On the Seventh Precept of the Decalogue

"1. It is lawful to capture by force or fraud Blacks and other savages who are hostile to no one. 2. It is lawful to buy, sell, and make other contracts concerning Blacks and other savages hostile to no one, captured by force or fraud. 3. When Blacks and other savages unjustly captured are mixed with others who can justly be sold, it is lawful to buy all, or, as they say, the good and the bad. 4. Buyers of Blacks or other savages are not bound to inquire concerning the title of their servitude, whether they are slaves justly or unjustly, although they know that very many of them have been unjustly captured. 5. Possessors of Blacks or other savages hostile to no one, captured by force or fraud, are not bound to manumit them. 6. Captors, buyers, and possessors of Blacks and other savages hostile to no one, captured by force or fraud, are not bound to compensate their damages. 7. It is lawful for possessors of Blacks and other slaves by private authority to expose them to manifest danger of death, to wound, burn, or kill them. 8. It is lawful to baptize Blacks and other Infidels capable of the doctrine of faith without instruction in the mysteries of faith necessary for salvation; likewise to leave the same baptized persons without that instruction. 9. Masters of Blacks and other slaves are not bound to prevent them from living in concubinage. 10. It is lawful to retain captives in servitude after Baptism, whether or not they are slaves justly. 11. It is lawful to buy Blacks from Heretics mediately or immediately, and after purchase or donation, or any other contract, for them to remain their slaves, and likewise to sell to them. 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 in the article of death. To 9. They are bound. To 10. In the negative, if unjustly. To 11. In the negative, with bad faith existing." S. I. C. 20 March 1686.

"From olden 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, indeed sometimes if they know certainly, that those slaves were stolen away in their own country. First of all a distinction must be made whether the captive Laotians who are sold by kidnappers were taken away from their legitimate master, or rather, being free and of their own right, have fallen into the unjust servitude of kidnappers. In the first case it is not lawful to buy them; for although they are unjustly held by the kidnappers, nevertheless it is wrong to buy the goods of another taken by theft, against the master's will. In the second case, again and likewise, a distinction must be made whether the Laotians refuse to sell themselves to Christians, or consent. If they refuse, they can by no means be bought, for the captives themselves are masters of their own liberty, although it has been unjustly stolen from them by kidnappers. But if, after they have been fully taught that liberty belongs to them by right, from which they have fallen only by the injury of others, voluntarily and of their own accord, and from their free and proper will, as masters of their own affairs, they offer themselves to Christians, that they may be received by them and detained in servitude, with this prudent plan: that, freed from the more grave and hard servitude of kidnappers, from which it had not been given to them to emancipate themselves in another way, they may obtain a milder servitude among Christian buyers, among whom also they will easily be able to persuade themselves that they can come to the knowledge of the worship of the true God and profess it with inestimable advantage to their souls; in those circumstances indeed it will be possible to permit Christians, with regard also had to the favor of the faith, that they can 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 mind: that they treat them according to the precepts of Christian charity, and take care also to imbue them with the rudiments of faith, so that, if it can be done, they may be brought over freely and happily into the liberty of the children of God, which is in the Catholic Church alone, with no coercion however being made, but only by opportune persuasions and exhortations, through their conversion to the true faith." S. I. C. 11 Dec. 1776.

In the Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., 30 July 1867, these things are established:

"1. In the sale of ecclesiastical goods, let an estimate of the same first be made in writing by upright experts; let all those having an interest be heard; let there be certainty concerning the evident necessity or utility of the Church. Let them be sold in favor of the higher bidder and not for a lower price than that which was estimated by the aforesaid experts. Let the price be paid in full by the buyer in the act of stipulation, and let it be placed in a productive, safe, and lawful investment; but if this is not at hand, let the price be deposited in some public chest, or with some person of proven uprightness and suitability, with security nevertheless received and drawn up in writing, to be most carefully kept by the Patriarch or Bishop of the church to which the goods sold pertain.

2. In exchanges, let an estimate of the properties first be made in writing by upright experts; let all those having an interest be heard; let there be certainty concerning the evident utility of the Church; and in the stipulation of the contract let a return on both sides to the original rights be expressly reserved in case of eviction. But if the value of the ecclesiastical property exceeds the value of the property which is received by the church in exchange, that amount of money which is necessary for equalizing the contract is to be paid to the church in the act of stipulation, and placed in an honorable, safe, and lawful investment; and meanwhile let it be deposited, as above, in a public chest, or with a person of proven uprightness and suitability.

3. In entering emphyteutic contracts, let an estimate of experts first be made; let all those having an interest be heard; let there be certainty concerning the evident utility of the Church; let the canon to be paid by the emphyteuta not be less than that which was established by the experts; let the stipulation be committed to writing, to which a description of the property and a topographical map of the same are to be added; let the emphyteuta furnish a mortgage inscription upon another suitable property of his own, or at least, this failing, the surety of suitable persons for the security of the canons of three years; 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 of redemption of the canon, and that all improvements cede to the soil.

4. If there is question of pledging the goods of the Church, or of contracting debt, it is necessary that first all those having an interest be heard, and that there be certainty concerning the true and grave necessity of the Church. If this truly intervenes, care must be taken that that debt, as soon as it will be able to be done, be discharged by the church itself; and for this reason there is to be imposed on it, in individual cases, the obligation of extinguishing the contracted debt by annual installments to be predefined by the Bishop himself. To that effect certain determinate revenues of the same church will have to be assigned, and on each occasion deposited in a public chest, or with an honest and suitable person, so that they can be invested at their time.

5. But when it happens that money of the Church is to be invested, two things must first most diligently be taken care of: first, that any usurious stain be far distant from contracts to be entered; second, that provision be made for the indemnity of the Church. Therefore let its money not be placed except with honest and suitable persons, who furnish a mortgage inscription, or at least suitable surety; and let all contracts of this kind 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 the payment of the annual return not be made in advance to the prejudice of successors. But it will not be lawful to lease ecclesiastical goods beyond three years; yet the Ordinary, if he has obtained from the Apostolic See a special faculty concerning the alienation of ecclesiastical goods, can permit the aforesaid leases to be made even beyond the aforesaid time, provided that it does not exceed nine years." Cf. Zephyrinus Zitelli, Apparatus Iuris Eccles., Rome, 1866, p. 53.

"Whether goods belonging to a religious family or to another pious Institute, which nevertheless in the civil forum are registered as the property of a private person, can be alienated without previous permission of the Holy See? Resp. In the negative." S. C. EE. and RR. 17 Feb. 1866. Cf. Commentary on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, nn. 83, 84.

"Whether a Christian faithful person who knowingly and willingly destroys and ruins the walls, doors, and implements of an idol temple, and for that reason is seized by the Heathens, ought or can repair the damage, at least under another title? - Resp. He is bound to restitution, under the title of justice." S. I. C. 21 Sept. 1842.

"Whether a simple condition added in a promissory note concerning restitution of money to be made in no other way than in sound money loses its force even in the forum of conscience through a subsequent civil law invalidating it? - Resp. Regularly in the affirmative, unless peculiar circumstances stand in the way, concerning which recourse must be had in particular cases, with the same diligently set forth." S. Poenit. 21 Jan. 1873. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 209 ff.

"It is necessary to hold as a basis that Churches, monasteries, convents, as well as ecclesiastical properties, must not be guarded more castrorum; if consequently material resistance cannot be opposed to force, nevertheless moral force can be opposed to it, and the aforesaid things can be protected with analogous protests, according as the Sacred Canons prescribe in similar conjunctures; to keep oneself in a merely passive manner, and to yield only to imminent coercion..." S. Poenit. 20 July 1855.

