frequent at Constantinople, nevertheless always threaten lenders in any city, the greatest care must be taken lest, on account of this common danger which the force and nature of the loan itself imports, something beyond the principal be exacted in the loan. The matter seems rather to require greater investigation when danger of losing the principal threatens either from the fault of the borrower himself, because he is crafty, deceitful, and cunning, because he can deceive the creditor by flight or malicious evasions; or when, apart from the fault of the borrower himself, other dangers threaten the creditor from circumstances of place, time, and persons, which keep him very anxious and solicitous about recovering the principal. Although dangers which proceed from the fault of the borrower must always be regarded as more important, nevertheless in all these cases it is indeed exceedingly difficult to establish generally whether, how, and at what value such danger can be estimated, from which a legitimate title may be furnished to the lender for taking profit beyond the principal. Let it belong to the diligence and learning of confessors to estimate each matter and weigh it according to its importance. Let them consider the individual cases; inquire into the quality and probability of the danger; see whether all danger is absent through insurance of a pledge; preserve proportion between the danger and that which the lender is permitted to gain beyond the principal; consult approved authors; and especially adhere to the opinions and principles approved by this Apostolic See, both in the above-praised decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of 1645 and in the Encyclical Letter Vix pervenit of Benedict XIV issued in 1745, a copy of which is adduced here.”

“It had scarcely reached Our ears that, on account of a new controversy—namely, whether a certain contract ought to be judged valid—certain opinions were being disseminated throughout Italy which appeared not consonant with sound doctrine, when We at once judged it a part of Our Apostolic office to apply an opportune remedy, lest an evil of this kind acquire greater strength through length of time and silence; and to block its approach, lest it creep more widely and shake the still unharmed cities of Italy.

Ҥ 1. Therefore We adopted that method and counsel which the Apostolic See has always been accustomed to employ. For We explained the whole matter to certain of Our Venerable Brethren, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who are highly commended for knowledge of Sacred Theology and zeal and skill in canonical discipline. We also summoned several regulars outstanding in both faculties, some of whom We selected from the monks, others from the mendicant Order, and others finally from the clerics regular. We also employed a Prelate adorned with the laurels of both laws and long practiced in the forum. We appointed the fourth day of last July for them all to assemble before Us, and We explained to them the nature of the whole matter, which We found had already been known and thoroughly understood by them. Ҥ 2. After this We commanded them, free from every zeal for parties and every desire, to weigh the whole matter accurately and to set down their opinions in writing. We did not, however, ask them to pass judgment upon the contract which had initially furnished the cause of the controversy, since several documents necessarily required for this were not available, but to establish a certain doctrine concerning usury, to which those things that had recently begun to be spread among the common people appeared to be bringing no slight detriment. They all carried out the commands; for they openly declared their opinions in two Congregations, the first of which was held before Us on 18 July and the other on 1 August, both months lately past; and finally they delivered those same opinions in writing to the secretary of the Congregation.

Ҥ 3. Moreover, by unanimous consent they approved the following:

“I. That kind of sin which is called usury and which has its proper seat and place in the contract of loan consists in this: that someone, from the loan itself, which by its own nature demands only that as much be returned as was received, wills that more be returned to him than was received; and therefore contends that some profit beyond the principal is owed to him by reason of the loan itself. Therefore every profit of this kind which exceeds the principal is unlawful and usurious.

“II. Nor can any assistance for cleansing this stain be summoned either from the fact that this profit is not excessive and immoderate but moderate, not great but small; or from the fact that he from whom this profit is demanded solely on account of the loan is not poor but rich, and will not leave idle the sum given to him as a loan but will expend it most usefully for enlarging his fortune, either by buying new estates or conducting profitable business. Whoever, once equality has been established, does not fear still to exact something more from anyone by force of the loan itself, for which satisfaction has already been made by an equal, is convicted of acting contrary to the law of the loan, which necessarily consists in equality between what is given and what is returned. Therefore, if he receives it, he will be subject to restitution by that obligation of justice which they call commutative, whose office it is sacredly to preserve the proper equality of each party in human contracts and exactly to repair it when it has not been preserved.

“III. By these things, however, it is by no means denied that sometimes certain other titles, as they say, which are altogether neither innate nor intrinsic to the nature of the loan itself, can perhaps concur with the contract of loan, from which a wholly just and legitimate cause arises for duly exacting something more beyond the principal owed from the loan. Nor is it likewise denied that one’s own money can often be rightly placed and expended through other contracts altogether diverse in nature from the nature of a loan, either for acquiring annual revenues for oneself, or also for exercising lawful commerce and trade and receiving honest profits therefrom.

“IV. But just as in so many diverse kinds of contracts of this sort, if the equality proper to each is not preserved, whatever is received beyond what is just, although it pertains less to usury—because every loan, whether open or disguised, is absent—certainly pertains to another true injustice likewise carrying the burden of restitution; so, if all things are duly performed and are weighed according to the balance of justice, there is no doubt that in those same contracts there is available a manifold lawful mode and method of preserving and promoting human commerce and fruitful trade for the public benefit. Far be it from Christian minds to think that profitable commerce can flourish through usuries or similar injuries to another, since on the contrary we learn from the divine oracle itself that justice exalts a nation, but sin makes peoples wretched. “V. But this must be diligently noted: anyone would falsely and only rashly persuade himself that there are always and everywhere at hand either other legitimate titles together with a loan, or, even with the loan excluded, other just contracts, by the protection of which titles or contracts, whenever money, grain, or anything else of that kind is lent to anyone, it would always be lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the whole principal preserved intact. If anyone thinks thus, he will without doubt be opposed not only to divine teachings and to the judgment of the Catholic Church concerning usury, but also to human common sense itself and natural reason. For no one can be ignorant at least of this: that in many cases a man is bound to assist another by a simple and bare loan, especially as Christ the Lord Himself teaches: Turn not away from him who wishes to borrow from you; and likewise that in many circumstances, besides the one loan, there can be no place for any other true and just contract. Therefore, whoever wishes to provide for his conscience must first inquire diligently whether a just title truly concurs with the loan, or whether another contract truly just and distinct from a loan occurs, by benefit of which the profit he seeks may be rendered free and immune from every stain.

Ҥ 4. With these words the Cardinals, theologians, and men most skilled in the canons whose counsel We sought in this most grave affair embrace and explain their opinions. We likewise did not omit to contribute Our private study to the same cause, before the Congregations were held, while they were being held, and even after they were completed; for We most diligently went through the votes of the outstanding men whom We have just commemorated. Since these things are so, We approve and confirm whatever is contained in the opinions set forth above, since plainly all writers, professors of theology and canon law, many testimonies of Sacred Scripture, decrees of Our predecessor Pontiffs, and the authority of Councils and Fathers appear to concur well in confirming those opinions. Moreover, We have most clearly recognized the authors to whom the contrary opinions must be referred, and likewise those who foster and defend them or appear to furnish an opening or occasion for them; nor are We ignorant with how much wisdom and gravity theologians neighboring those regions where controversies of this kind had their beginning undertook the defense of truth.

