The Only Profession Who Drove Jesus to Violence, we need to reveal
the dirty secrets of bankers who make more money if you fail, and more
money out of nothing, in an infinite way (sic) QE3.
(NaturalNews) This is it, folks: the final chapter of America’s great
financial blowout has begun. The Federal Reserve’s decision to announce
“infinite” quantitative easing has now put us all on the path of infinite money creation. With up to $85 billion in monthly
money creation — including $40 billion a month in purchases of
mortgage-backed securities — the Fed is now wholly committed to the
creation of new fake money to cover old fake debts. Mathematically, this
financial death spiral can only end in sheer catastrophe.
massive money creation tactic is the Fed’s last-ditch plan to
desperately try to save the economy. “I think the country should have
panicked over what the Fed is saying that we have lost control,” said
Ron Paul, “and the only thing we have left is massively creating new
money out of thin air, which has not worked before, and is not going to
work this time.”
Peter Schiff added, “This is a disastrous monetary policy; it’s kamikaze monetary policy.” (End Of the American Dream)
he’s right. It’s suicide. It’s also highly offensive to anyone who can
actually do math… which, sadly, isn’t that many people these days.
Steal from the poor to give to the rich
Quantitative easing, you see, is essentially the Federal Reserve creating money and then handing it to the richest banks. Meanwhile, all that new money floating around erodes the value of the dollars in the hands of the working taxpayers. So their grocery bills go up. Their fuel costs go up. Their daycare costs increase and their utility bills creep ever skyward.
But the rich banksters are simultaneously rolling in FREE Fed cash, and instead of actually lending this money out and doing something useful with it, they crank up their own executive bonuses to make sure they get paid while the rest of the economy crumbles. And why? It’s simple: Because people are crooks, and if they get handed $40 billion a month in free money, they’re just going to grin and say, “How can we get MORE?”
That’s the credo of the banks: MORE!
you’re out of a job and looking for honest work just to put a roof over
your head, the bank is repossessing your house and screaming “MORE!”
When you can’t make that car payment and you have to start riding the bus with the minimum wage masses, the banks scream “MORE!”
you’re trying to put healthy food on the table for your own family, and
you see food prices ratcheting higher and higher as the value of your
hard-earned dollar erodes, the banks scream “MORE!”
is all they know. The top global banks do not operate on compassion,
benefit to society, fairness or even anything resembling lawful
activity. They simply hornswaggle their way into the receiving end of
ALL the money: Mortgage money, bailout money, government money and of
course Fed money. That’s the game, you see: Screw the whole world and
everybody in it. There’s MORE to be had!
Fed pumping is essentially a Ponzi scheme
long will this go on? Until the whole system suddenly collapses due to
its own corruption and greed. All such systems eventually collapse, of
course. The Federal Reserve is essentially pushing a global Ponzi scheme where new money is created in order to keep old money from being lost.
problem with all Ponzi schemes is that their very survival depends on
continually expanding the money base upon which they operate. And since
mathematics tells us that no currency system can be expanded to
infinity, every such Ponzi-like system must, by definition, come
We’ve seen it time and time again, of course.
Zimbabwe cranked its currency into hyperinflation and then collapsed. So
did Argentina. Chile. Peru. Weimar Germany, too:
In 1922, the
largest denomination of the Papiermark was 50,000. A year later it was
100 Trillion. This means that by December 1923, the exchange rate with
the US Dollar was 4.2 Trillion to 1. It is estimated that by November
1923, the yearly inflation rate was considered 325,000,000%. (http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/hyperinflation-the-story-of-9-failed-…)
Yugoslavia: “…during the height of hyperinflation (December 1994), inflation was increasing by a rate of 100% per day.”
“Peruvian government decided again to replace the currency, this time
with the Neuvo Sol, at a rate of 1,000,000,000 to 1.”
“In August 2008, the government removed ten zeros from the currency, and
10 Billion ZWD became equal to 1 New ZWD, with an estimated annual
inflation rate of about 500 quintillion (18 zeros) percent, with a
monthly rate of 13 billion percent.”
Hungary: “In 1944, the
Hungarian Pengo’s highest denomination was the 1,000 note. A year later
it was 10,000,000. And by mid-1946, it was 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.”
Can this happen to the U.S. dollar?
The good news is that the U.S. dollar has a large circulation base. The U.S. dollar M2 money supply is roughly $10 trillion.