"Whether Ordinaries, Parish Priests, Beneficiaries, and the other administrators of Ecclesiastical Goods, if they are required under grave penalties, can hand over to the Government an inventory of the respective revenues? - Resp. It is permitted, but with a protestation put forth in writing in the individual acts by the respective administrators concerning the necessity of the handing over in order to avoid greater evils, and for the protection of the rights of the Church. But the mind of the Most Holy Lord is that Ordinaries, before or after the handing over, if it can be done, make a collective protestation concerning the foregoing, reverently indeed, but with evangelical liberty." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Whether Parish Priests and other Ecclesiastics, to whom damage has been inflicted by the abolition of Tithes made by the Government, can accept 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 damage inflicted on them by the Government because of the impeded exaction of Tithes, receive pensions assigned by the Government; nevertheless with a protestation first made, either by the Ordinary of the place in common, or by any one of the said Parish Priests or Ecclesiastics in particular, that by a receiving of this kind the abolition of Tithes made by the Government is in no way recognized or approved, and with the debtors of the same Tithes cautiously admonished that by force of the law enacted by the Government they are not freed from the burden of paying the same." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860.

"Whether those who seek absolution ought, before they are absolved, to repair those damages which the Pontifical Government has suffered in the present vicissitudes of affairs? - Resp. It suffices that in mind they be prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See to be issued concerning this." S. Poenit. 10 Dec. 1860. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Vol. 2, n. 1092 ff.; Scavini, bk. 4, App. 32, Milan, 1874.

"1. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed Regular dying outside the Cloisters, who obtained an Apostolic Indult of remaining outside the Cloisters for a time, retaining the habit or having laid aside the clothing of his Order? 2. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed Regular who, having in the unhappy time passed been cast out of the monastery by public way, and stripped of the clothing of his Order, was prevented by reasonable cause from returning to his monastery and reassuming the clothing of his Order in the subsequent time of tranquility? 3. To whom belongs the right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed Regular who obtained an Apostolic Indult of acquiring inheritances and legacies, and of disposing of those acquired, and especially if the disposition was for pious causes and in favor of Religion? - Resp. To 1. Concerning an inheritance of this kind judgment must be made according to the dispositions of common Ecclesiastical Law, namely, that it belongs to the proper Religion of the deceased. To 2. If the religious of whom there is question did not enjoy an absolute Indult of perpetual secularization, as in the preceding case. But if he did enjoy it, a distinction must be made among the goods left by him: namely, the goods which belonged to the Religion and which, leaving the Cloister, he himself had brought out with him, or which had come to him in any way, as also the goods, if he had any, coming from those, remain with the same Religion. But as regards the other goods acquired by such a Religious outside the Cloisters otherwise than from goods belonging to the Religion, judgment concerning them must be made according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII. To 3. If the said Religious legitimately used the Apostolic Indult of disposing of goods, as in the case, namely with a disposition everywhere legitimate of the same goods having been made, the right about which there is question belongs to him in whose favor the disposition was made." S. C. EE. and RR. 26 June 1829.

"... General Responses... 1. A monk, even furnished with an Apostolic Indult of perpetual and absolute secularization, cannot dispose of goods without the special good pleasure of the Apostolic See. 2. If he lacks the said Indult of disposing, or has not legitimately used it, a distinction must be made among the goods left by him, namely, the goods which belonged to the Monastery and which, leaving the cloister, he himself had brought out with him, or which had come to him in any way, as also the goods, if he had any, coming from those, remain with his Monastery. But as regards the other goods acquired by such a Monk outside the cloisters otherwise than from goods belonging to religion, judgment concerning them is to be made according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII, where the said Constitution is in force. 5. The right of succeeding to the inheritance of a professed Monk dying outside the cloisters, who obtained an Apostolic Indult of remaining outside the cloisters for a time, retaining the habit or having laid aside the clothing of his Order, belongs to his Monastery." S. C. EE. and RR. 4 Jan. 1862. The cited Constitution of Gregory establishes that goods of Regulars living outside the cloisters, from whatever source they came, under the name of spoils, pertain to the Apostolic Camera.

"1. Whether pensions which are paid from the public treasury to Regulars living outside the Cloisters are to be held as Ecclesiastical pensions, so that by their nature they are subject to spoil? And, in the negative, 2. To whom belongs after their death the right of receiving unpaid installments of the said pensions, if professed Regulars obtained an Apostolic indult of remaining outside the Cloisters, whether for a time or in perpetuity? 3. To whom belongs the same right, if professed Regulars of this kind obtained an indult of making a will and disposing? 4. To whom belongs the aforesaid right, if there is question of Regulars who emitted only simple vows? - Resp. To 1. In the negative. To 2. If the Indult was temporary, it belongs to the proper Religion of the deceased; if perpetual, to the S. C. of Spoils according to the Constitution Officii nostri of Gregory XIII. To 5. The right about which there is question pertains to him 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 is to be observed. - To 4. It belongs neither to the Religion nor to the S. C. of Spoils, but to his heirs, coming either ab intestato or from a testament." S. C. EE. and RR. 6 June 1836.

"... In order to cut off all causes of doubt and controversy concerning this matter, by the counsel of Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church set over the affairs and consultations of Bishops and Regulars, by Our Apostolic authority we decree and command these things which follow. I. Cardinal Bishops are bound, as regards sacred utensils, by the law enacted in the Constitution of St. Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis, except however suburbicarian Cardinal Bishops, and likewise except Cardinal Abbots Nullius who dwell in the Roman Curia, whose sacred utensils, in view of the cited Constitution Aequum est of Urban VIII, Our Predecessor, will pertain to the Pontifical sacrarium. II. The derogatory clauses of the Constitution of St. Pius V, whose beginning is Romani Pontificis providentia, remaining firm, in the Letters in the form of a Brief beginning De benignitate Sedis Apostolicae, customarily to be appended, in the other Brief, which begins Cum fel. rec. Urbanus VIII, let the clause be removed by which the same Pian Constitution is declared saved, and in its place let those things which follow be substituted: But if you have presided over abbatial, cathedral, metropolitan, patriarchal churches, or any others which by Apostolic concession and dispensation you have obtained in title, administration, or commendam, we vehemently exhort you, just as Benedict XIV, Our Predecessor, in his Constitution beginning Inter arduas, exhorted Cardinals, that in disposing of the aforesaid things you have those churches before your eyes and prefer them to the rest. But those things which we have prescribed in this article, we extend to individual Cardinals who before the publication of the present Letters obtained the announced faculty of making a will and disposing, just as if they had been expressed in the respective indults. III. The sacred utensils which, by force of the Constitution of St. Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis, are owed to cathedral churches, we declare to be these: namely, miters, chasubles, copes, tunicles, dalmatics, sandals, gloves, albs with cinctures, linen amices, and things similar to these; likewise missals, graduals, books of plainchant and music, pontifical books, another book whose title is Canon of the Mass; likewise chalices, patens, pyxes, monstrances, thuribles, vessel of holy water with sprinkler, basin with ewer, vessels of the sacred oils, and cruets together with basins and bell, candlesticks, images of peace, archiepiscopal crosses, candlesticks with cross for the use of the altar, pastoral staff, faldstool, and other sacred things, whether vestments, ornaments, or vessels, if there are any, even those by their nature suitable for profane use, provided that not accidentally but permanently they have been destined for divine worship and sacred functions; except rings and pectoral crosses, even with sacred relics, and all those utensils of whatever kind which are legitimately proved to have been acquired by the deceased Bishops from goods not pertaining to the church, nor is it established that they were donated to the church. Therefore we will that Bishops are held and bound to make, in authentic form, an inventory of sacred utensils, in which, according to the truth of the matter, they express when they were acquired, and by a special note describe those which they acquired for themselves from the revenues and proceeds of the church, lest otherwise all those things be presumed to have been acquired from the revenues of the church. But as regards sacred utensils of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church pertaining to the sacrarium of the chapel of the Supreme Pontiff, we will that no account be taken of the quality and nature of the revenues by which they were acquired; and besides those things which are enumerated specifically in the Constitution of Urban VIII beginning Aequum est, we will that the following be understood as expressed only by general words: sandals, gloves, linen amices, albs with cinctures, likewise pyxes, monstrances, vessel of holy water with sprinkler, vessels of sacred oils, and cruets with basins and bell, finally pastoral staff, faldstool, candlesticks, images of peace, thurible, and things similar to these, except rings and pectoral crosses, even with sacred relics. IV. When a Bishop has ruled two or more churches successively, we will that the sacred utensils be divided proportionally among the cathedral churches, account being taken of the fruits and the time, according to the Constitution of St. Pius V beginning Romani Pontificis. V. But where some Bishop has presided at the same time over two or more churches united, or conceded in perpetual administration, which have a Chapter and their own distinct cathedral church, we declare that a division of the sacred utensils must be made in equal parts to the individual cathedral churches, insofar as the revenues of the same united churches, or churches conceded 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 to the individual cathedral churches proportionally by reason of the fruits. VI. But if it is established that a Bishop, who by translation presided over two churches successively, acquired for himself all the sacred utensils from the revenues only of one church, there will be no place for any division, but the same sacred utensils will pertain only to the cathedral church of that diocese from whose episcopal mensa's proceeds they were acquired." Pius IX, Cum illud, 1 June 1847.

