Chapter VIII — On the *Monti di Pietà*

I. A few things concerning the monti di pietà, which by another name are called monti di Cristo or apostolic deposits, I shall touch upon. A mons pietatis is a sum of money gathered from the alms of pious faithful for the relief and support of the poor, that it may be delivered on loan to the needy, a pledge being deposited, and with a contribution of an accession by which the ministers are maintained.

II. The Lateran Council celebrated under Leo X approved these sacred monti. To the decree of the Council all the theologians subscribed, except Cajetan and Soto, who with too great daring indeed did not cease, even after the Council's decree, to accuse these monti of usury. And as regards this, although we are Dominicans, we disapprove their error, because we are not respecters of persons, nor do we take up arms against persons, of whatever institute they be, but against errors.

III. The Council declared that the accession above the principal is exacted for the expenses of the ministers alone, and for the conferring of the other things pertaining to the said monti, as is set forth, for their indemnity only, above the principal, without gain to the same monti. If the accession turned to the gain of the monti, it would be usurious.

IV. Three conditions are required. First, that the money be delivered to the poor within the limits of a fixed sum, to be restored within a determinate time. Second, that a pledge be exhibited by the debtors, which ought to be kept by the ministers themselves. If at the fixed time the money be not restored, the pledge is sold at auction, and, the price which is owed to the mons being retained, that which is over is restored to the lord of the pledge. Third, that a slight accession above the principal be exacted, for the wage of the ministers and the expenses of the monti which must be made for the renting of houses and other things. If anything be left over from the accessions, it is to be converted not to the increase of the monti, but either to the borrowers themselves in proportion, if it can be done, or to be redeemed, or into alms for the poor.

V. QUESTION I. Do those who are not truly poor, nor receive money on loan from a sacred mons for the relieving of poverty, sin and are held to restitution? ANSWER. Some, inflamed with avarice, allured by the slight accession to be paid to the sacred mons, receive moneys on loan from the same, either that they may apply the same to trade, or that they may deliver them on loan to others with a greater accession. All these are guilty of theft and of avarice. For with a fraudulent mind they deceive the mons, and filch money destined for the relieving of the needs of the poor, that they may indulge their own avarice. They are bound at once to restore the money to the mons, and to compensate the loss, if any befall.

VI. QUESTION II. Can those who place moneys in these monti lawfully receive an accession, no title being present? ANSWER. Fr. Pasqualigo, decision 504, contends that gain can be perceived from money conferred to the monti di pietà, apart from the title of emerging loss or ceasing gain. In some monti di pietà, which they call mixed, they seek out moneys that they may relieve the poor. To the contributors of the moneys they pay a pension beyond the principal. It has begun to be disputed whether this accession be lawful. All theologians and canonists have condemned it as usury. Fr. Pasqualigo strove to purge the same from usury, whom Bassaeus and Pignatelli followed. That he may establish his opinion, Fr. Pasqualigo obtrudes letters of Paul III by which this is granted to the mons of Ferrara. But Fr. Peter Ballerini in his opusculum On These Monti, § 3, proves by unanswerable arguments that these letters are apocryphal and supposititious.

VII. Paul III in letters given for the mons of Modena in the year 1541, Julius III for the mons of Vicenza in 1550, Pius IV for the mons of Verona in 1563, grant that an accession be paid to none others save to those who, led by a zeal of charity, and for the relief of the poor, not with a mind of taking interest, deposit moneys at that time when they would have wares ready and estates ready for buying, from whose revenue they could perceive four and more per hundred. Wherefore false to me is Fr. Pasqualigo's opinion, which asserts an accession of this kind to be lawful, every title being removed.

VIII. What is to be said of those who place moneys in those monti, not from a zeal of relieving the poor, but from a cupidity of gaining? Lest they should have them idle at home, that they may gain, they lay them up in the monti di pietà, to be demanded back at once as soon as an occasion of buying estates or rent-charges, or of exercising trade, shall have offered itself. All these are manifest usurers.

IX. What is to be said of the ministers of those sacred monti? These monti, as I have said, are called apostolic deposits, and the patrimony of the poor. Their ministers are ministers of the poor, and hired at the poor's wage, and are fed at the poor's stipend. And yet it not rarely happens that these ministers are splendidly clothed and richly nourished. These not rarely absorb a great portion of the accessions, and are fattened with the blood of the poor. In respect of them, these monti are not of piety but of impiety. Corruptions of this kind were the cause why Cajetan and Soto inveighed against those monti. But in this they erred, that they did not distinguish the abuses and vices of men from the thing itself, which is honourable and pious. But assuredly they err no less who under the paint of human kindness make honourable such enormous abuses.