That sounds really large until you consider the U.S. national debt is, all by itself, $16 trillion. (www.USdebtClock.org) In just four more years, by 2016, that debt will almost certainly reach $22 trillion. (http://www.usdebtclock.org/cbo-omb-gop-budget-estimates.html)
top of all this, if the Fed is printing $85 billion a month, it adds
another trillion dollars to the monetary base each year. Effectively,
this means the Fed will be expanding the money supply by 10% annually,
from day one. Except it doesn’t end there, of course. In just a few
months, the $85 billion a month will need to be increased to $200
billion a month. Then $500 billion a month. And before you know it, the
Fed is creating one trillion dollars a month in a grand, final blowout of the U.S. dollar.
QE3 becomes the “infinite bailout” strategy of the Fed. But there’s a problem in all this: Infinite money creation
means infinite devaluation. As the money supply expands, the value of
the dollars currently in circulation (physically or electronically)
approaches ZERO. Such is the curse of mathematics and the laws of
A global debt dump is inevitable
phase of all this will be radically accelerated, of course, by the
dumping of U.S. government debt by other central banks in China, Japan
and elsewhere. When they see the writing on the wall, they’ll stage a
selloff. The selloff will send shockwaves throughout the financial sector, causing investors to flee the dollar and ultimately resulting in the Fed creating even more fiat currency to buy back U.S. debt in a last-ditch effort to prevent a national bankruptcy.
is the point where you get into Zimbabwe territory… where the
government is forced to issue “new dollars” with a trade-in value of
1,000,000 to 1, and where the Fed becomes the last buyer of U.S. debt
because nobody else will touch it. This is a lot like getting a cash
advance on your credit card in order to make your minimum monthly
payment. The debt accumulates as crushing compound interest, and there is no escape from the inevitable default.
This day is coming for America and the U.S. dollar.
Timing? Still unknown
timing on all this is, of course, an unknown. Some of the more
outspoken critics of Fed financial policy believe we’re going to see a
financial meltdown before the end of April 2013. Others think it may
take several years longer. A few observers say we’ll be lucky to make it
Personally, I’m always amazed at how long corrupt
institutions can prop up their monetary scams, so I tend to think a
full-blown meltdown might require years to take place. But the banking
debt crisis is likely to happen much sooner, potentially even this year
(after the election). That’s not an official prediction, however; it’s
just a cautious warning to be safe rather than sorry. Historically, my
own predictions tend to be 1-3 years too early. I began warning about
the dot-com bubble in 1998, for example, and it didn’t burst until 2001.
I began warning about the housing bubble a year or two before it
Either way, the U.S. dollar has become a game of
musical chairs, and the loser is anyone holding dollars when the music
stops. Don’t have all your eggs in the dollar basket when that day
comes, okay? Diversify into storable food, gold, farm land… anything
that holds value through a currency collapse.
Because remember, the value of the currency you hold can be stolen from you
even if the physical paper money is not. This swindle has been repeated
countless times throughout human history, always by corrupt central
bankers and government conspirators. Time after time, the People get
scammed, and time after time, most of them can’t even figure out who
stole the money. That’s the evil genius of the entire plan: Currency
creation is invisible theft. With every new dollar they create,
they effectively steal one dollar’s worth of purchasing power from those
who hold the currency.
In essence, then, the Federal Reserve has announce its plan to steal $85 billion a month from those who hold U.S. dollars… with no limit to the number of months this theft will continue.
are staring into the eyes of the beast here, looking at the greatest
financial swindle ever pulled off in the history of the world. This is
the banker end game. When this chapter is complete, the people
will be left with nothing while the banks own everything. It’s all about
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037223_quantitative_easing_Federal_Reserve_money_creation.html#ixzz26iWTdBsh
with interest” (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23).
In those parables, Jesus is joking, sic, as St Thomas is saying. ( methaphoric )
Bad translation of the bible
27 ἔδει σε οὖν βαλεῖν τὰ ἀργύριά μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ.
Tokoi τόκῳ means fruits, like in Theo Tokoi, mother of God.
The word interest is not in this text, tokoi τόκῳ is not interest, tokoi τόκῳ is fruit.
Only in a spiritual sense, not in a material sense…
Does this mean that God requires interest? In the spiritual sense, yes
indeed ! The “talents,” spiritual gifts given to us from God, are not
given for nothing. He expects a return on His investment. God has chosen
us and ordained us that we should go and bring forth fruit that remains
and lasts, John 15:16.