"It often happens that questions concerning profit from a loan are referred to the Apostolic See, for which provision has been made by an appended resolution from the Roman Congregations in similar cases. Therefore, so that the Superiors of Missions may have at hand necessary knowledge of those things which thus far have been decreed on this matter, it seemed opportune to the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Christian Name to publish all the mentioned resolutions together with the Constitution Vix pervenit of Pope Benedict XIV; and it pleased it that they be sent to all Bishops, Vicars, and Apostolic Prefects depending on the same Sacred Congregation.

I.

S. C. S. O. under date of 13 Jan. 1780, to the Right Reverend Lord Apostolic Vicar N.N. - "Since equality is required in contracts in order that they be just, nothing in a loan, by force of the loan, as has often been defined, is to be received beyond the principal sum. But if it happens that profit ceases for the lender, or damage arises, or danger threatens of losing the sum, or of assuming unusual labors for its recovery, compensation for these indeed can be sought, yet with two conditions always placed before the eyes: the first, that some new title from these actually concur; the other, that nothing more be exacted than it truly demands. Wherefore all contracts depart from the rule of justice, and are liable to restitution, in which either an interest is feigned which is to be compensated, or more is sought than adequate compensation requires. Therefore it is evident that those act imprudently and illicitly, and commit themselves to manifest danger of injustice, who, from the fact that the danger which we indicate generally occurs in such a place, always require profit, and always the same profit, as if danger always intervenes, and, when it has been present, seek always the same remuneration. Nor are they excused because they receive a usury smaller than what is permitted by the law of the kingdom; since a thing is not therefore right because it departs less from justice, unless it is composed entirely 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. Those alone conduct themselves rightly who, looking to individual cases, then only demand compensation when danger truly intervenes, and then seek no other compensation than that which corresponds to the gravity of the danger, which is to be estimated by the judgment of upright and therefore prudent men."

II.

Sacred Roman Inquisition, year 1784, March 18, to the Apostolic Vicar D. D. M., on the question of a loan. - "And that first of all is certain, that by reason of the loan immediately and precisely nothing is to be received beyond the principal sum. But if something is received by reason of a probably imminent danger, the lenders are not to be disquieted, provided that account be had of the quality of the danger and of its probability, and that proportion be observed between the danger and that which is received. In these very words it was thus defined by the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide on 12 September in the year 1645, whose decree issued for the Chinese Missions is joined here. But the following doubt was:

In the aforesaid kingdom it was sanctioned by law that in a loan thirty per cent be received, without regard to ceasing profit or emerging damage. It is asked whether it is lawful for the Chinese, for the loan of their money, although ceasing profit or emerging damage does not intervene, to receive the aforesaid quantity of thirty per cent fixed by the law of the kingdom; and the cause of doubting is because in recovering the money there is some danger, namely, that he who receives the loaned thing may flee, or that he may delay in paying, or that it may be necessary to seek recovery 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 sum. But if they receive something by reason of a probably imminent danger, as in the case, they are not to be disquieted, provided that account be had of the quality of the danger and of its probability, and proportion 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 in its practice, strictly commanded and ordered all and singular Missionaries of whatever order, religion, and institute, even of the Society of Jesus, existing for the time being, or to exist, in the kingdoms of the Sinas or of China, under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to His Holiness and to the Holy Apostolic See, that they diligently observe the aforesaid responses and resolutions, use them in practice, and cause them to be observed and practiced by those to whom it will pertain, until His Holiness or the Holy Apostolic See shall have ordered otherwise.

It can now be asked what the danger ought to be, and what its character and nature, so that, this title concurring, the lender can receive something beyond the principal. But in this question it is to be held as certain that not just any danger whatever is to be judged sufficiently apt and suitable so that some profit can be received from a loan. For since the title from which a just and legitimate cause arises that something more beyond the principal due from the loan be rightly exacted must always be extrinsic, and not joined and innate to the nature of the loan, hence 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 nature itself of the loan, then certainly any profit whatever which is taken from the loan can by no means be purged from the stain of usury. Therefore, since plague, fires, persecutions of the Turks, and other misfortunes of this kind, although they are more frequent at Constantinople, nevertheless always threaten lenders in any city whatever, great care must be taken lest because of this common danger, which the force and nature of the loan itself carries, something beyond the principal be exacted in a loan. It seems rather to have greater inquiry when danger of losing the principal threatens either from the fault of the borrower himself, because he is crafty, deceitful, sly, because by flight or by malicious evasions he can deceive the creditor; 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 in recovering the principal. But although dangers which proceed from the fault of the borrower ought always to be held as more important, nevertheless in all these cases whether, how, and at what value such danger can be estimated, from which a legitimate title is furnished to the lender for taking profit above the principal, is indeed very difficult to establish generally. Let the skill and doctrine of Confessors be incumbent on estimating each matter and weighing it by its own moment. Let them weigh individual cases, inquire concerning the quality and probability of the danger, see whether by the security of a pledge every danger is absent, observe proportion between the danger and that which is permitted to the lender to gain above 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 de Propaganda Fide of the year 1645, and in the Encyclical Letter of Benedict XIV, Vix pervenit, issued in the year 1745, an example of which is alleged here."

"It 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 spread through Italy which did not seem consonant with sound doctrine, when at once we judged it part of our Apostolic office to bring an opportune remedy, lest an evil of this kind acquire more strength by length of time and silence; and to block its access, lest it creep more widely and shake cities of Italy still unharmed.

§ 1. Wherefore we undertook that method and plan which the Apostolic See has always been accustomed to use. Indeed we explained the whole matter to some of our Venerable Brothers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who are much commended by their knowledge of Sacred Theology and by their zeal and skill in Canonical Discipline. We also called several Regulars excellent in both faculties, some of whom we selected from Monks, others from the Order of Mendicants, and finally others from Clerks Regular. We also employed a Prelate endowed with the laurel in both laws and long versed in the forum. We appointed the fourth day of July, which recently passed, that all these should come together before Us; to them we declared the nature of the whole matter, which we found had been known and perceived by them beforehand.

§ 2. After these things we commanded that, freed from every party zeal and every desire, they accurately weigh the whole matter and write out their opinions. We did not, however, ask from them that they render judgment concerning the contract which had initially given cause to the controversy, since several documents were not available which were necessarily required for this; but that they establish certain doctrine concerning usury, to which those things which recently began to be spread among the people seemed to bring no slight detriment. 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, but the other on the first day of August, months which have recently elapsed; and finally they handed the same opinions in writing to the Secretary of the Congregation.

§ 3. Moreover, with unanimous consent they approved these things.

I. That kind of sin which is called usury, and which has its proper seat and place in the contract of loan, is placed in this: that someone, from the loan itself, which by its own nature demands that only as much be returned as was received, wishes more to be returned to himself 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 illicit and usurious.