Ҥ 5. Therefore We have given these Encyclical Letters to all the Archbishops, Bishops, and Ordinaries of Italy so that these things might become known to you, Venerable Brother, and to all others; and so that whenever it falls to you to celebrate Synods, address the people, and instruct them in sacred doctrines, nothing at all alien to the opinions which We have reviewed above may be brought forward. We also vehemently admonish you to expend every solicitude lest anyone in your dioceses dare to teach the contrary by writings or sermons. If anyone refuses to obey, We declare him liable and subject to the penalties established by the sacred canons against those who have contemned and violated Apostolic commands.

Ҥ 6. Concerning the contract which stirred up these new controversies, however, We establish nothing at present; nor do We now decree anything concerning other contracts about which theologians and interpreters of the canons depart into diverse opinions. Nevertheless, We judge that your zeal for piety and religion should be inflamed so that you may commit to execution those things which We set forth below.

Ҥ 7. First, show your peoples in the gravest words that the stain and vice of usury is vehemently condemned by the divine writings, and that it assumes various forms and appearances so that it may cast the faithful, restored to liberty and grace by the Blood of Christ, headlong again into final ruin. Therefore, if they wish to invest their money, let them diligently beware lest they be carried away by cupidity, the source of all evils, but rather let them seek counsel from those who are exalted above others by the glory of learning and virtue.

“§ 8. Secondly, let those who so trust in their own powers and wisdom that they do not hesitate to give a response concerning these questions—which nevertheless require no slight knowledge of sacred theology and the canons—keep far from extremes, which are always vicious. For some judge these matters with such severity that they accuse every benefit derived from money as unlawful and connected with usury; while others, on the contrary, are so indulgent and lax that they think every emolument free from the baseness of usury. Let them not adhere excessively to their private opinions; but before giving a response, let them examine several writers who are more highly esteemed among others; then let them embrace those parts which they understand to be plainly confirmed both by reason and authority. But if a dispute arises while some contract is brought under examination, let no reproaches whatsoever be devised against those who follow the contrary opinion, nor let them assert that it is to be marked by grave censures, especially if it is by no means lacking in reason and the testimony of eminent men; for insults and injuries break the bond of Christian charity and present most grave offense and scandal to the people.

Ҥ 9. Thirdly, those who wish to show themselves immune and undefiled from every stain of usury, and to give their money to another in such a manner that they receive only a legitimate return, are to be admonished that they first declare the contract to be made, explain the conditions to be introduced, and state what return they seek from the same money. These things contribute greatly not only toward avoiding solicitude and scruples of mind, but also toward proving the contract itself in the external forum; they also bar entry to disputes which have more than once had to be stirred up so that it may be clearly evident whether money which appears to have been duly given to another nevertheless contains disguised usury in reality.

Ҥ 10. Fourthly, We exhort you not to leave an opening for the foolish speeches of those who repeatedly say that at this time the question concerning usury is one contained in name alone, since from money granted to another under any arrangement some return is generally obtained. We plainly perceive how false and alien to truth this is if we consider that the nature of one contract is altogether diverse and separate from the nature of another, and that the things which follow from contracts diverse among themselves likewise differ greatly from one another. In truth, there is a most manifest difference between the return which is lawfully derived from money by right, and therefore can be retained in both forums, and the return which is unlawfully procured from money, and therefore is decreed to be restored by the judgment of both forums. It is therefore evident that the question concerning usury is not proposed vainly at this time merely because some return is generally received from money which is assigned to another.

Ҥ 11. We judged that these things especially should be indicated to you, hoping that you will commit to execution whatever is prescribed by Us through these Letters. We also trust that you will provide opportune remedies if perhaps disturbances are stirred up in your diocese because of this new controversy concerning usury, or corruptions are introduced to weaken the brightness and purity of sound doctrine. Finally, We impart the Apostolic Blessing to you and to the flock entrusted to your care.

“Given at Rome at Saint Mary Major, 1 November 1745, the sixth year of Our Pontificate.”

Pius VIII, in the audience of the Assessor of the Holy Office, concerning the doubts of the Bishop of Rennes. — “The Bishop of Rennes in France explains to the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition that the confessors of his diocese do not have the same opinion concerning profit received from money given as a loan to merchants so that they may become wealthy.

“The meaning of the Encyclical Letter Vix pervenit is keenly disputed. Arguments are brought forward on both sides to defend the opinion each has embraced, either favoring or opposing such profit. Hence complaints, dissensions, denial of the sacraments to very many merchants adhering to that manner of becoming wealthy, and innumerable injuries to souls.

“To meet the injuries to souls, some confessors think that they can hold a middle way between the two opinions. If anyone consults them concerning profit of this kind, they attempt to deter him from it. If the penitent persists in the plan of giving money as a loan to merchants and objects that the opinion favoring such a loan has many patrons and moreover has not been condemned by the Holy See, although it has been consulted more than once on the matter, these confessors then require the penitent to promise that with filial obedience he will obey the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, if it intervenes, whatever it may be; and when this promise has been obtained they do not deny absolution, although they believe the contrary opinion to such a loan to be more probable. If the penitent does not confess profit from money thus given as a loan and appears to be in good faith, these confessors, even if they know from another source that profit of this kind has been or is now being received by him, absolve him without making any interrogation concerning it when they fear that the penitent, if admonished, will refuse to restore or to abstain from such profit. The said Bishop of Rennes therefore asks: I. Whether he can approve the manner of acting of these latter confessors. II. Whether he can exhort other more rigorous confessors who approach him for counsel to follow the manner of acting of the former, until the Holy See renders an express judgment concerning the question.

“Wednesday, 18 August 1830. Our Most Holy Lord Pius VIII, Pope by divine providence, in the usual audience granted to the Most Reverend Lord Assessor of the Holy Office, having heard the report of the foregoing doubts together with the vote of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinal Inquisitors General, responded: To I. They are not to be disturbed. To II. Provided for in the first.”

Sacred Penitentiary, concerning the doubts of Mr. Denavit, professor of theology in the Seminary of Saint Irenaeus at Lyons. — “When doubts concerning the matter of usury are proposed to the Sacred Penitentiary, it always refers them to the doctrine of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, which is truly sufficiently clear and perspicuous for those who wish to investigate it in good faith.

“Nevertheless, there are certain priests who contend that it is lawful to receive an increase of five percent by force of the law of the prince alone, without another title of either emerging loss or ceasing profit; because, they say, the law of the prince is a legitimate title, since it transfers ownership of the increase just as it transfers ownership in prescription. And thus they altogether annihilate the divine law and the ecclesiastical law which prohibit usuries.

“Therefore the undersigned petitioner humbly supplicates that the following doubts be resolved: I. Whether in conscience he can deny absolution to the aforesaid priests. II. Whether he ought to do so.

“The Sacred Penitentiary, after diligently and maturely weighing the proposed doubts, judged that the response should be: The priests of whom there is question are not to be disturbed until the Holy See issues a definitive decision, to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and therefore nothing prevents their absolution in the sacrament of Penance.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 September 1830.