St. Thomas Aquinas,
the leading theologian of the Catholic Church,
argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to “double
charging”, charging for both the thing and the use of the thing ( now,
with fractional banking without any limit as in Canada and on money
coming from thin air, it is infinite “creation” of infinite interests at
an infinite rate of interest and infinite QE3, more than 1’000 per cent of interest rate, sic… ). Aquinas
said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a
bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the
person using the wine to actually drink it. Similarly, one cannot
charge for a piece of cake and for the eating of the piece of cake. Yet
this, said Aquinas, is what usury does. Money is exchange-medium. It is
used up when it is spent. To charge for the money and for its use (by
spending) is to charge for the money twice. It is also to sell time
since the usurer charges, in effect, for the time that the money is in
the hands of the borrower. Time, however, is not a commodity that anyone
can sell. (For a detailed discussion of Aquinas and usury, go to
Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I ).
ON USURY AND OTHER DISHONEST PROFIT
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on November 1, 1745.
To the Venerable Brothers, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and Ordinary
Clergy of Italy.
Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.
Hardly had the new controversy (namely, whether certain contracts should be
held valid) come to our attention, when several opinions began spreading in
Italy that hardly seemed to agree with sound doctrine; We decided that We must
remedy this. If We did not do so immediately, such an evil might acquire new
force by delay and silence. If we neglected our duty, it might even spread
further, shaking those cities of Italy so far not affected.
Therefore We decided to consult with a number of the Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church, who are renowned for their knowledge and competence in theology
and canon law. We also called upon many from the regular clergy who were
outstanding in both the faculty of theology and that of canon law. We chose some
monks, some mendicants, and finally some from the regular clergy. As presiding
officer, We appointed one with degrees in both canon and civil law, who had
lengthy court experience. We chose the past July 4 for the meeting at which We
explained the nature of the whole business. We learned that all had known and
considered it already.
2. We then ordered them to consider carefully all aspects of the matter,
meanwhile searching for a solution; after this consideration, they were to write
out their conclusions. We did not ask them to pass judgment on the contract
which gave rise to the controversy since the many documents they would need were
not available. Rather We asked that they establish a fixed teaching on usury,
since the opinions recently spread abroad seemed to contradict the Church’s
doctrine. All complied with these orders. They gave their opinions publicly in
two convocations, the first of which was held in our presence last July 18, the
other last August 1; then they submitted their opinions in writing to the
secretary of the convocation.
3. Indeed they proved to be of one mind in their opinions.
I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a
loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by
its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The
sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has
given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned,
but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.
II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great
or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by
arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed
is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to
purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing
loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once
the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the
terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution
according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is
to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If
not observed exactly, reparation must be made.
III. By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at times together with
the loan contract certain other titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the
contract-may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and
legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on
the contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by
means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money
legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in
legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be
IV. There are many different contracts of this kind. In these contracts, if
equality is not maintained, whatever is received over and above what is fair is
a real injustice. Even though it may not fall under the precise rubric of usury
(since all reciprocity, both open and hidden, is absent), restitution is
obligated. Thus if everything is done correctly and weighed in the scales of
justice, these same legitimate contracts suffice to provide a standard and a
principle for engaging in commerce and fruitful business for the common good.
Christian minds should not think that gainful commerce can flourish by usuries
or other similar injustices. On the contrary We learn from divine Revelation
that justice raises up nations; sin, however, makes nations miserable.
V. But you must diligently consider this, that some will falsely and rashly
persuade themselves-and such people can be found anywhere-that together with
loan contracts there are other legitimate titles or, excepting loan contracts,
they might convince themselves that other just contracts exist, for which it is
permissible to receive a moderate amount of interest. Should any one think like
this, he will oppose not only the judgment of the Catholic Church on usury, but
also common human sense and natural reason. Everyone knows that man is obliged
in many instances to help his fellows with a simple, plain loan. Christ Himself
teaches this: “Do not refuse to lend to him who asks you.” In many
circumstances, no other true and just contract may be possible except for a
loan. Whoever therefore wishes to follow his conscience must first diligently
inquire if, along with the loan, another category exists by means of which the
gain he seeks may be lawfully attained.
4. This is how the Cardinals and theologians and the men most conversant with
the canons, whose advice We had asked for in this most serious business,
explained their opinions. Also We devoted our private study to this matter
before the congregations were convened, while they were in session, and again
after they had been held; for We read the opinions of these outstanding men most
diligently. Because of this, We approve and confirm whatever is contained in the
opinions above, since the professors of Canon Law and Theology, scriptural
evidence, the decrees of previous popes, and the authority of Church councils
and the Fathers all seem to enjoin it. Besides, We certainly know the authors
who hold the opposite opinions and also those who either support and defend
those authors or at least who seem to give them consideration. We are also aware
that the theologians of regions neighboring those in which the controversy had
its origin undertook the defense of the truth with wisdom and seriousness.