II. Nor indeed, to purge that stain, will any assistance be able to be fetched, either from the fact that that profit is not excessive and too much, but moderate; not great, but small; or from the fact that he from whom that profit is demanded because of the loan alone is not poor, but rich; nor that he is not going to leave idle the sum given to him as a loan, but is going to expend it most usefully for enlarging his fortunes, or for buying new estates, or for carrying on profitable businesses. Indeed, against the law of loan, which necessarily turns on the equality of what is given and what is returned, he is convicted of acting, whoever, once the same equality has been posited, still does not fear to exact something more from anyone by force of the loan itself, to which satisfaction has already been made by an equal amount. And therefore, if he has received it, he will be liable to restitution, from the obligation of that justice which they call commutative, and whose office it is, in human contracts, both to preserve holily the proper equality of each one and exactly to repair it when not preserved.

III. By these things, however, it is by no means denied that sometimes, together with the contract of loan, certain other titles, as they say, can perhaps concur, and these by no means universally innate and intrinsic to the nature itself of loan, from which an altogether just and legitimate cause arises of rightly exacting something more above the principal due from the loan. Likewise it is not denied that many times money belonging to each person can rightly be placed and expended through other contracts entirely different in nature from the nature of a loan, whether for obtaining annual revenues for oneself, or also for exercising lawful commerce and business, and for receiving honorable profits from the same.

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 the just amount, if it pertains less to usury, because every loan, both open and disguised, is absent, yet certainly is known to pertain to another true injustice, likewise bringing the burden of restitution; so, if all things are rightly performed and are exacted according to the scale of justice, there is no doubt that a manifold lawful mode and reason is available in the same contracts for preserving and carrying on human commerce and fruitful business itself for the public advantage. For let it be far from the minds of Christians that they think profitable commerce can flourish through usuries or similar injuries against another; since, on the contrary, from the divine oracle itself we learn that justice exalts a nation, but sin makes peoples miserable.

V. But this must diligently be observed: anyone will falsely and rashly persuade himself that there are always found, and everywhere at hand, either other legitimate titles together with a loan, or, even with loan excluded, other just contracts, by whose support of titles or contracts, whenever money, grain, or anything else of that kind is credited to any other person, it is always lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the whole and safe principal. Thus if anyone should think, he will without doubt be opposed not only to divine documents and to the judgment of the Catholic Church concerning Usury, but also to common human sense itself and natural reason. For no one at least can be ignorant of this: that in many cases a man is bound to help another by a simple and bare loan, especially Christ the Lord Himself teaching: From him who wishes to borrow from you, turn not away; and that likewise in many circumstances, besides the one loan, there can be place for no other true and just contract. Therefore whoever wishes to consult his conscience must first diligently inquire whether truly with the loan another just title occurs, or truly another just contract different from the loan occurs, by whose benefit the profit which he seeks may be rendered free and immune from every stain.

§ 4. In these words the Cardinals, Theologians, and men most skilled in the Canons, whose counsel we requested in this most grave matter, comprise and explain their opinions. We also applied our private study to the same cause before the Congregations were held, and while they were being held, and even after they had been completed; for we most diligently went through the votes of the outstanding Men whom we have just mentioned. 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 of the Canons, several testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, Decrees of Our Predecessor Pontiffs, and the authority of Councils and Fathers seem to conspire well for proving the same opinions. Furthermore, we have most clearly known the Authors to whom contrary opinions must be referred, and likewise those who foster and defend them, or seem to provide 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.

§ 5. Therefore we have given these Encyclical letters to all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ordinaries of Italy, so that these things may become known to you, Venerable Brother, and to all the rest; and as often as it happens that you celebrate synods, speak to the people, and instruct them with sacred doctrines, nothing at all alien from those opinions which we have reviewed above should be brought forward. We also vehemently admonish that every solicitude be spent, lest anyone in your dioceses dare to teach the contrary in writings or sermons. But if anyone refuses to obey, we declare him liable and subject to the penalties proposed by the Sacred Canons against those who have contemned and violated Apostolic commands.

§ 6. But concerning the contract which has excited these new controversies, we establish nothing at present; nor do we now decree anything concerning other contracts for which Theologians and Interpreters of the Canons go into different opinions. Nevertheless we judge that the zeal and religion of your piety must be inflamed, so that you commit to execution these things which we set forth below.

§ 7. First, show your peoples in most grave words that the stain and vice of usury is vehemently disapproved by the divine Scriptures, and indeed that it puts on various forms and species, so that it may again drive headlong into extreme ruin the Faithful restored by the Blood of Christ into liberty and grace. Wherefore, if they wish to invest their money, let them diligently take care that they not be carried away by cupidity, the fountain of all evils, but rather seek counsel from those who are raised above the rest by the glory of doctrine and virtue.

§ 8. In the second place, those who so trust their own powers and wisdom that they do not hesitate to bring a response concerning those questions, which nevertheless require no slight knowledge of Sacred Theology and of the Canons, should abstain far from extremes, which are always vicious. For some judge concerning those matters with such severity that they accuse any utility taken from money as illicit and joined with usury; but on the contrary some are so indulgent and remiss that they think any advantage whatever free from the baseness of usury. Let them not cling too much to their private opinions; but before they render a response, let them examine several Writers who are more praised among the rest; then let them take up those parts which they understand to be plainly confirmed both by reason and by authority. But if a dispute arises while some contract is brought into examination, let absolutely no insults be fabricated against those who follow the contrary opinion, nor let them assert that it must be marked with grave censures, especially if it is by no means lacking in reason and in the testimonies of outstanding Men; since reproaches and injuries break the bond of Christian charity and carry before themselves a most grave offense and scandal to the people.

§ 9. In the third place, those who wish to present themselves immune and intact from every stain of usury, and to give their money to another in such a way that they receive only a legitimate fruit, are to be admonished that they first declare the contract to be established, explain the conditions to be introduced, and what fruit they seek from the same money. These things contribute greatly not only to avoiding anxiety of mind and scruples, but also to proving the contract itself in the external forum; these things also close the way to disputes, which more than once are stirred up so that it may clearly appear whether the money which seems to have been rightly given to another nevertheless in reality contains disguised usury.

§ 10. In the fourth place we exhort you not to leave a way open to the foolish speeches of those who keep saying that in this time a question about usury is being instituted which consists in name alone, since from money which is granted to another by any reason whatever, fruit is generally obtained. For how false this is, and alien from truth, we plainly discover if we weigh that the nature of one contract is entirely different and separated from the nature of another; and likewise that the things which follow from contracts different among themselves differ greatly among themselves. In truth, a most clear distinction lies between the fruit which by lawful right is taken from money, and therefore can be retained in both forums, and the fruit which is illicitly procured from money, and therefore is decreed by the judgment of both forums to be restored. Therefore it is clear that the question about usuries is not proposed in this time in vain because of that cause, that generally from money which is given to another some fruit is received.

§ 11. These things especially we judged had to be indicated to you, hoping that you will command whatever is prescribed by Us through these Letters to be put into execution. You will also, as we trust, consult by opportune remedies if perhaps, because of this new controversy concerning usuries, disturbances are stirred up in your diocese, or corruptions are introduced to shake the brightness and purity of sound doctrine. Finally we impart the Apostolic Benediction to you and to the flock entrusted to your care.

Given at Rome at St. Mary Major, on the 1st day of November, 1745, in the sixth year of Our Pontificate."

III.

Pius VIII, in the audience of the Assessor of the Holy Office, to the doubts of the Bishop of Rennes. - "The Bishop of Rennes in France sets forth to the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition that there is not the same opinion among the Confessors of his diocese concerning profit received from money given as a loan to merchants, that they may become rich.

Concerning the sense of the encyclical letter Vix pervenit, there is sharp dispute. From each side arguments are brought forward to defend the opinion each has embraced, either favoring such profit or contrary to it. From this come complaints, dissensions, denial of the sacraments to many merchants adhering to that manner of becoming rich, and innumerable harms to souls.