The Sacred Penitentiary communicates to the Bishop of Verona responses formerly given by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. — “The Sacred Penitentiary, having read the matters set forth by the Venerable Father in Christ, the Bishop of Verona, in a supplicatory petition on the first day of last month, judged that it should abstain from a resolution of the four doubts proposed therein, but communicates to the petitioner the responses given by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to certain other doubts concerning the same matter. These are as follows.

“I. Whether a confessor can in conscience deny absolution to priests who contend that the law of the prince is a sufficient title for receiving something beyond the principal without another title of either ceasing profit or emerging loss. II. Whether he ought to do so. — Resp. To both: They are not to be disturbed until the Holy See issues a definitive decision, to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and therefore nothing prevents their absolution in the sacrament of Penance.

“Other doubts. — I. Whether that confessor can be absolved who, although he knows the definitions of Benedict XIV and other Supreme Pontiffs concerning usury, teaches that from a loan furnished to the rich or to merchants, a profit of five percent beyond the principal can be received even by those who have no title at all extrinsic to the loan other than the civil law. II. Whether a confessor sins who leaves in good faith a penitent who exacts from a loan the profit established by civil law without an extrinsic title of ceasing profit, emerging loss, or extraordinary danger. — Resp. To I. The confessor of whom there is question is not to be disturbed until the Holy See issues a definitive decision, to which he is prepared to subject himself; and therefore nothing prevents his absolution in the sacrament of Penance. To II. Provided for in the preceding response, provided that the penitents are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See.

“Other doubts. — A certain man was persuaded that the Encyclical of Benedict XIV did not prohibit profit received from the contribution of money according to the provisions of civil law. His heirs ask: I. Whether he understood the Encyclical correctly. II. Even supposing that he understood it badly, but was nevertheless persuaded that he understood it correctly, whether the heirs can regard themselves as exempt from every reparation. — Resp. To I. Let them acquiesce, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See. To II. Provided for in the first.

“Other doubts. — I. Whether the manner of acting of those confessors can be approved who, while holding as more probable the opinion contrary to profit from money given as a loan to merchants, absolve penitents receiving profit in this manner so that they may become wealthy when, namely, these penitents, objecting that the opinion favorable to profit has not been condemned by the Holy See, nevertheless promise to obey the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff if it intervenes; and who act similarly when penitents receiving profit in good faith do not confess it, although the confessors know from another source that they receive profit as above, no interrogation concerning it being made when they fear that the penitents, if admonished, will refuse to restore or to abstain from such profit. II. Whether the Bishop can exhort more rigorous confessors who approach him for counsel to follow the manner of acting of the former confessors until the Holy See renders an express judgment concerning the question. — Resp. To I. They are not to be disturbed. To II. Provided for in the first.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 August 1831.

General Congregation of the Holy Office, approved by Gregory XVI, concerning the questions of the Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Locarno. — “Questions of the Chapter of Locarno. — The Chapter of this Collegiate Church of Locarno, Diocese of Como, Swiss territory, has the greater part of its prebends in money derived principally from the extinction of the tithes which occurred by governmental decree; this money it must invest, so that it may live from the returns and fulfill the burdens annexed to the benefices.

“Because of the circumstances of the times and places, either no way at all is found to invest the said money in income-producing real property, which is very scarce in proportion to the population; or because of the dearness of the said real property, it would yield only two and one-half percent annually, which would excessively worsen prebends already meager in themselves.

“Annuities are intended to be prohibited by these municipal laws; and they are insecure, since the office of mortgages which would certify the freedom and sufficiency of the properties upon which they are intended to be established does not exist in these regions. Moreover, those very persons who ask us for the money in order to advance their interests ordinarily refuse to subject themselves to annuities, and prefer to receive it as a loan while contributing four or five percent annually.

“These things being premised, it is asked: I. Whether the necessary decent support of the beneficiaries, which ought to come from the return on the capital of such prebends, is in these circumstances a sufficient title equivalent to others already approved by the Church, by which such a contract would be lawful: to give the endowment money of the said prebends at interest of four or five percent, secured by a mortgage of real property, in order to assure the perpetuity of the prebends. II. Whether this title, supposing it admissible, can also be extended in favor of churches, monasteries, and other pious places, as also of wards and other persons who find themselves in the same circumstances described above and need to make their own money productive in order to support themselves decently. III. Whether the civil laws and procedures which now generally approve such contracts and cause them to be executed, as also the common tacit consent of the peoples, who through usage prevailing for centuries appear to have substituted them, for greater convenience and ease, for other more complicated and difficult contracts, suffice to justify them. IV. Whether the authority of our Ordinary and of many wise and upright ecclesiastics is worthy of consideration, who, having regard for the aforesaid circumstances, opine favorably and approve similar contracts. V. What consideration is merited in this matter by the reasons which Scipione Maffei adduces in his three books on the employment of money, dedicated to Benedict XIV and approved by the Inquisitor of Padua in 1714. VI. Whether the Bull On Usury, issued by Benedict XIV of happy memory in 1745, probably in consequence of Maffei’s work, in its no. 3 and in the article Concerning the contract, and the following sections, can be interpreted favorably toward such contracts. VII. Supposing such contracts unlawful, what is to be resolved concerning those already made and the returns already received? VIII. Whether such contracts can be rendered lawful at least by assuming, as a burden upon the prebend, the fortuitous risk of the property assigned as a pledge, with the due stipulations, as in annuities. The undersigned petitioners humbly desire and implore from Your Holiness a clear and opportune decision of these doubts of theirs, for the direction of their own consciences and those of others generally disturbed on this matter. Locarno, 13 May 1831.

“The agent adds the general and very great scarcity of money or of properties, the latter ordinarily in the possession of a few. — If the lending of money were removed, property owners, for the most part unfit for commerce and the arts, would easily be reduced to misery after their little capital was consumed. — Others, lacking their own money and real property to exchange for cash, would not be able to advance by industry. — Because Mounts of Piety are lacking, in their necessities they would often be obliged to sell their small paternal inheritance, and often at the lowest price. — The disturbance of consciences is exceedingly great. Hence various Ordinaries, after considering everything, have pronounced in favor. Otherwise there would arise general disorder and a total impediment to affairs and industry.

“Wednesday, 31 August 1831. The foregoing petitions of the Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Locarno having been proposed, which had already been distributed in manuscript together with the votes of the Lord Consultors, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords said: To I, II, III, IV. They are not to be disturbed, and let them acquiesce, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See. To V, VI, VII, VIII. Let them consult the Encyclical Vix pervenit of Benedict XIV and approved authors. Wednesday, 7 September 1831. Our Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI approved.”