5. Therefore We address these encyclical letters to all Italian Archbishops,
Bishops, and priests to make all of you aware of these matters. Whenever Synods
are held or sermons preached or instructions on sacred doctrine given, the above
opinions must be adhered to strictly. Take great care that no one in your
dioceses dares to write or preach the contrary; however if any one should refuse
to obey, he should be subjected to the penalties imposed by the sacred canons on
those who violate Apostolic mandates.
6. Concerning the specific contract which caused these new controversies, We
decide nothing for the present; We also shall not decide now about the other
contracts in which the theologians and canonists lack agreement. Rekindle your
zeal for piety and your conscientiousness so that you may execute what We have
7. First of all, show your people with persuasive words that the sin and vice
of usury is most emphatically condemned in the Sacred Scriptures; that it
assumes various forms and appearances in order that the faithful, restored to
liberty and grace by the blood of Christ, may again be driven headlong into
ruin. Therefore, if they desire to invest their money, let them exercise
diligent care lest they be snatched by cupidity, the source of all evil; to this
end, let them be guided by those who excel in doctrine and the glory of virtue.
8. In the second place, some trust in their own strength and knowledge to
such an extent that they do not hesitate to give answers to those questions
which demand considerable knowledge of sacred theology and of the canons. But it
is essential for these people, also, to avoid extremes, which are always evil.
For instance, there are some who judge these matters with such severity that
they hold any profit derived from money to be illegal and usurious; in contrast
to them, there are some so indulgent and so remiss that they hold any gain
whatsoever to be free of usury. Let them not adhere too much to their private
opinions. Before they give their answer, let them consult a number of eminent
writers; then let them accept those views which they understand to be confirmed
by knowledge and authority. And if a dispute should arise, when some contract is
discussed, let no insults be hurled at those who hold the contrary opinion; nor
let it be asserted that it must be severely censured, particularly if it does
not lack the support of reason and of men of reputation. Indeed clamorous
outcries and accusations break the chain of Christian love and give offense and
scandal to the people.
9. In the third place, those who desire to keep themselves free and untouched
by the contamination of usury and to give their money to another in such a
manner that they may receive only legitimate gain should be admonished to make a
contract beforehand. In the contract they should explain the conditions and what
gain they expect from their money. This will not only greatly help to avoid
concern and anxiety, but will also confirm the contract in the realm of public
business. This approach also closes the door on controversies-which have arisen
more than once-since it clarifies whether the money, which has been loaned
without apparent interest, may actually contain concealed usury.
10. In the fourth place We exhort you not to listen to those who say that
today the issue of usury is present in name only, since gain is almost always
obtained from money given to another. How false is this opinion and how far
removed from the truth! We can easily understand this if we consider that the
nature of one contract differs from the nature of another. By the same token,
the things which result from these contracts will differ in accordance with the
varying nature of the contracts. Truly an obvious difference exists between gain
which arises from money legally, and therefore can be upheld in the courts of
both civil and canon law, and gain which is illicitly obtained, and must
therefore be returned according to the judgments of both courts. Thus, it is
clearly invalid to suggest, on the grounds that some gain is usually received
from money lent out, that the issue of usury is irrelevant in our times.
11. These are the chief things We wanted to say to you. We hope that you may
command your faithful to observe what these letters prescribe; and that you may
undertake effective remedies if disturbances should be stirred up among your
people because of this new controversy over usury or if the simplicity and
purity of doctrine should become corrupted in Italy. Finally, to you and to the
flock committed to your care, We impart the Apostolic Benediction.
Given in Rome at St. Mary Major, November 1, 1745, the sixth year of Our
Question 78. The sin of usury
- Is it a sin to take money as a price for money lent, which is to receive usury?
- Is it lawful to lend money for any other kind of consideration, by way of payment for the loan?
- Is a man bound to restore just gains derived from money taken in usury?
- Is it lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury?
Article 1. Whether it is a sin to take usury for money lent?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not a sin to take usury for money lent. For no man sins through following the example of Christ. But Our Lord said of Himself (Luke 19:23): “At My coming I might have exacted it,” i.e. the money lent, “with usury.” Therefore it is not a sin to take usury for lending money.