In order that they may meet harms to souls, some Confessors think that they can hold a middle way between each opinion. If someone consults them about profit of this kind, they try to deter him from it. If the penitent perseveres in the plan of giving money as a loan to merchants, and objects that the opinion favoring such a loan has many patrons, and furthermore has not been condemned by the Holy See, which was consulted on this matter more than once, then those Confessors demand that the penitent promise that he will obey with filial obedience the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, if it should intervene, whatever it may be. And, this promise having been obtained, they do not deny absolution, although they believe the opinion contrary to such a loan to be more probable. If the penitent does not confess concerning profit from money so given as a loan, and seems to be in good faith, those Confessors, even if from another source they know that such profit was received by him, or is even now being received, absolve him, with no interrogation made on that matter, when they fear lest the penitent, having been admonished, refuse to restore or to abstain from such profit. Therefore the said Bishop of Rennes inquires: I. Whether he can approve the manner of acting of these latter Confessors. II. Whether he can exhort other stricter Confessors who approach him for the sake of consultation to follow their manner of acting, until the Holy See renders an express judgment concerning this question. C. L., Bishop of Rennes.

Place of the Seal.

Feria IV, on the 18th day of August 1830. Our Most Holy Lord Pius VIII, Pope by divine providence, in the usual audience imparted to the Right Reverend Lord Assessor of the Holy Office, having heard the report of the above doubts together with the vote of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors, responded: To I. They are not to be disquieted. To II. Provided for in the first. For Lord Nicholas Soldini, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, Angelus Argenti, Secretary."

Place of the Seal of the Holy Inquisition.

IV.

Of the Sacred Penitentiary to the doubts of Lord Denavit, Professor of Theology in the Seminary of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. - "When doubts concerning the matter of usury are proposed to the Sacred Penitentiary, it always refers to the doctrine of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, which in truth is sufficiently clear and plain for those who wish to examine it in good faith.

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

Wherefore the undersigned Orator humbly begs that the following doubts be resolved: I. Whether he can in conscience deny absolution to the aforesaid presbyters. II. Whether he ought to. Lyons, 25 May 1830. Denavit, Professor.

The Sacred Penitentiary, after the proposed doubts had been diligently and maturely weighed, judged that response should be made: The Presbyters of whom there is question are not to be disquieted until the Holy See has issued a definitive decision, to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and therefore nothing stands in the way of their absolution in the sacrament of Penance. Given at Rome, in the Penitentiary, on 16 September 1830. E. Cardinal De Gregorio, Major Penitentiary; F. Fricca, Secretary of the Sacred Penitentiary."

V.

The Sacred Penitentiary communicates to the Bishop of Verona responses given at other times by the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office. - "The Sacred Penitentiary, having read the things set forth by the Venerable Father in Christ, the Bishop of Verona, in his supplicatory petition on the 1st day of the recently elapsed month, judged that it should abstain from the resolution of the four doubts which were proposed in it, but communicates to the orator the responses given by the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office to certain other doubts concerning the same matter. These are of this kind:

I. Whether a Confessor can in conscience deny absolution to presbyters who contend that the law of the prince is a sufficient title for receiving something beyond the principal without another title either of ceasing profit or of emerging damage. II. Whether he ought to. It is answered: To both, they are not to be disquieted until the Holy See has issued a definitive decision, to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and therefore nothing stands in the way of 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 of other Supreme Pontiffs concerning usury, teaches that from a loan made to the rich or to merchants there can be received beyond the principal a profit of five percent even by those who have absolutely no other title extrinsic to the loan except civil law. II. Whether a Confessor sins who leaves in good faith a penitent who from a loan exacts profit established by civil law without an extrinsic title of ceasing profit, or emerging damage, or extraordinary danger. It is answered: To I. The Confessor of whom there is question is not to be disquieted until the Holy See has issued a definitive decision, to which he is prepared to subject himself; and therefore nothing stands in the way of his absolution in the sacrament of Penance. To II. Provided for in the preceding, provided 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 lending of money according to the things disposed by civil law. His heirs ask: I. Whether he understood the encyclical rightly. II. Even supposing that he understood it badly, yet was persuaded that he understood it rightly, whether the heirs can think themselves exempt from every reparation. It is answered: To I. Let them acquiesce, provided 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 they hold as more probable the opinion contrary to profit from money given as a loan to merchants, absolve penitents receiving profit in that way so that they may become rich, when namely those penitents, objecting that the opinion favoring profit has not been condemned by the Holy See, nevertheless promise to obey the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, if it should intervene; and who act similarly when penitents receiving profit in good faith do not confess concerning it, although from another source they know that the same persons receive profit as above, with no interrogation made on that matter when they fear lest the penitents, admonished to restore or to abstain from such profit, refuse. II. Whether a Bishop can exhort stricter Confessors approaching him for the sake of consultation to follow the manner of acting of the former Confessors, until the Holy See renders an express judgment concerning this question. It is answered: To I. They are not to be disquieted. To II. Provided for in the first. Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, on 14 August 1831. V. D. Solimei, Secretary of the Sacred Penitentiary."

VI.

Of the 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.

"Most Blessed Father. The Chapter of this Collegiate Church of Locarno, Diocese of Como, Swiss territory, has the greater part of its prebends in money, derived chiefly from the extinction of tithes which occurred by governmental decree. This money it must employ, in order to live from the fruits of it and to fulfill the burdens annexed to the benefices.

By the circumstances of the times and places, either one does not find at all how to invest the said money in fruitful real properties, which are very scarce in proportion to the population; or, because of the high price of said real properties, it would bear only two and a half percent annually, which would excessively worsen the prebends, already meager in themselves.

Censuses are deemed prohibited by these municipal laws; and they are badly secured, since in these parts there is no office of mortgages which certifies the freedom and sufficiency of the properties on which they are wished to be established. Furthermore, the very same persons who, to carry on their interests, ask us for the money, ordinarily refuse to subject themselves to censuses and prefer to receive it as a loan, contributing four or five percent annually.

This being premised, it is asked: I. Whether the necessary honorable support of the beneficiaries, which must come from the fruit of the capital of such prebends, is in such circumstances a sufficient title equivalent to others already approved by the Church, by which such a contract would be lawful, namely, of giving the dotal money of the said prebends at interest of four or five percent, behind a mortgage of immovable goods, for the purpose of securing the perpetuity of the prebends. II. Whether this title, supposing it admissible, can be extended also 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 fruitful in order to support themselves honorably. III. Whether the civil laws and procedures which now generally approve such contracts and have them executed, as well as the common tacit consent of the peoples, who by the usage prevailing for centuries seem 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 good ecclesiastics is to be attended to, who, having had before their eyes the aforesaid circumstances, opine favorably and approve similar contracts. V. What consideration, in the matter, is deserved by the reasons which Scipione Maffei brings forward in his three books on the employment of money, dedicated to Benedict XIV and approved by the Inquisitor of Padua in the year 1744. VI. Whether the Bull De usuris, issued by Benedict XIV of happy memory in the year 1745, probably following the work of Maffei, at n. 3 of it and at the article de contractu autem and following, can be interpreted favorably to such contracts. VII. Supposing such contracts illicit, what is to be resolved concerning those already made and the fruits already received? VIII. Whether such contracts can be rendered lawful at least by assuming the fortuitous danger of the fund assigned in pledge to the burden of the prebend, with the due propositions, as in censuses. The undersigned orators humbly desire and implore from Your Holiness a clear and opportune decision of these their doubts, for the regulation of their own and of others' consciences, generally agitated in the matter. Locarno, 13 May 1831.

The agent adds the general and very great scarcity of money or of properties, these ordinarily in the possession of few. With the loan of money taken away, the possessors, for the most part unfit for commerce and the arts, their few capitals consumed, would easily be reduced to misery. Others, unprovided with their own money and with immovable properties to exchange into cash, could not advance by industry. Lacking Monti di Pieta, they would often be obliged to sell the small paternal inheritance, and often at a very vile price, in their necessities. The agitation of consciences is beyond measure great. Hence several Ordinaries, all things considered, have pronounced in favor. Otherwise there would arise a general dislocation and a total impediment of affairs and of industry.

