Chapter III — Certain little questions concerning usury are resolved

I. QUESTION I. Is there given a smallness of matter in the sin of usury? ANSWER. Some deny it. But since usury is opposed to justice, just as there is given a smallness of matter in other faults against justice, so in usury it seems to be admitted. This question I do not discuss more fully, because as regards practice it is idle. For which of the usurers delivers a very great sum on loan for the gain of one julius or another?

II. QUESTION II. Is present money counted down more valuable, apart from titles, so as to justify accepting something beyond the principal? ANSWER. Caramuel affirms it, Book II of his Moral Theology, disputation 14, where he praises many others. This opinion is false and lax, and deservedly proscribed by Innocent XI in thesis 42. For from this opinion it would follow that all usury is lawful.

III. QUESTION III. Is it lawful to accept something above the principal on account of the trouble arising from the privation of the money delivered on loan? ANSWER. Caramuel in the place cited proposes this question in witty words, and jestingly eludes the evangelical doctrine. A few of his words I transcribe: Is there not truly some recreation in seeing precious things — why not also in possessing them? A price is given for hearing a comedy or seeing a beast, and no one contradicts: why not for seeing or possessing the best pieces of gold? By reason therefore of this trouble arising from the want of money, every other danger being set aside, Medina affirms that something above the principal may be accepted; and the interpreters of St. Thomas, question 78, article 1, judge it speculatively probable. Dicastillo contradicts, and says: “To me this opinion seems speculatively improbable and morally pernicious in practice.” You see a censorious Cato condemning the doctrine with a severe brow. Hear him nevertheless at no. 154 contradicting himself. The contradiction being related, by which Dicastillo proves the doctrine which he had asserted to be pernicious, Caramuel thus resumes his discourse: The mountains are in labour; a ridiculous mouse will be born. Why were those things said before? An opinion which a few lines ago was speculatively improbable and practically dangerous is now at last asserted to be true. For truth is truth, though, prepossessed with other notions, you condemn it; and while you condemn it, it shines forth, and you will defend its sincerity against your very self.

IV. Good heavens! Those who refute lax opinions full of scandal are severe and censorious Catos who speak from a lofty brow. And a most grave error Caramuel calls shining truth! And Fr. Lessius, Book II, chapter 20, doubt 14, no. 105, himself exhibits as probable the condemned opinion, which on account of the want of money and the will of not demanding back the loan within a fixed time exacts something. Because, he says, as upon other things and burdens some price can be imposed, so also upon the burden of being without one's own money for such and such a time. For since money is the instrument of trading, and to deprive oneself of the instrument of one's art is appraisable at a price, why could not merchants also, by the consent of all, impose some price upon the want of money, especially if the reason of the common good demand it? He adds nevertheless that so lax reins are not to be given to merchants, because this opinion is new and therefore not easily to be admitted. If it is false, as it is, it is always to be rejected. Wherefore Fr. Nocetius wholly went astray, who by an unhappy endeavour strove to excuse his Lessius from this laxity. Fr. Thomas Tamburini says that this doctrine of Caramuel is uncertain to him.

V. These things I have indicated in passing, that the reader may hence gather whither the new manner of theologizing impels even theologians honest and learned, such as chiefly was Fr. Lessius. This doctrine of Caramuel utterly destroys the evangelical dogma against usury, and therefore has been condemned by the Church: As a price is paid for seeing a comedy or a beast, so for seeing and possessing pieces of gold? Therefore usury will always be lawful. For money cannot be given on loan without the privation of the sight of the same. And the more avaricious men are, the greater the sadness and trouble with which they are affected while they deprive themselves of it for a time. Therefore if avaricious men on account of the aforesaid sadness exact five in the hundred, the most avaricious will be able to exact seven or ten. There is no need that we refute this unheard-of opinion more fully, since it betrays its own horror and has been condemned by the Church. No less false is the other opinion which Caramuel teaches in the same place: namely, that a lender can accept something because he deprives himself of the faculty of trading with his money. The privation of that faculty is appraisable at a price, says someone. This doctrine likewise takes away all usuries out of the midst; and is therefore to be disapproved as anti-evangelical.