Objection 2. Further, according to Psalm 18:8, “The law of the Lord is unspotted,” because, to wit, it forbids sin. Now usury of a kind is allowed in the Divine law, according to Deuteronomy 23:19-20: “Thou shalt not fenerate to thy brother
money, nor corn, nor any other thing, but to the stranger”: nay more,
it is even promised as a reward for the observance of the Law, according to Deuteronomy 28:12: “Thou shalt fenerate* to many nations, and shalt not borrow of any one.” [‘Faeneraberis’–‘Thou shalt lend upon usury.’ The Douay version has simply ‘lend.’ The objection lays stress on the word ‘faeneraberis’: hence the necessity of rendering it by ‘fenerate.’] Therefore it is not a sin to take usury.
Objection 5. Further, it does not seem to be in itself sinful
to accept a price for doing what one is not bound to do. But one who
has money is not bound in every case to lend it to his neighbor.
Therefore it is lawful for him sometimes to accept a price for lending
Objection 6. Further, silver made into coins
does not differ specifically from silver made into a vessel. But it is
lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver vessel. Therefore it
is also lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver coin.
Therefore usury is not in itself a sin.
Objection 7. Further, anyone may lawfully accept
a thing which its owner freely gives him. Now he who accepts the loan,
freely gives the usury. Therefore he who lends may lawfully take the
On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:25):
“If thou lend money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth
with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor
oppress them with usuries.”
I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice.
to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the
use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when
we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food.
Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned
apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the
thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things
of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to
sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the
same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine
or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the
thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called
On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not
consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not
to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for
instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving
to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the
use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man
may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this,
revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange:
and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its
consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by
its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known
as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods,
so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.
Reply to Objection 1. In this passage usury must be taken figuratively for the increase of spiritual goods which God
exacts from us, for He wishes us ever to advance in the goods which we
receive from Him: and this is for our own profit not for His.
Reply to Objection 2. The Jews were forbidden to take usury from their brethren, i.e. from other Jews. By this we are given to understand that to take usury from any man is evil simply, because we ought to treat every man
as our neighbor and brother, especially in the state of the Gospel,
whereto all are called. Hence it is said without any distinction in Psalm 14:5: “He that hath not put out his money to usury,” and (Ezekiel 18:8): “Who hath not taken usury [Vulgate:
‘If a man . . . hath not lent upon money, nor taken any increase . . .
he is just.’].” They were permitted, however, to take usury from
foreigners, not as though it were lawful, but in order to avoid a
greater evil, lest, to wit, through avarice to which they were prone according to Isaiah 56:11, they should take usury from the Jews who were worshippers of God.
Where we find it promised to them as a reward, “Thou shalt fenerate to many nations,” etc., fenerating is to be taken in a broad sense for lending, as in Sirach 29:10, where we read: “Many have refused to fenerate, not out of wickedness,” i.e. they would not lend. Accordingly the Jews are promised in reward an abundance of wealth, so that they would be able to lend to others.
Reply to Objection 3. Human laws leave certain things unpunished, on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them. Wherefore human law has permitted usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing with justice, but lest the advantage of many should be hindered. Hence it is that in civil law [Inst. II, iv, de Usufructu] it is stated that “those things according to natural reason and civil law
which are consumed by being used, do not admit of usufruct,” and that
“the senate did not (nor could it) appoint a usufruct to such things,
but established a quasi-usufruct,” namely by permitting usury. Moreover the Philosopher, led by natural reason, says (Polit. i, 3) that “to make money by usury is exceedingly unnatural.”
Reply to Objection 4. A man
is not always bound to lend, and for this reason it is placed among the
counsels. Yet it is a matter of precept not to seek profit by lending:
although it may be called a matter of counsel in comparison with the
maxims of the Pharisees,
who deemed some kinds of usury to be lawful, just as love of one’s
enemies is a matter of counsel. Or again, He speaks here not of the hope
of usurious gain, but of the hope which is put in man. For we ought not to lend or do any good deed through hope in man, but only through hope in God.
Reply to Objection 5. He that is not bound to
lend, may accept repayment for what he has done, but he must not exact
more. Now he is repaid according to equality of justice
if he is repaid as much as he lent. Wherefore if he exacts more for the
usufruct of a thing which has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.