Feria IV, 31 August 1831. The above prayers of the Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Locarno having been proposed, which had already been distributed by hand 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 disquieted, and let them acquiesce, provided 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. Feria IV, 7 September 1831. Our Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI, in the usual audience imparted to the Right Reverend Lord Assessor of the Holy Office, approved the resolutions of the Most Eminent Lords."

VII.

Of the Sacred Penitentiary to the new questions of Lord Denavit, professor. - "To the Sacred Penitentiary the undersigned orator again sets forth: From the response of the Sacred Penitentiary directed to the undersigned orator on 16 September 1830, the presbyters are to be absolved 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, until the Holy See shall have issued a definitive decision, to which they are prepared to subject themselves; and to this response I humbly and gladly acquiesce. Nevertheless, saving the aforesaid response of the Sacred Penitentiary, after consulting approved authors, and with attention paid to the doctrine of almost all the Seminaries of France, and especially of those which are directed by priests of the Congregation of St. Sulpice, the opinion which rejects the title of civil law as insufficient seems far more probable, safer, and the only one to be held in practice until the Holy See shall have defined. Wherefore to the faithful who ask counsel from me whether they can receive an increase from a loan, and who have no title commonly admitted by Theologians except the title of civil law, I respond that they cannot exact the aforesaid increase, and I deny sacramental absolution if they exact it. Likewise I deny absolution to those who, having received usuries of this kind, that is by force of the title of law alone, do not wish to restore. It is asked: I. Whether I conduct myself more 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 has issued a definitive sentence. Lyons, 24 September 1831. Denavit, Professor.

The Sacred Penitentiary, having weighed the doubts which are proposed by the orator, responded: To I. In the affirmative, since from the response given by the Sacred Penitentiary it is clear that faithful of this kind, who so conduct themselves in good faith, are not to be disquieted. To II. Provided for in the first; whence let the orator endeavor in practice to conform himself to the prior response of the Sacred Penitentiary under the date 16 September 1830. Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, on 11 November 1831. A. F. De Retz, Regent of the Sacred Penitentiary; E. Fricca, Secretary of the Sacred Penitentiary."

VIII.

Of the Sacred Penitentiary to the questions of John Anthony Avvaro, Doctor of Sacred Theology and royal professor. - "Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord. The royal Piedmontese law universally and without any restriction permits that whoever lends money to any other may stipulate and exact an annual increase of five per 100 above the principal. Hence in the Diocese of Pinerolo and other neighboring dioceses a most grave controversy is fervent among Theologians, whether, in cases in which on the one hand no title of ceasing profit or emerging damage or extraordinary danger of losing the principal is present, but on the other the precept of charity toward 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 maintain that that increase is wholly usurious and illicit; but others that it is free from every stain of usury and altogether lawful. And what renders the controversy very much more complicated: all glory in resting on 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 of which there is question was reproved by Benedict XIV, implicitly indeed in the encyclical of 1 November 1745, Vix pervenit, as is clear from an attentive reading of it; but explicitly in the work On the Diocesan Synod, bk. X, ch. IV, nn. 2 and 3, in these words: Calvin partly agreed with the Greeks, who, on chapter XVIII of Ezekiel, taught that it is lawful to exact some moderate profit, not indeed from a poor man, but from a rich man, precisely by reason of the loan. The error incidentally insinuated by Calvin, Charles Du Moulin professedly defended in his treatise on usuries, where at n. 10 he boldly affirms that usury is not prohibited except insofar as it is against charity. Claudius Salmasius, having embraced the same depraved opinion, defended it by another reason in a twofold treatise, one entitled On Usuries, the other On Trapezitic Interest, in which places he absolves usury, unless it wounds charity, from every fault, because it is the wage of rented money. A few certain Catholic Doctors did not fear to subscribe to the impious opinion of Calvin and Du Moulin: 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 measure defined by the laws of the fatherland. Moreover, although Benedict XIV in On the Diocesan Synod speaks only as a private doctor, nevertheless he himself without doubt knew best of all what he had wished to reprove in his encyclical; and therefore whatever he afterwards wrote concerning usury in the Synod, and especially in the cited chapter IV, where at n. 10 he summarily reports the doctrine defined in the encyclical, must be held as an explanation of the same encyclical, from which it would be a sin to recede.

But the Theologians who defend the second opinion say that that increase is not received from the loan by reason of the loan itself, or because of the loan alone, or by the force of the loan itself, or precisely by reason of the loan, that is, with ceasing profit, emerging damage, or another extrinsic title removed, which Benedict XIV most deservedly reproved as usurious and illicit by every right, both in the encyclical § 3, nn. 1 and 2, and in the cited place of On the Synod, n. 11; but rather by reason, cause, force, and extrinsic title of the civil law transferring dominion of the increase from the borrower to the lender, in the way in which dominion of things is transferred from one to another by legitimate prescription; or by reason of the public good, which, circumstances having changed, in the present state of affairs, without that increase could scarcely, or not even scarcely, be obtained; or by reason of a voluntary tacit and mutual consent to the increase permitted by law on the part of the whole of Society generally, in which there is a right of disposing of its own things as it pleases, and especially on the part of those who now abound in money and now need it, and now give money as a loan and now receive it; or by reason of custom almost everywhere received in the Catholic world, even among men of timorous conscience, of exacting a moderate increase defined by the laws of the fatherland; or because of other causes of this kind, which Benedict XIV nowhere weighs or mentions. But to the argument which the patrons of the first opinion draw from the encyclical and from the work On the Diocesan Synod, they respond in four ways.

They respond 1. That Benedict XIV in the encyclical Vix pervenit established this one thing: namely, that then no increase, even moderate, can be received from a loan beyond the principal, when someone either is bound to assist another by a simple and bare loan without any increase, which has place by the precept of charity, and by that alone, in many cases, and this because then no legitimate title can concur with the loan for exacting something above the principal; or when he gives a loan in those cases in which he can celebrate no other just contract except the one loan, which also happens in many circumstances, for example when he credits wine, oil, etc., to another, as is clear from § 3, n. 5, where after he defined that it is falsely and rashly affirmed that there are always found and everywhere at hand, either together with a loan other legitimate titles, or even with loan excluded, other just contracts, by the support of whose titles or contracts, whenever money, grain, or another thing of that kind is credited to any other person, it is always lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the whole and safe principal; and that he who would affirm this is opposed without doubt not only to divine documents and to the judgment of the Catholic Church concerning usury, but even to common human sense and natural reason; he gives the reason for this definition and concludes with these notable words: For no one at least can be ignorant of this, that in many cases a man is bound to assist another by a simple and bare loan, especially Christ the Lord himself teaching: From him who wishes to borrow from you, turn not away; and that simply in many circumstances, besides the one loan, there can be place for no 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, there can always be found together with the loan, indeed everywhere be at hand, some legitimate title, for example civil law, the public good, etc., by whose support it is lawful to receive a moderate increase beyond the principal, according to that worn rule: In necessary things the expression of one is the exclusion of the other; or at least Benedict XIV is in no way opposed to this opinion.