The Sacred Penitentiary, concerning new questions of Professor Denavit. — “The undersigned petitioner again explains to the Sacred Penitentiary: From the response of the Sacred Penitentiary directed to the undersigned petitioner on 16 September 1830, priests who contend that the law of the prince is a sufficient and legitimate title for receiving something beyond the principal in a loan, without another title commonly admitted by theologians, are to be absolved until the Holy See issues a definitive decision to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and I humbly and willingly acquiesce in this response. Nevertheless, without prejudice to the aforesaid response of the Sacred Penitentiary, after consulting approved authors and attending to the doctrine of almost all the Seminaries of France, and especially of those directed by priests of the Congregation of Saint Sulpice, the opinion which rejects the title of civil law as insufficient appears far more probable, safer, and alone to be held in practice until the Holy See shall define. Therefore, to the faithful who ask me for counsel whether they can receive an increase from a loan, and who have no title commonly admitted by theologians apart from the title of civil law, I respond that they cannot exact the aforesaid increase, and I deny sacramental absolution if they exact it. I likewise deny absolution to those who, having received usuries of this kind, that is, by force of the title of law alone, refuse to restore. It is asked: I. Whether I conduct myself too harshly and severely toward faithful of this kind. II. What manner of acting is to be held in practice toward the faithful until the Holy See issues a definitive opinion.

“The Sacred Penitentiary, having weighed the doubts proposed by the petitioner, responded: To I. In the affirmative, since from the response given by the Sacred Penitentiary it is evident that faithful of this kind who conduct themselves thus in good faith are not to be disturbed. To II. Provided for in the first; whence let the petitioner endeavor to conform himself in practice to the prior response of the Sacred Penitentiary dated 16 September 1830. Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, 11 November 1831.”

The Sacred Penitentiary, concerning the questions of John Anthony Avvaro, Doctor of Sacred Theology and royal professor. — “The royal Piedmontese law universally and without any restriction permits anyone who lends money to any other to stipulate for and exact an annual increase of five per hundred beyond the principal. Hence in the Diocese of Pinerolo and other neighboring dioceses a most grave controversy rages among theologians: whether, in cases in which on the one hand there is no title of ceasing profit, emerging loss, or extraordinary danger of losing the principal, while on the other hand the precept of charity toward one’s neighbor does not oblige one to lend by a simple and bare loan, it is lawful for the lender to receive and retain that increase. For some contend that the increase is altogether usurious and unlawful, while others contend that it is altogether immune from every stain of usury and entirely lawful; and, what renders the controversy far more intricate, all boast that they rest upon the authority of Benedict XIV, or at least that he is in no way opposed to them.

“Namely, the theologians who defend the first opinion say that the increase in question was condemned by Benedict XIV, implicitly indeed in the Encyclical Vix pervenit of 1 November 1745, as is evident from an attentive reading of it; but explicitly in the work On the Diocesan Synod, book 10, chapter 4, nos. 2 and 3, in these words: ‘Calvin partly agreed with the Greeks, who, on chapter 18 of Ezechiel, taught that it was lawful to exact some moderate profit, not indeed from a poor man but from a rich man, precisely by reason of a loan. The error casually insinuated by Calvin was expressly defended by Charles Molinaeus in his treatise on usury, where at no. 10 he boldly affirms that usury is prohibited only insofar as it is contrary to charity. Having embraced the same depraved opinion, Claudius Salmasius defended it by another argument in two treatises, one entitled On Usury, the other On Banking Interest, in which places he absolves usury of all fault, provided it does not injure charity, because it is the price of money hired out. Certain few Catholic Doctors did not fear to subscribe to the impious opinion of Calvin and Molinaeus: namely, those who, when there is question of a loan by which money or another thing is given for business, excuse from the stain of interest the profit which is received from the loan, provided that it is moderate and observes the limit defined by the laws of the country.’ Moreover, although Benedict XIV in On the Diocesan Synod speaks only as a private Doctor, he nevertheless without doubt knew best of all what he had wished to condemn in his Encyclical; and therefore whatever he later wrote concerning usury in the Synod, especially in the cited chapter 4, where in no. 10 he summarily relates the doctrine defined in the Encyclical, is to be regarded as an explanation of the same Encyclical, from which it would be a sin to depart.

“But the theologians who defend the second opinion say that the increase is not received from the loan by reason of the loan itself, or solely on account of the loan, or by force of the loan itself, or precisely by reason of the loan—that is, with ceasing profit, emerging loss, or another extrinsic title removed—which Benedict XIV most deservedly condemned as usurious and unlawful by every law, both in the Encyclical § 3, nos. 1 and 2, and in the cited place of On the Synod, no. 11; but rather it is received by reason, cause, force, and extrinsic title of the civil law transferring ownership of the increase from the borrower to the lender, in the manner in which ownership of things is transferred from one to another through legitimate prescription; or by reason of the public good which, circumstances having changed, in the present state of affairs could scarcely, or not even scarcely, be obtained without that increase; or by reason of the voluntary, tacit, and mutual consent to the increase permitted by law on the part of society as a whole in general, which has the right to dispose of its things as it pleases, and especially on the part of those who now abound in money and now are in need, and who now lend money and now receive it; or by reason of the custom received almost everywhere in the Catholic world, even among men of timorous conscience, of exacting a moderate increase defined by the laws of the country; or on account of other causes of this kind which Benedict XIV nowhere weighed or mentioned. But to the argument which the patrons of the first opinion deduce from the Encyclical and from the work On the Diocesan Synod, they respond in four ways.

“They respond, first, that Benedict XIV in the Encyclical Vix pervenit established this one thing: namely, that then no increase, even moderate, can be received beyond the principal from a loan when someone is bound to assist another with a simple and bare loan without any increase, which has place in many cases from the precept of charity and from that alone, and this because then no legitimate title for exacting something beyond the principal can concur with the loan; or when he gives a loan in those cases in which he can enter upon no other just contract apart from the one loan, which also occurs in many circumstances, for example when he lends wine, oil, etc., to another, as is evident from § 3, no. 5, where, after he defined that it is falsely and rashly affirmed that there are always and everywhere at hand either other legitimate titles together with a loan, or, even with the loan excluded, other just contracts, by the protection of which titles or contracts, whenever money, grain, or anything else of that kind is lent to anyone, it would always be lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the whole principal preserved intact; and that one who so affirmed would without doubt oppose not only divine teachings and the judgment of the Catholic Church concerning usury, but also human common sense itself and natural reason; he gives the reason for this definition and concludes with these notable words: ‘For no one can be ignorant at least of this: that in many cases a man is bound to assist another by a simple and bare loan, especially as Christ the Lord Himself teaches: Turn not away from him who wishes to borrow from you; and that likewise in many circumstances, besides the one loan, there can be no place for any other true and just contract’; and therefore, according to Benedict XIV, whenever money is given as a loan and the precept of charity does not oblige one to lend it by a simple and bare loan, some legitimate title—for example, civil law, the public good, etc.—can always be found together with the loan, indeed is everywhere at hand, by the protection of which it is lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the principal, according to that well-worn rule: In necessary matters the expression of one is the exclusion of the other; or at least that Benedict XIV is in no way opposed to this opinion.