Reply to Objection 6. The principal use of a
silver vessel is not its consumption, and so one may lawfully sell its
use while retaining one’s ownership of it. On the other hand the
principal use of silver money is sinking it in exchange, so that it is
not lawful to sell its use and at the same time expect the restitution
of the amount lent. It must be observed, however, that the secondary use
of silver vessels may be an exchange, and such use may not be lawfully
sold. On like manner there may be some secondary use of silver money;
for instance, a man might lend coins for show, or to be used as
Article 2. Whether it is lawful to ask for any other kind of consideration for money lent?
Objection 1. It would seem that one may ask for some other kind of consideration for money lent.
For everyone may lawfully seek to indemnify himself. Now sometimes a
man suffers loss through lending money. Therefore he may lawfully ask
for or even exact something else besides the money lent.
Objection 2. Further, as stated in Ethic. v, 5, one is in duty bound by a point of honor,
to repay anyone who has done us a favor. Now to lend money to one who
is in straits is to do him a favor for which he should be grateful.
Therefore the recipient of a loan, is bound by a natural debt to repay something. Now it does not seem unlawful to bind oneself to an obligation of the natural law. Therefore it is not unlawful, in lending money to anyone, to demand some sort of compensation as condition of the loan.
Objection 3. Further, just as there is real remuneration, so is there verbal remuneration, and remuneration by service, as a gloss says on Isaiah 33:15, “Blessed is he that shaketh his hands from all bribes [Vulgate: ‘Which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings? . . . He that shaketh his hands from all bribes.’].”
Now it is lawful to accept service or praise from one to whom one has
lent money. Therefore in like manner it is lawful to accept any other
kind of remuneration.
Objection 4. Further, seemingly the relation of gift to gift is the same as of loan to loan.
But it is lawful to accept money for money given. Therefore it is
lawful to accept repayment by loan in return for a loan granted.
Objection 5. Further, the lender, by
transferring his ownership of a sum of money removes the money further
from himself than he who entrusts it to a merchant or craftsman. Now it
is lawful to receive interest for money entrusted to a merchant or
craftsman. Therefore it is also lawful to receive interest for money
Objection 6. Further, a man may accept a pledge for money lent,
the use of which pledge he might sell for a price: as when a man
mortgages his land or the house wherein he dwells. Therefore it is
lawful to receive interest for money lent.
Objection 7. Further, it sometimes happens that a man raises the price of his goods under guise of loan, or buys another’s goods
at a low figure; or raises his price through delay in being paid, and
lowers his price that he may be paid the sooner. Now in all these cases
there seems to be payment for a loan of money: nor does it appear to be
manifestly illicit. Therefore it seems to be lawful to expect or exact
some consideration for money lent.
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1), a thing is reckoned as money “if its value can be measured by money.” Consequently, just as it is a sin against justice,
to take money, by tacit or express agreement, in return for lending
money or anything else that is consumed by being used, so also is it a
like sin, by tacit or express agreement to receive anything whose price can be measured by money. Yet there would be no sin
in receiving something of the kind, not as exacting it, nor yet as
though it were due on account of some agreement tacit or expressed, but
as a gratuity: since, even before lending the money, one could accept a gratuity, nor is one in a worse condition through lending.
On the other hand it is lawful to exact compensation for a loan,
in respect of such things as are not appreciated by a measure of money,
for instance, benevolence, and love for the lender, and so forth.
Reply to Objection 1. A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation
for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not
to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that
the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the
borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender
cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he
makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he
has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having.
Reply to Objection 2. Repayment for a favor may be made in two ways. On one way, as a debt of justice; and to such a debt a man may be bound by a fixed contract;
and its amount is measured according to the favor received. Wherefore
the borrower of money or any such thing the use of which is its
consumption is not bound to repay more than he received in loan: and
consequently it is against justice if he be obliged to pay back more. On another way a man’s obligation to repayment for favor received is based on a debt of friendship, and the nature
of this debt depends more on the feeling with which the favor was
conferred than on the greatness of the favor itself. This debt does not
carry with it a civil obligation, involving a kind of necessity that would exclude the spontaneous nature of such a repayment.
Reply to Objection 3. If a man were, in return
for money lent, as though there had been an agreement tacit or
expressed, to expect or exact repayment in the shape of some
remuneration of service or words, it would be the same as if he expected
or exacted some real remuneration, because both can be priced at a
money value, as may be seen in the case of those who offer for hire the
labor which they exercise by work or by tongue. If on the other hand the
remuneration by service or words be given not as an obligation, but as a favor, which is not to be appreciated at a money value, it is lawful to take, exact, and expect it.