They respond 2. That Benedict XIV is in no way opposed to this opinion either in those things which he wrote concerning usury in the cited chapter IV of On the Synod, nn. 2 and 3, because there he teaches only that after the Greek schismatics there contradicted the perpetual doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning usury: both 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, can lawfully be exacted from the rich; and Charles Du Moulin, who boldly affirmed that this usury admitted by Calvin, and evil by its own nature, is not prohibited except insofar as it is against charity; and Claudius Salmasius, who depravedly absolved the same usury, unless it wounded charity, from every fault, under the false pretext that it is the wage of rented money; and finally those few Catholic Doctors who, not fearing to subscribe to the impious opinion of Calvin and Du Moulin, together with them boldly affirmed and erroneously taught that usury is not prohibited except insofar as it is against charity, and that the profit which is 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 measure defined by the laws of the fatherland. All these things certainly do not differ even by the breadth of a nail from the doctrine which is contained in the Encyclical. But one thing is that an increase, even moderate and defined by the laws of the fatherland, which is received from a loan precisely by reason of the loan, is usurious and illicit; another thing is that that moderate increase defined by the laws of the fatherland, which is received from a loan not precisely by reason of the loan, but by reason of civil law, or because of other extrinsic causes a little above commemorated, is usurious and illicit. The first Benedict XIV affirms; concerning the other he does not even make a word.

They respond 3. That on the hypothesis that Benedict XIV in the Synod would in reality be opposed to this opinion, in no way would he be blameworthy who, relying on solid reasons, modestly receded from his private opinion or explanation, since he himself at the end of the preface to the Diocesan Synod openly professes that in all matters to which no weight from the public authority of the Church has acceded, of which kind without doubt is the explanation about which there is question, he wishes to define nothing in the Synod or to present it as decretory, with the authority of Melchior Cano also brought forward to prove this, and with the example of Innocent IV, who, although he wrote his commentaries on the books of the decretals while he held the supreme pontificate, nevertheless "never arrogated this to himself, that whatever he had written in that work should be held as a matter defined, but easily allowed his opinions, which he had proposed as a private doctor, to be opposed by other doctors, as is clear," etc.

They respond 4. That on the hypothesis also that Benedict XIV were opposed to this opinion in the Encyclical, now no further argument can be sought from it for reproving that moderate increase permitted by law which is received in the present state of affairs; because a change of circumstances could have introduced, indeed truly has introduced, a manifest variation, not indeed as regards the principles on which the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning usury and loan rests, and which are always the same and wholly invariable, but as regards their application.

I, having diligently considered, so far as the slight powers of my talent allow, the doctrine of Benedict, judge the following, as more moderate, so also more probable: that it can deservedly be doubted whether that doctrine, by itself alone, suffices for settling this controversy or not. But since, even with this opinion of mine posited, to which I ought to give little trust, it still remains uncertain whether that increase can be received with a safe conscience; so that, every uncertainty having been removed, the faculty may be ready for me of aptly responding to certain Confessors who most recently consulted me about the same controversy, and also to others who, by reason of the offices which I discharge, will consult me either within or outside the sacred tribunal of Penance; I suppliantly ask and beseech Your Eminence in the Lord to transmit to me the resolution of the three questions which I place here below:

I. Whether the increase about which there is question is lawful. And insofar as this question cannot be resolved directly from the doctrine of Benedict XIV and other judgments of the Apostolic See, II. Whether penitents who received that increase either with doubtful or bad faith can be sacramentally absolved, with no restitution made or promised here and now, provided that they seriously promise that they are prepared to execute whatever the Apostolic See will determine concerning this matter. And insofar as in the affirmative, as some assert that to this and other similar questions it has already several times been provisionally written back in the name of the Holy Office and of the Apostolic See, concerning which rescripts nevertheless and their tenor I do not have certainty, III. Whether likewise those who have no title of ceasing profit or emerging damage or extraordinary danger of losing the principal, nor are situated in cases in which the precept of charity toward neighbor obliges them to lend by a simple and bare loan, may lawfully give money as a loan, with an annual increase of 5 per 100 above the principal stipulated or agreed upon as the royal law permits, under the same condition of obeying the future determinations of the Apostolic See concerning this matter.

Relying on the greatest confidence that Your Eminence will kindly comply with my wishes in a matter so necessary to me, I am and will always be, Pinerolo, 22 January 1832, Your Eminence's most humble, most obedient, and most devoted Servant, Joseph Anthony Avvaro, Doctor of Sacred Theology, and royal Professor of the same faculty, Canon Theologian, and Vicar General pro tempore.

The Sacred Penitentiary judged that the resolutions given at other times to certain doubts concerning usuries should be transmitted to the beloved in Christ, Joseph Anthony Avvaro, namely: These are entirely those which we have brought forward above, n. V. Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, on 11 February 1832. E. Cardinal De Gregorio, Major Penitentiary; D. Fratellini, Secretary of the Sacred Penitentiary."

IX.

Of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition to the doubt of the Bishop of Nice. "Most Blessed Father. In the booklets whose title is Annali delle scienze religiose, vol. 1, n. 1, p. 128, and L'Ami de la Religion, 2 April 1835, n. 2436, there is read the response which the Most Eminent Cardinal Major Penitentiary gave on 7 March 1833 to the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Bishop of Viviers in the question proposed by him concerning usury. For the Prelate had set forth that some preachers of the word of God teach in public sermons that it is lawful to receive profit from a loan under the title of civil law, without making any word concerning that condition appended to the responses recently given by the Sacred Penitentiary, by which it is provided 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 reproved.

Kindly acceding to his prayers, the Most Eminent Major Penitentiary responded that the Sacred Penitentiary by those responses had by no means wished to define the question agitated by Theologians concerning the title taken from the law of the prince, but only to propose the norm which Confessors might safely follow toward penitents who received moderate profit established by the law of the prince in good faith, 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, with the stated conditions passed over in silence, can in no way be approved.

Certain persons, attending to those words placed in the response, in good faith, contend that according to the norm several times proposed by the Sacred Penitentiary to Confessors, only those can be sacramentally absolved, with no burden of restitution imposed, who had received the stated profit in good faith. Others, on the contrary, assert that even those who had received the said profit with doubtful or bad faith can be absolved, with no burden of restitution 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 regard the burden of restitution, but rather the honesty of the agent and the absolution which Confessors cannot impart to penitents constituted in bad faith unless first they repent of what was done 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 obligated to restitution, but only whether those preachers were to be reproved who, with no condition stated, preached the lawful use of the aforesaid loan. And since the Holy See has not yet defined the question, and what is done in bad faith, although of itself it does not induce the burden of restitution, nevertheless always induces the guilt of fault, hence they say that the Most Eminent one reproved the manner of acting of those who, passing over in silence the conditions of good faith and of standing by the commands of the Holy See, absolutely preached the lawful use of the said loan, without the Most Eminent one speaking of the obligation of restitution, about which the Prelate was not asking. They also deduce 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 honesty of the aforesaid loan.

And since on both sides there are men of the highest piety and of authority not to be despised, hence, so that provision may be made for the quiet of souls in a matter so frequent and serious, it is most humbly asked: Whether penitents who received moderate profit from a loan under the title of law alone with doubtful or bad faith can be sacramentally absolved, with no burden of restitution imposed, provided that they sincerely grieve for the sin committed because of doubtful or bad faith, and with filial obedience are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See. Nice, 9 September 1837. Signed, + Dominic, Bishop of Nice.

Feria IV, on the 17th day of January 1838. In the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition held in the Convent of St. Mary sopra Minerva before the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, General Inquisitors against heretical depravity, the above-mentioned 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. Angelus Argenti, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition."

Place of the seal.

X.

S. Congregation of the Holy Office under the date 26 March 1840: the doubt having been proposed whether N. N. is bound to render anything, whose Father had given a great sum of money as a loan with profit of ten per cent, corresponding to the legal rate of that time; and insofar as he would be liable to restitution, whether he can at least lawfully retain five per cent, the rescript was: As regards usuries in general, let him consult the decrees already issued. As regards the excessiveness of the fruits, let him consult the Right Reverend Bishop, who should weigh the circumstances of the fact and the practice of that time which flourished among men of timorous conscience, and provide.

XI.

Finally, when in the elapsed year 1871 it was asked from a certain place in Italy: 1. Whether today it is lawful, even for Ecclesiastics, to invest money with a moderate fruit, as the law previously permitted under the legitimate government, of five percent? 2. Whether today those Pious Places, Nuns, and Monasteries are to be disquieted which receive the fruit of their capital of six percent, since today it is given and received in the common course?