“They respond, secondly, that Benedict XIV is likewise in no way opposed to this opinion in the things which he wrote concerning usury in the cited chapter 4 of On the Synod, nos. 2 and 3, because there he teaches only that, after the Greek schismatics, the perpetual doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning usury was contradicted by Calvin, who erroneously taught that some moderate profit from a loan, precisely by reason of the loan—in which the essence of usury is situated—could lawfully be exacted from the rich; by Charles Molinaeus, who boldly affirmed that usury of this kind admitted by Calvin and evil of its own nature was prohibited only insofar as it is contrary to charity; by Claudius Salmasius, who perversely absolved the same usury from all fault provided it did not injure charity, under the false pretext that it is the price of money hired out; and finally by those few Catholic Doctors who, not fearing to subscribe to the impious opinion of Calvin and Molinaeus, boldly affirmed with them and erroneously taught that usury is prohibited only insofar as it is contrary to charity, and that the profit exacted and received from merchants from a loan precisely by reason of the loan is excused from the stain of interest, provided that it is moderate and observes the limit defined by the laws of the country. Certainly all these things differ not even by a fingernail’s breadth from the doctrine contained in the Encyclical. But it is one thing for an increase, even a moderate one defined by the laws of the country, received from a loan precisely by reason of the loan, to be usurious and unlawful; it is another thing for that moderate increase defined by the laws of the country, received from a loan not precisely by reason of the loan but by reason of civil law or other extrinsic causes commemorated a little above, to be usurious and unlawful. Benedict XIV affirms the first; concerning the second he does not say even a word.

“They respond, thirdly, that on the hypothesis that Benedict XIV in the Synod were in fact opposed to this opinion, one who, resting upon solid reasons, modestly departed from his private opinion or explanation would in no way be culpable, since he himself at the end of the preface to the Diocesan Synod openly professes that in all matters to which no weight has accrued from the public authority of the Church—such without doubt is the explanation in question—he wishes to define nothing in the Synod or present it as decretory; adducing to prove this both the authority of Melchior Cano and the example of Innocent IV, who, although he wrote his commentaries upon the books of the Decretals while he held the Supreme Pontificate, ‘nevertheless never arrogated this to himself: that whatever he wrote in that work should be regarded as a matter defined; but he easily permitted his opinions, which he proposed as a private Doctor, to be opposed by other Doctors, as is evident, etc.’

“They respond, fourthly, that even on the hypothesis that Benedict XIV in the Encyclical were opposed to this opinion, no argument could now be taken from it for condemning that moderate increase permitted by law which is received in the present state of affairs, because a change of circumstances could have introduced some variation, indeed has manifestly introduced one—not indeed with respect to the principles upon which the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning usury and loans rests, which are always the same and altogether invariable, but with respect to their application. “Having diligently considered the doctrine of Benedict, insofar as the slender powers of my intellect allowed, I judge this to be the more probable as it is the more moderate: that one can deservedly doubt whether that doctrine by itself is sufficient to settle this controversy or not. But since, even with this opinion of mine posited, in which I ought to place little confidence, it still remains uncertain whether that increase can be received with a safe conscience, so that, all uncertainty removed, I may have ready the faculty of replying suitably to certain confessors who recently consulted me concerning the same controversy, and also to others who, by reason of the offices I discharge, will consult me either within or outside the sacred tribunal of Penance, I suppliantly ask and adjure Your Eminence in the Lord to transmit to me the resolution of the three questions which I submit here:

“I. Whether the increase in question is lawful. And insofar as this question cannot be directly resolved from the doctrine of Benedict XIV and other judgments of the Apostolic See: II. Whether penitents who received that increase either in doubtful or bad faith can be sacramentally absolved, no restitution being made or promised here and now, provided that they seriously promise that they are prepared to execute whatever the Apostolic See shall determine concerning this matter. And insofar as the answer is affirmative, as some assert that a provisional rescript has already been given several times in the name of the Holy Office and of the Apostolic See to this and other similar questions, although these rescripts and their tenor are not known to me: III. Whether it is likewise lawful for those who neither have any title of ceasing profit, emerging loss, or extraordinary danger of losing the principal, nor are situated in cases in which the precept of charity toward one’s neighbor obliges them to lend by a simple and bare loan, to give money as a loan with an annual increase of five percent beyond the principal stipulated or agreed upon, as the royal law permits, under the same condition of obeying future determinations of the Apostolic See concerning this matter.

“The Sacred Penitentiary judged that the resolutions formerly given to certain doubts concerning usury should be transmitted to the beloved in Christ Joseph Anthony Avvaro, namely, those altogether which We adduced above under no. V.” Sacred Penitentiary, 11 February 1832.

Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition, concerning the doubt of the Bishop of Nice. — “In the periodicals entitled Annali delle scienze religiose, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 128, and L’Ami de la Religion, 2 April 1835, no. 2436, there is read a response which the Cardinal Major Penitentiary gave on 7 March 1833 to the Bishop of Viviers upon a question proposed by him concerning usury. For the Prelate had explained that certain preachers of the word of God taught in public sermons that it was lawful to receive profit from a loan under the title of civil law, without saying anything about that condition appended to the responses recently issued by the Sacred Penitentiary, by which provision was made that penitents receiving profit from a loan under the title of civil law must be prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See; and he had asked whether those priests were to be disapproved.

“Benignly assenting to his prayers, the Most Eminent Major Penitentiary responded that the Sacred Penitentiary had by no means wished by those responses to define the question debated by theologians concerning a title derived from the law of the prince, but only to propose a norm which confessors might safely follow toward penitents who in good faith received the moderate profit established by the law of the prince and were prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See; and therefore that the manner of acting of those preachers who absolutely teach in sacred sermons that it is lawful to receive profit from a loan under the title of civil law, while suppressing the stated conditions, can in no way be approved. “Certain persons, attending to the words in good faith appended in that response, contend that, according to the norm several times proposed to confessors by the Sacred Penitentiary, only those who received the stated profit in good faith can be sacramentally absolved without a burden of restitution being imposed. Others, on the contrary, assert that even those who received the said profit in doubtful or bad faith can be absolved without a burden of restitution being imposed, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See; and, as they say, this clause in good faith does not concern the burden of restitution but rather the uprightness of the agent and absolution, which confessors cannot impart to penitents constituted in bad faith unless they first repent of what was committed in bad faith; and they deduce this from the very petition of the Bishop of Viviers. The Bishop had not asked, they say, whether penitents constituted in doubtful or bad faith were to be bound to restitution, but only whether those preachers were to be disapproved who, with no condition stated, preached the use of the aforesaid loan to be lawful; and since the Holy See had not yet defined the question, and an act committed in bad faith, although it does not of itself induce a burden of restitution, nevertheless always induces guilt, hence they say that the Most Eminent Cardinal disapproved the manner of acting of those who, suppressing the conditions of good faith and of standing by the commands of the Holy See, absolutely preached the use of the said loan to be lawful, without the Most Eminent Cardinal speaking about the obligation of restitution, concerning which the Prelate did not ask. They also deduce it from the condition required by the Sacred Penitentiary in penitents of standing by the commands of the Holy See, which disposition necessarily either supposes or excites doubt concerning the uprightness of the aforesaid loan.