Reply to Objection 4. Money cannot be sold for a greater sum than the amount lent,
which has to be paid back: nor should the loan be made with a demand or
expectation of aught else but of a feeling of benevolence which cannot
be priced at a pecuniary value, and which can be the basis of a
spontaneous loan. Now the obligation to lend in return at some future time is repugnant to such a feeling, because again an obligation
of this kind has its pecuniary value. Consequently it is lawful for the
lender to borrow something else at the same time, but it is unlawful
for him to bind the borrower to grant him a loan at some future time.
Reply to Objection 5. He who lends money
transfers the ownership of the money to the borrower. Hence the borrower
holds the money at his own risk and is bound to pay it all back:
wherefore the lender must not exact more. On the other hand he that
entrusts his money to a merchant or craftsman so as to form a kind of society,
does not transfer the ownership of his money to them, for it remains
his, so that at his risk the merchant speculates with it, or the
craftsman uses it for his craft, and consequently he may lawfully demand
as something belonging to him, part of the profits derived from his
Reply to Objection 6. If a man in return for
money lent to him pledges something that can be valued at a price, the
lender must allow for the use of that thing towards the repayment of the
loan. Else if he wishes the gratuitous use of that thing in addition to
repayment, it is the same as if he took money for lending, and that is
usury, unless perhaps it were such a thing as friends are wont to lend
to one another gratis, as in the case of the loan of a book.
Reply to Objection 7. If a man wish to sell his goods at a higher price than that which is just,
so that he may wait for the buyer to pay, it is manifestly a case of
usury: because this waiting for the payment of the price has the
character of a loan, so that whatever he demands beyond the just price
in consideration of this delay, is like a price for a loan, which
pertains to usury. On like manner if a buyer wishes to buy goods at a
lower price than what is just, for the reason that he pays for the goods before they can be delivered, it is a sin
of usury; because again this anticipated payment of money has the
character of a loan, the price of which is the rebate on the just price
of the goods
sold. On the other hand if a man wishes to allow a rebate on the just
price in order that he may have his money sooner, he is not guilty of
the sin of usury.
Article 3. Whether a man is bound to restore whatever profits he has made out of money gotten by usury?
Objection 1. It would seem that a man is bound to restore whatever profits he has made out of money gotten by usury. For the Apostle says (Romans 11:16): “If the root be holy,
so are the branches.” Therefore likewise if the root be rotten so are
the branches. But the root was infected with usury. Therefore whatever
profit is made therefrom is infected with usury. Therefore he is bound
to restore it.
Objection 2. Further, it is laid down (Extra, De Usuris, in the Decretal: ‘Cum tu sicut asseris’): “Property accruing from usury must be sold, and the price repaid to the persons from whom the usury was extorted.” Therefore, likewise, whatever else is acquired from usurious money must be restored.
Objection 3. Further, that which a man buys with
the proceeds of usury is due to him by reason of the money he paid for
it. Therefore he has no more right to the thing purchased than to the
money he paid. But he was bound to restore the money gained through
usury. Therefore he is also bound to restore what he acquired with it.
On the contrary, A man
may lawfully hold what he has lawfully acquired. Now that which is
acquired by the proceeds of usury is sometimes lawfully acquired.
Therefore it may be lawfully retained.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), there are certain things whose use is their consumption, and which do not admit of usufruct, according to law (ibid., ad 3). Wherefore if such like things be extorted by means of usury, for instance money, wheat, wine
and so forth, the lender is not bound to restore more than he received
(since what is acquired by such things is the fruit not of the thing but
industry), unless indeed the other party by losing some of his own
goods be injured through the lender retaining them: for then he is bound
to make good the loss.
On the other hand, there are certain things whose use is not
their consumption: such things admit of usufruct, for instance house or
land property and so forth. Wherefore if a man has by usury extorted
from another his house or land, he is bound to restore not only the
house or land but also the fruits accruing to him therefrom, since they
are the fruits of things owned by another man and consequently are due to him.
Reply to Objection 1. The root has not only the character of matter, as money made by usury has; but has also somewhat the character of an active cause, in so far as it administers nourishment. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2. Further, Property acquired from usury does not belong to the person who paid usury, but to the person
who bought it. Yet he that paid usury has a certain claim on that
property just as he has on the other goods of the usurer. Hence it is
not prescribed that such property should be assigned to the persons
who paid usury, since the property is perhaps worth more than what they
paid in usury, but it is commanded that the property be sold, and the
price be restored, of course according to the amount taken in usury.