The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, under the date 28 Feb. 1872, responded to both: According to the responses given at other times, provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, they are not to be disquieted.

But these things which, following the order of time, we have reported here, are the principal Responses among many others, which are referred back to these same things. From them it can be gathered:

1. Generally speaking, concerning profit from a loan, absolutely nothing 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 title extrinsic, not universally joined and innate to the nature of loan, accedes to the loan.

3. Although any other titles whatever may be lacking, of which kind are ceasing profit, emerging damage, and danger of losing the principal or of assuming unusual labors for the recovery of the principal, one title also of civil law can be held as sufficient in practice, both by the faithful and by their Confessors, to whom therefore it is not lawful to disquiet their penitents concerning this matter, as long as this question hangs under judgment and the Holy See has not explicitly defined it.

4. The toleration of this practice can by no means be extended either to rendering honorable usury, however slight, toward the poor, or immoderate usury exceeding the limits of natural equity.

5. Finally, what quantity of usury must be called immoderate and excessive, and what just and moderate, cannot be determined universally, since this must be measured in individual cases, with respect had to all and each of the circumstances of places, persons, and times." 1873.

Letters of the Vicar General of Ariano: - "In view of the notable increase of the current taxes and of the greater need of income to sustain them, there is not there is in this Diocese of Ariano no one who wishes to give money as a loan at the rate of five percent, as it is tolerated by that Holy See; by many it is given at eight, and by others according to what the Great Book yields, and this because the income which is received from the loan also is burdened by movable wealth.

Now, in order to attend to the quiet of the conscience of so many, and in order not to expose people to the danger of no longer finding anyone who would lend them money, which in the present times has become so scarce and sought after, it is desired to know whether such a practice can be tolerated; and in the negative case, whether at least Confessors can permit their penitents to exact five percent net and to leave to the charge of those paying the tax with which the government has burdened any income whatever. Resp. Provided that they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, they are not to be disquieted." S. I. C. 18 Dec. 1872.

A doubt having been proposed concerning a law distinguishing between legal and conventional interest, the Sacred Congregation responded on 18 Aug. 1858: "As regards legal fruits, provision has been made by decrees previously. As regards conventional fruits and their titles, provision has been made by the Encyclical Vix pervenit. As regards the quantity of those conventional fruits, and fruit from fruits, account is to be taken in individual cases, with respect had to all and each of the circumstances of places, persons, and times, according to the rules handed down by the Sacred Canons and by approved authors. And let the decrees of 13 Jan. 1780 and 26 March 1840 be given," which have already been reported above. Cf. Scavini, bk. 4, n. 234, Milan, 1874.

"The Monti di Pieta 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, only for the expenses of ministers and of other things for their conservation, for their indemnity only, without profit of the same monti, neither present the appearance of evil nor furnish an incentive of sinning, nor are they to be disapproved in any way; indeed a loan of this kind is meritorious and ought to be praised and approved, etc." Leo X, Const. Inter multiplices, 4 May 1515.

"Whether it is to be permitted that the increase which for a long time has been received be spent on the said pious uses; or rather whether it ought to be reduced to as much as is sufficient for the expenses and conservation of the same Monte? The Sacred Congregation responded: In the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second, and according to the mind." But the mind of the Sacred Congregation was as follows: "That the principle should remain firm of not exacting an increase over a loan given, except that which is necessary for the expenses and conservation of the Monte; that the Bishop, after calculation has been made, determine the rate to be paid above the principal on account of this title. But as regards that which above this portion is received by a custom long since introduced, to be spent on pious uses and especially on the maintenance of the church of a very poor village, and on sustaining the hunger of the poor, so far as can be done in the dearness of grain, the Bishop could permit that the same custom be preserved, yet in such a way that a book be established, in which, under distinct titles, the rate portions are noted, those which pertain to the Monte, and those which pertain to other uses, so that it can be known what sum is given under the title of justice, and what is received as a gratuitous and pious offering. But let the Bishop take care that the people be made more certain concerning this matter by a prudent method, either with the help of the Parish Priest or in another way, as the Bishop himself prudently judges." 20 Dec. 1838. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 4, p. 27 ff.

"... The pact of retrovendition, or an agreement that the buyer either can or must sell back the thing bought to the seller, either for the favor of the seller alone or for the favor of the buyer alone or of both, even with a very frequent prescribed time, can be made, and of itself is lawful, is admitted by all. For, just as the seller has the power of selling his thing absolutely, so also he has the power of selling with a certain mode and pact; and similarly the buyer is free to buy with or without such a pact, provided that the equality of each party is preserved. But in order to avoid the iniquity of disguised usury, certain conditions are commonly laid down by Theologians, namely:

1. That nothing be done in usurious fraud, and that there be an intention truly of buying and selling; otherwise there 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 a thing to be retained for a longer time; likewise, if a buyer accustomed to other usuries should be unwilling to give a loan, but to buy a thing with a pact of retrovendition, would introduce a founded doubt and ought diligently to excite 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. And therefore the price must be diminished if the buyer is bound to sell back 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 it or alienating it otherwise; but it must be increased if the seller is obligated to redeem the thing sold as the buyer wishes, since this burden also is estimable by price and extrinsic to sale. Hence the purchase of a fruitful thing, made by this law that the seller afterwards be bound to receive back his own thing and to return the whole price accepted for it to the buyer, who retains the fruits for himself, could, at least in practice, introduce suspicion of usury brought back; for in reality it smells of a virtual loan with profit with respect to him who, unwilling to lend money to another asking for it, buys from him a vineyard or house, by this law that after two or three years it be redeemed at the same price at which it had been bought, with the fruits received from it retained. For such a person does not have a sincere intention of buying, but only intends to give the aforesaid money, so that afterwards he may receive it all back with profit, which is usurious.

3. That the thing not be redeemed at a greater price than that for which it had previously been sold, unless it has been made better by the industry or work of the buyer; for the force of the pact of retrovendition consists in this, that the buyer restore the thing, with the price given for it restored. For contracting with that pact is equivalent to contracting with a pact that after some time it is lawful to dissolve the contract.

4. That the buyer truly become master of the thing bought, undergo its risk, sustain its burdens, receive its fruits and advantages; for the nature of the contract requires this." S. C. de P. F. 5 March 1860.

Cf. Const. of St. Pius V, Cum onus, and Const. Etsi Apostolica Sedes, Acta S. Sed. Vol. 10, p. 38 ff.; Vol. 1, p. 537 ff., 569 ff.

Whether one who is burdened by some pious obligation, the funds having been diminished or altogether lost, is bound to supply from his own goods or not?

"... In order that it can be more easily judged, it must be investigated whether the funds were left in a taxative or demonstrative way; for in the first case the heir is entirely freed for all time, but by no means in the second.

9. But a great controversy arises as to when a legacy must be said to have been left taxatively, and when demonstratively. In this a canon has been established, that a legacy is to be held as left taxatively if the founders, and I use the words of a certain instruction transmitted by the Sacred Congregation to Bishops and reported by Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, bk. 13, last chapter, n. 32, 'in making a legacy or disposing in some way, first began the speech or disposition from the assignment of the fund, and then added the burden of Masses... but otherwise, if the founders began the speech or disposition from the imposition of the burden, and then assigned the fund, then the burden is said to have been conceived demonstratively, and the heirs of the founders are to be compelled by Your Excellency to the perpetual maintenance of the said burden, and to supplying the deficient sum, both for the past and for the future.' From this the reason appears why in legacies left demonstratively the heir is bound to supply from his own goods, but it is otherwise if the legacy was made taxatively; for the burden of fulfilling the legacy inheres in the person of the heir himself, which does not fail, even if the thing accepted by inheritance fails. But in legacies left taxatively a burden of this kind is fixed to the fund; therefore if the fund already handed over has failed, the burden inhering in the same fund also fails." Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 559 ff., 3rd ed.