“And since on both sides there are men of the greatest piety and no slight authority, in order that provision may be made for the peace of souls in so frequent and serious a matter, it is most humbly asked: Whether penitents who received moderate profit from a loan under the title of law alone in DOUBTFUL or BAD FAITH can be sacramentally absolved without a burden of restitution being imposed, provided that they sincerely grieve for the sin committed because of doubtful or bad faith and are prepared with filial obedience to stand by the commands of the Holy See.

“Wednesday, 17 January 1838. In the General Congregation of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition held in the Convent of Saint Mary sopra Minerva before the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Inquisitors General against heretical depravity, the above-stated doubt having been proposed, the same Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords said: In the affirmative, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See.”

On 26 March 1840, the following doubt having been proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office: whether N. N. is bound to return anything, whose father had given a great sum of money as a loan with profit of ten percent, corresponding to the legal rate of that time; and insofar as he was subject to restitution, whether he might lawfully retain at least five percent, the rescript was: Concerning usuries in general, let him consult the decrees already issued. Concerning the excessiveness of the returns, let him consult the Most Reverend Lord Bishop, who shall weigh the circumstances of the fact and the practice of that time which prevailed among men of timorous conscience, and shall provide.

Finally, when in the past year 1871 it was asked from a certain place in Italy: “1. Whether today it is lawful, even for ecclesiastics, to invest money with the moderate return of five percent, as the law previously permitted under the legitimate government? 2. Whether today those pious places, nuns, and monasteries which receive a return of six percent from their capital are to be disturbed, since today this is given and received in the common course?”

The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on 28 February 1872 responded to both: According to the responses formerly given, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, they are not to be disturbed.

These things which, following the order of time, We have related here are the principal responses among many others which are reduced to these same points. From them it can be gathered:

1. Speaking generally of profit from a loan, nothing at all can be received from it by force of the loan, or immediately and precisely by reason of it.

2. It is lawful to receive something beyond the principal if perhaps some extrinsic title, not universally connected with and innate in the nature of a loan, is added to the loan.

3. Although all other titles are lacking, such as ceasing profit, emerging loss, danger of losing the principal, or of undertaking unusual labors for recovery of the principal, the title of civil law alone can also be regarded as sufficient in practice, both by the faithful and by their confessors, who therefore may not disturb their penitents concerning this matter so long as this question remains pending under judgment and the Holy See has not explicitly defined it.

4. The toleration of this practice can in no way be extended either to render respectable usury, however small, toward the poor, or to immoderate usury exceeding the limits of natural equity.

5. Finally, what quantity of usury is to be called immoderate and excessive, and what just and moderate, cannot be determined universally, since this must be measured in individual cases, regard being had for all and each of the circumstances of places, persons, and times.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1873.

“Chinese persons remaining in a usurious state cannot be baptized; but if they are compelled by the authority of a judge to lend their own money, they can receive something beyond the principal, even when a pledge has been received, both by reason of the burden which they are compelled to undergo and by reason of care in guarding the pledges, and also of ceasing profit and emerging loss. But at the appointed time, if from the sale of the pledges anything remains beyond the principal and the profit justly acquired from the aforesaid causes, it is to be restored to the owner of the pledge.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 12 September 1645.

“In view of the notable increase of present taxes and of the greater income needed to sustain them, there is no one in this Diocese of Ariano who wishes to give money as a loan at the rate of five percent as is tolerated by that Holy See; by many it is given at eight percent, and by others according to what the Great Book yields, and this because the income received from the loan is also burdened by the tax on movable wealth.

“Now, in order to provide for the peace of conscience of so many and not to expose the people to the danger of no longer finding anyone to lend them money, which has become so scarce and sought after in the present times, it is desired to know whether such a practice can be tolerated; and in the negative case, whether confessors can at least permit their penitents to exact five percent net and leave to the charge of the payers the tax with which the government has burdened every income. — Resp. Provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, they are not to be disturbed.” Holy Office, 18 December 1872.

“The undersigned… submits… the unfortunately very frequent case of usury of ten or eight per hundred, which is received even by good Christians, in view of the almost equal profit which would always with greater punctuality be drawn from the same capital if it were invested in the new Banks. Add that the cited percentage is most often intended to be received net also of the tax on movable wealth, because of fear of a burdensome fine to which the creditor would be subject in the easy hypothesis of the necessary publication of the hereditary title in order to reimburse the sums lent…. — The Sacred Penitentiary responds: Since to fix the return on money by way of a rule is dangerous… let the Bishop petitioner decide the matter in individual cases according to the common practice observed by men of timorous conscience in the respective places and times.” Sacred Penitentiary, 18 April 1889.

When a doubt was proposed concerning a law distinguishing between legal and conventional interest, the Sacred Congregation on 18 August 1858 responded: “Concerning legal returns, provision has been made by decrees formerly issued. Concerning conventional returns and their titles, provision has been made by the Encyclical Vix pervenit. Concerning the quantity of those conventional returns and returns upon returns, account is to be taken in individual cases, regard being had for all and each of the circumstances of places, persons, and times, according to the rules handed down by the Sacred Canons and approved authors. And let the decrees of 13 January 1780 and 26 March 1840 be given,” which have already been related above. Cf. no. 1095; C. 2141.

“1. In the sale of ecclesiastical goods, let an appraisal of them made in writing by upright experts precede; let all interested parties be heard; let the evident necessity or utility of the Church be established; let them be sold in favor of the highest bidder and at no lower price than that appraised by the aforesaid experts; let the price be paid in full by the buyer at the act of stipulation and invested in a productive, safe, and lawful investment; but if this is not immediately available, let the price be deposited in some public treasury or with some person of recognized uprightness and fitness, with a written security received and most carefully kept by the Patriarch or Bishop of the church to which the goods sold belong.

“2. In exchanges, let an appraisal of the properties made in writing by upright experts precede; let all interested parties be heard; let the evident utility of the Church be established; and in the stipulation of the contract let recourse on both sides to the original rights in case of eviction be expressly reserved. But if the value of the ecclesiastical property exceeds the value of the property which is received by the Church in exchange, let that sum of money necessary for equalizing the contract be paid to the Church at the act of stipulation, and invested in an honorable, safe, and lawful investment; and meanwhile let it be deposited as above in a public treasury or with a person of recognized uprightness and fitness.

“3. In entering emphyteutic contracts, let an appraisal by experts precede; let all interested parties be heard; let the evident utility of the Church be established; let the rent to be paid by the emphyteuta be no less than that fixed by the experts; let the stipulation be committed to writing, to which a description of the property and its topographical plan are to be added; let the emphyteuta furnish a mortgage inscription upon another suitable property of his, or at least, if this is lacking, the security of suitable persons for securing three years’ rents; and in the stipulation itself let him issue an obligation valid for himself and his heirs and successors never to use any present or future law or privilege for redemption of the rent, and to cede all improvements to the soil.