Reply to Objection 3. The proceeds of money taken in usury are due to the person who acquired them not by reason of the usurious money as instrumental cause, but on account of his own industry as principal cause. Wherefore he has more right to the goods acquired with usurious money than to the usurious money itself.
Article 4. Whether it is lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury. For the Apostle says (Romans 1:32) that they “are worthy of death . . . not only they that do” these sins, “but they also that consent to them that do them.” Now he that borrows money under a condition of usury consents in the sin of the usurer, and gives him an occasion of sin. Therefore he sins also.
Objection 2. Further, for no temporal advantage ought one to give another an occasion of committing a sin: for this pertains to active scandal, which is always sinful, as stated above (Question 43, Article 2). Now he that seeks to borrow from a usurer gives him an occasion of sin. Therefore he is not to be excused on account of any temporal advantage.
Objection 3. Further, it seems no less necessary
sometimes to deposit one’s money with a usurer than to borrow from him.
Now it seems altogether unlawful to deposit one’s money with a usurer,
even as it would be unlawful to deposit one’s sword with a madman, a maiden with a libertine, or food with a glutton. Neither therefore is it lawful to borrow from a usurer.
On the contrary, He that suffers injury does not sin, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 11), wherefore justice is not a mean between two vices, as stated in the same book (ch. 5). Now a usurer sins by doing an injury to the person who borrows from him under a condition of usury. Therefore he that accepts a loan under a condition of usury does not sin.
I answer that, It is by no means lawful to induce a man to sin, yet it is lawful to make use of another’s sin for a good end, since even God uses all sin for some good, since He draws some good from every evil as stated in the Enchiridion (xi). Hence when Publicola asked whether it were lawful to make use of an oath taken by a man swearing by false gods (which is a manifest sin, for he gives Divine honor to them) Augustine (Ep. xlvii) answered that he who uses, not for a bad but for a good purpose, the oath of a man that swears by false gods, is a party, not to his sin of swearing by demons, but to his good compact whereby he kept his word. If however he were to induce him to swear by false gods, he would sin.
Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition
of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready
to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good
end in view, such as the relief of his own or another’s need. Thus too
it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his
property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jeremiah 41:8): “Kill us not: for we have stores in the field.”
Reply to Objection 2. He who borrows for usury
gives the usurer an occasion, not for taking usury, but for lending; it
is the usurer who finds an occasion of sin in the malice of his heart. Hence there is passive scandal on his part, while there is no active scandal on the part of the person who seeks to borrow. Nor is this passive scandal a reason why the other person should desist from borrowing if he is in need, since this passive scandal arises not from weakness or ignorance but from malice.
Reply to Objection 3. If one were to entrust one’s money to a usurer lacking other means of practising usury; or with the intention of making a greater profit from his money by reason of the usury, one would be giving a sinner matter for sin,
so that one would be a participator in his guilt. If, on the other
hand, the usurer to whom one entrusts one’s money has other means of
practising usury, there is no sin in entrusting it to him that it may be in safer keeping, since this is to use a sinner for a good purpose.
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ
MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ – SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
In the article INTEREST we have reserved the question of the lawfulness
of taking interest on money lent; we have here to consider first, usury as …
Is it a sin to take money as a price for money lent, which is to receive usury? Is it lawful to lend money for any other kind of consideration, by way of payment for …
Shortly afterwards he turned his attention to the much debated question of usury, and threw his influence against the claims of the Laxists. To sustain his …
Increase τόκῳ is not interest but fruit τόκῳ, profit etc…
Young’s Literal Translation
Chaque année, une semaine d’étude a lieu à Rougemont
au Canada en 4 langues fin août suivie du congrès international début
septembre (fête du travail au Canada), avec des pèlerinages facultatifs offerts. Repas, pèlerinages ( not. St Joseph, N-D du Cap et St Anne) et couchers gratuits
pour tous nos invités des pays hors du Canada. Autre période de
formation en mai chaque année, en 2013 du 9 au 18 mai pour les études et du 19 au 26 mai pour le Jéricho
Invitation to join us, every year, two periods, either March or August-September.
Week of study held in Rougemont, Canada in four languages end of August or in May followed by the Congress beg. of September or in May 2013, 9 au 18 May, week of studies and Jericho 19 up to 26 May with free pilgrimages.
Free meals, free pilgrimages ( St Joseph, N-D du Cap et St Anne )and free rooms for all our guests from countries outside of Canada.
Comment créer et partager les surplus: