PREVIEW: De Usura

In his famous Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the morality of commerce as reflected in the question of the sin of usury.[1] He establishes that to take usury for loans is in itself an injustice based on the principle that it involves the sale of what does not exist, which leads to inequity and is therefore contrary to justice.[2] Thomas goes on to provide example of this divining principle by citing what currency finds its end in, namely consumption– in this case, of wheat or wine. While in fact Aquinas is correct in his assessment of usury, the manner in which he speaks of currency and commerce cannot be directly compared to the manner in which it is spoken of today, lest one fall into the error of equivocation. Surely a man cannot sell both wine and the use of that wine, but Thomas abstracts this in comparison to Aristotle’s assertion, concluding that “it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent”, which is where he seems to err.[3] Following Thomas in the tradition of scholasticism, members of his same Order go on to provide a more elaborate and appropriate treatment of economic principles.[4] Yet, Thomas cannot be said to be wholly incorrect on this issue. In reply to Objection 5, he writes, “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.”

What ought to draw attention in this is the fact that usury is unlawful under the circumstances of the object loaned being consumable. Continuing in the next reply, Thomas directly addresses silver coinage as a non-consumable commodity, noting that additional restitution cannot be requested for the use of the money lent but that it could be lent in a secondary sense for show or as security. The usury which Thomas refers to takes on a different form than the interest on loans commonly seen in the modern marketplace. It is of great regret that the primary moral theologian has no further particulars to add in the realm of economics besides these somewhat offhand exegeses of Aristotle. Nevertheless, what the Common Doctor does provide is sufficient and very much relevant in being applied to a moral understanding of contemporary markets, and is not invalidated by his apparent ignorance of currency beyond the use of mere household management.

In view of the modern marketplace, it seems St. Thomas leaves no room for the practice of any kind of commerce which charges quantifiable sums for intangible things, such as labor, time, or simply subjective value. However, upon closer examination, it is not considered usurous per se to request a sum for something additive to the good itself. For example, if a silk merchant has to travel from China to France to fulfill a delivery, it seems absurd that he would be forbidden from charging a higher price in France than in China. Thomas, however, does not actually forbid such a market practice. He defines something as usurous when it consists of charging for use, which is a non-existent thing. However, the danger and cost of traveling halfway around the world are real things which may be permissibly quantified into a premium. Additionally, there is no infringement on the freedom of the buyer, and so such a transaction does not take on typical traits of usury. While Aquinas may not address these instances particularly, it is possible to extrapolate his reasoned principles and apply them to the moral practice of commerce, even in the modern economy. Thomas is far less prudish and rigid on the matter of monetary practice than seems at first glance, and rather leaves room for development of just economic practices while, of course, being aware of the great harm and injustice done by usury and its perpetrators, an issue more relevant to his particular context.

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae, Question 78, English translation (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947), accessed via Isidore, https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/summa/SS/SS078.html#SSQ78OUTP1

[2] II–II, q. 78, a. 1, respondeo

[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, bk. 5; Politics, bk. 1, chap. 3.

[4] School of Salamanca, namely Domingo de Soto, Tomas de Mercado, Francisco Garcia, Martin Gonzalez de Cellorigo