“4. If there is question of ecclesiastical goods being pledged or of contracting a debt, it is necessary first that all interested parties be heard and that the true and grave necessity of the Church be established. If this truly intervenes, care must be taken that the Church itself discharge that debt as soon as it can be done; and for that reason an obligation is to be imposed upon it in individual cases to extinguish the contracted debt by annual installments to be predetermined by the Bishop. For this purpose certain revenues of the same Church are to be assigned and on each occasion deposited in a public treasury or with an upright and suitable person, so that they can be invested at the proper time.

“5. But when it happens that the money of the Church is to be invested, two things must above all be most diligently attended to: first, that every stain of usury be far removed from the contracts to be entered; second, that provision be made for the indemnity of the Church. Therefore its money is not to be placed except with upright and suitable persons who furnish a mortgage inscription or at least suitable security; and all contracts of this kind are to be committed to public records according to the received custom of the regions.

“6. Finally, in leases of ecclesiastical goods care must be taken that the aforesaid leases be made at a just price and that payment of the annual return not be made in advance to the prejudice of successors. It will not be lawful to lease ecclesiastical goods beyond three years; but the Ordinary, if he has obtained from the Apostolic See a special faculty concerning alienation of ecclesiastical goods, can permit the aforesaid leases to be made even beyond the stated time, provided that it does not exceed nine years.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 July 1867.

“Whether goods belonging to a religious family or another pious Institute, which nevertheless are registered in the civil forum as the property of a private man, can be alienated without the previous permission of the Holy See? — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 17 February 1866.

“…Concerning the first question, whether religious Institutes of simple vows, whether of men or women, whether approved by the Holy See or merely diocesan, need the good pleasure of the Apostolic See for alienation of their goods, the response is affirmative.

“But in relation to the other question, whether Bishops, by force of the privilege conceded to them concerning alienation of the goods of the diocese, can permit the aforesaid Congregations to make these alienations, the response is: Bishops can do this within the limits of their faculty.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 15 January 1903.

“…It is confessed by all that a covenant of resale, or an agreement that the buyer either can or must resell the thing bought to the seller, whether in favor of the seller alone, of the buyer alone, or of both, very frequently even with a time prescribed, can be made and is lawful in itself. For just as the seller has power to sell his thing absolutely, so also to sell it with a certain mode and covenant; and likewise the buyer, since he is free to buy either with or without such a covenant, provided that the equality of both is preserved. But to avoid the iniquity of disguised usury, certain conditions are commonly posited by theologians, namely:

“1. That nothing be done in usurious fraud and that there be the intention truly to buy and sell; otherwise it would already be an implicit or disguised loan, and the profit arising therefrom would be usury. Hence a low price offered by the buyer for retaining the thing longer; likewise, if a buyer accustomed to other usuries should be unwilling to make a loan but should buy a thing with a covenant of resale, would introduce a founded doubt and ought diligently to arouse attention.

“2. That the burden imposed be compensated; for every burden extrinsic to the contract and estimable by price must be compensated, otherwise equality and justice would not be preserved. Therefore the price must be diminished if the buyer is bound to resell the thing bought to the seller, for such an obligation is a burden estimable by price, since it deprives the buyer of the faculty of retaining or otherwise alienating it; but it must be increased if the seller is obliged to redeem the thing sold whenever the buyer wishes, since this burden also is estimable by price and extrinsic to the sale. Hence the purchase of a fruitful thing made under this law, that the seller be bound afterward to receive back his thing and return to the buyer the whole price received for it while the buyer retains the fruits, could, at least in practice, introduce a suspicion of concealed usury. For in fact, with respect to him who, unwilling to lend to another seeking money, buys from him a vineyard or house under this law, that after two or three years it is redeemed at the same price at which it was bought, with the fruits received from it retained, it savors of a virtual loan with profit. For such a person does not have a sincere intention of buying, but only intends to give the aforesaid money so that he may afterward receive the whole of it with profit, which is usurious.

“3. That the thing not be redeemed at a greater price than that at which it was first sold, unless it has been improved by the industry or labor of the buyer; for the force of a covenant of resale consists in this: that the buyer restores the thing when the price given for it has been restored. For to contract with this covenant is equivalent to contracting with a covenant that it be lawful after some time to dissolve the contract.

“4. That the buyer truly become owner of the thing bought, undergo its risk, sustain its burdens, and receive its fruits and advantages; for the nature of the contract demands this.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1860.

“40. The mohatra contract is lawful, even with respect to the same person and with a contract of resale previously entered with an intention of profit.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“First, We condemn all those exchanges which are called dry and are so contrived that the contracting parties pretend to celebrate exchanges for certain fairs or other places, to which places those who receive the money indeed deliver their bills of exchange, but they are not sent; or they are sent in such a manner that, after the lapse of time, they are returned empty to the place from which they proceeded; or even when no letters of this kind are delivered, the money is finally sought back with interest there where the contract was celebrated. For from the beginning it had been so agreed between those giving and receiving, or at least such was their intention, and there is no one who, at the fairs or places mentioned above, makes payment upon receipt of letters of this kind. Similar to this evil also is that in which money is delivered under the name either of a deposit or of another fictitious exchange, so that afterward it may be restored with profit in the same place or elsewhere. But even in those exchanges which are called real, sometimes, as is reported to Us, the money changers defer the appointed term of payment when profit from a tacit or express agreement has been received or even merely promised. All these things We declare to be usurious and more strictly prohibit from being done. Moreover, in order also to remove from exchanges, insofar as We can with God, occasions of sinning and the frauds of moneylenders, We establish that henceforth no one shall dare, either from the beginning or afterward, to stipulate a certain and determinate interest, even in case of nonpayment; nor to conduct real exchanges otherwise than for the first fairs, where these are celebrated, or, where they are not celebrated, for the first terms according to the received custom of the places, that abuse of conducting exchanges for second and subsequent fairs or terms being altogether rejected. Care must be taken, moreover, in the terms that account be had of the remoteness and nearness of the places in which payment is appointed, lest, when longer terms are fixed than the places of appointed payment require, an occasion of lending at interest be given.” Saint Pius V, Constitution In eam, 28 January 1571.

“The petition recently presented to Us contained that, although from so long a time that no memory of the contrary exists, in diverse parts of Germany, for the common utility of men, among the inhabitants and residents of those regions there has grown up and thus far been observed… the following custom: that those inhabitants and residents, or those among them to whom this appeared expedient for their condition and indemnity, selling annual revenues or annuities of marks, florins, or groschen, the money current in those regions, upon their goods, houses, fields, estates, possessions, and inheritances, were accustomed to receive for each of such marks, florins, or groschen from those who bought them or those same revenues or annuities, a certain suitable price in counted money according to the quality of the time, as the sellers and buyers themselves agreed among themselves in the contracts concerning these things; effectively binding the houses, lands, fields, estates, possessions, and inheritances aforesaid, which were expressed in contracts of this kind, to payment of the aforesaid revenues and annuities in favor of those buyers; with this added, that in proportion as they restored in whole or in part to the said buyers the money received by them in this manner, they would be altogether free and immune from payment of the revenues or annuities corresponding to the money restored; but those same buyers, even if goods, houses, lands, fields, possessions, and inheritances of this kind should in the course of time be reduced to the disgrace of complete destruction or desolation, could not seek back the money itself even by bringing an action…. We therefore… in order to remove every doubt of ambiguity concerning these matters, by Our Apostolic authority and by the tenor of these presents declare the aforesaid contracts lawful and conformable to law, and the sellers effectively bound, every obstacle of contradiction removed, to payment of the annuities and revenues according to the tenor of the said contracts.” Callistus III, Extravagantes Communes, book 3, title 5, chapter 2; this is a confirmation of the Bull of Martin V concerning the same matter, ibid., chapter 1.

Cf. no. 1139.

Cf. Cases of Conscience, 5th ed., vol. 1, no. 77, 5.

Cf. no. 1139.

The fruits of a pledged thing are to be counted toward the principal. If, after those fruits have been received, someone has already received his principal, the pledge is absolutely to be restored to the debtor without any exaction of usuries. Alexander III, chapter Plures 1, On Usury; chapter Quoniam 2 of the same title; chapter Conquestus 8 of the same title.

“36. It is permitted to steal not only in extreme necessity but also in grave necessity.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“38. No one is bound under pain of mortal sin to restore what has been taken through small thefts, however great the total sum may be.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“It is necessary to hold as a basis that churches, monasteries, convents, as also ecclesiastical properties, ought not to be guarded more castrorum; consequently, if material resistance cannot be opposed to force, moral force can nevertheless be opposed to it, and the aforesaid things can be protected by suitable protests, according as the Sacred Canons prescribe in similar circumstances; conducting oneself in a merely passive manner and yielding only to imminent coercion….” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 July 1855.

“Whether Ordinaries, parish priests, beneficiaries, and other administrators of ecclesiastical goods, if demanded under grave penalties, can deliver an inventory of their respective revenues to the Government? — Resp. It may be permitted, provided, however, that in each act the respective administrators issue a written protest concerning the necessity of the delivery in order to avoid greater evils and for protection of the rights of the Church. The mind of the Most Holy Lord is that the Ordinaries, before or after the delivery, if it can be done, make a collective protest concerning the aforesaid things, reverently indeed, but with evangelical liberty.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Whether parish priests and other ecclesiastics to whom injury was inflicted by the abolition of tithes made by the Government can accept the compensations proposed by that Government? — Resp. They can, according to the oracle of the Most Holy Lord, under the title of mere compensation for the injury inflicted upon them by the Government through prevention of the exaction of tithes, receive the pensions assigned by the Government; provided, however, that a protest is first made either by the Ordinary of the place in common or by each of the said parish priests or ecclesiastics in particular, that by receipt of this kind the abolition of tithes made by the Government is in no way recognized or approved, and provided that the debtors of the same tithes are prudently admonished that they are not freed by force of the law enacted by the Government from the burden of paying them.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Whether parish priests can freely enjoy the tithes which are paid by the faithful and at the same time the compensation which they receive from the Government? — Resp. Insofar as parish priests receive a supplement from the Government as compensation for tithes, and it equals the tithes which they formerly received, the remainder furnished by the faithful is to be expended upon pious causes according to the judgment of the Bishop.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 November 1902.

“Parish priests can retain from the tithes paid to them that part which is necessary for equalizing the complete revenue of the parish which they enjoyed before the abolition, even if this exceeded 900 lire. But those parish priests who could not lead life decently with the congrua of 900 lire ought to make their own condition known to the Bishop, who, if he judges it necessary, can grant them the faculty of retaining the tithes either wholly or in part, even if their sum now exceeds the revenue which they formerly had.

“Parish priests, having received the faculty from their own Bishop, can in particular cases and for special reasons temporarily reduce for the faithful the quantity of tithes which they ought to pay, diminishing it even to one-half or still more, regard being had for the circumstances.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 November 1902.

“How ought a confessor to conduct himself with penitents, fathers of families, whom he knows with certainty, or doubts, to be unwilling, although able, to pay tithes to the Church, if they remain altogether silent concerning this matter in confession? — Resp. Let the confessor direct himself according to the rules handed down by approved authors, but especially by Saint Alphonsus, book 6, no. 610.” Sacred Penitentiary, 8 March 1898; 20 November 1902.

“If the parish priest has had equitable compensation or a supplement from the Government for the tithes, the faithful who do not pay tithes are not to be disturbed, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Church.” Sacred Penitentiary, 4 May 1897; 7 May 1899; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 61 ff.; M. E., vol. 14, p. 210 ff., p. 492 ff.

“Whether those who seek absolution ought, before they are absolved, to repair those injuries which the Pontifical Government has suffered in the present vicissitudes of affairs? — Resp. It is sufficient that they be prepared in soul to stand by the commands to be issued by the Holy See concerning this matter.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Whether a Christian faithful who knowingly and willingly destroys and ruins the walls, doors, and furnishings of a pagan temple, and is captured by the pagans for that cause, ought or can repair the injury, at least under another title? — Resp. He is bound to restitution under the title of justice.” Holy Office, 21 September 1842.

“39. One who moves or induces another to inflict grave damage upon a third party is not bound to restitution for that damage inflicted.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Your Lordship requests a norm concerning the conduct to be observed toward penitents who have stolen from the Turks and cannot make restitution without danger to their lives, since the Turks always wish to know the name of the thief. Concerning this matter, the Sacred Congregation has decreed that Your Lordship ought to adhere to the opinion of good authors, who teach that, when restitution of the things stolen cannot be made to their owner, not even through confessors, and, on the other hand, the guilty party cannot retain what was wrongfully taken, the value of the things stolen ought to be expended for pious causes, or among the poor.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 September 1840.

“N. N. represents that some years ago he received one hundred and thirty lire as a loan from a certain individual, who afterward died without having collected the said sum. N. N. thought that he would fulfill his duty by having Masses celebrated and other pious works performed in suffrage for the deceased creditor, expending upon them more than the sum received.

“Two confessors approved this manner of making restitution, but a third has said that it ought to be made to the brothers of the deceased creditor, as his necessary heirs. N. N. is disposed to carry out this latter counsel or duty of justice, if it be such; but, since he acted in good faith, and since it would be most troublesome for him to seek the creditor’s heirs, although they dwell in the same city as the petitioner, and to make the fact known to others, he humbly begs Your Lordship graciously to ratify the aforesaid restitution as valid and to declare him free from every obligation of justice in the present case. — Resp. Since a right of a third party is involved, there is no place for condonation, and the sum mentioned in the petition must be restored to the heirs of the deceased.” Sacred Penitentiary, 7 February 1899.

“37. Male and female domestic servants can secretly take from their masters in order to compensate for their labor, which they judge to be worth a greater wage than that which they receive.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.