De Malo Q13.A4

This is the Google translation of the original Latin text found here.
——————————
ARTICLE 4

 

The fourth question is to lend at interest is a mortal sin

 

It seems not.

[63256] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 1For there is no mortal sin should be granted in the law of God. But to give a loan at interest, it has been granted in the Divine law; for Dt. 23, 19: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing, But to the stranger . Therefore, lending at interest is not a mortal sin.

[63257] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 2it should be said that this is not approved for the people, but rather tolerated on account of its hardness of heart, even as the libellus repudii.- On the contrary, that which is tolerated as an evil is not assured as a reward of justice: for that which is promised as a reward, he is led to do good and to be desired . But to give a loan at interest is assured in the law of God, that the reward of righteousness; for Dt. Div. 28, 12: thou shalt lend to many nations, and thou shalt not borrow of any one . Therefore, lending at interest is not a mortal sin.

[63258] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 3: Further, the plan is not a sin; because, as is said in 1 Cor. 7, p. 28, a woman does not sin: let them marry, although the counsel of virginity, instead of. But to give a loan without using, placed among the counsels; Luc. for 6, 27, 35, it is said, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (…), hoping for nothing in return, and give it to the borrower ; with its prohibition of usury, that most of them were. Therefore, lending at interest is not a mortal sin.

[63259] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 4: Further, as the house of a man, or a horse has control over its own, so it also has control over its own money. But a man may lease their homes or a horse, for the price of. Therefore for the same reason it can not receive a reward for the money they loan.

[63260] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 5: Further, it does not seem to be an illicit, if the man should approach this is bound to that bound by the natural law; but the natural law obliges human beings to repay it to the one who bestowed those gifts. But he who is to lend money, bestows a benefit; assists for the needs of the needy. Therefore, if for such a benefit, an obligation under a fixed contract to the borrower to pay back anything for himself, in order that it does not seem to be an illicit contract.

[63261] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 6Further, positive law is derived from the right of the natural, as Tully says in his Rhetoric. But the law allows interest. Therefore it is not contrary to the natural law to lend at usury. Therefore, it is not a sin.

[63262] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 7: Further, if it is a sin, lending at interest, it must be to a particular virtue is opposed to; consists in the communication, and with a certain, namely, in a loan, it would seem most of all opposed to justice, and his sin be, for justice is not about communications of this kind consists, as stated in Ethic 5. But it is not opposed to justice: for it can not be said that he who pays the interest, man suffers injustice; for we do not allow the unjust from himself, because there is no man does an injustice to himself, as the Philosopher proves in the Ethics 5., nor from another, as no one suffers injustice from another only by deception or by violence, neither of which is in the present case; because it is a willing and knowing the person who takes the loan, the interest paid. Therefore, no one suffers injustice; Nor does an injustice to acquire; Should not guilty.

[63263] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 8It will be said that there is a mixed violent action will, for the person who takes the loan, the interest to give as a coactus.- On the contrary, there is no place for when some necessity has mixed violent action was to come, not to be endangered, as is clear in one who casts out into the sea, the hire of the ship. But sometimes people borrow at interest without any great necessity. Therefore, at least to lend at interest in such a case, it is not a mortal sin.

[63264] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 9Further, everyone can alienate what one which he is master. But he who gives usury is master of his own money, which gives the usurer. Therefore it can alienate; and so the lender receives, it can be licitly keep it.

[63265] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 10Further, in the contract of lending, two persons are face to face, that is, the debtor and the creditor’s will. But it can be to let go of that which is due to him as a creditor. Give more Therefore, the debtor may without sin.

[63266] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 11Further, it is much more serious thing to kill a man than to take interest for money lent. But it is lawful to kill a man in a particular case. Much more, therefore, it is lawful to give money at interest in a particular case.

[63267] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 12Further, that to which man is to bind oneself, it may be lawfully be demanded of him. But he who gives usury, he engaged to do when it receives a loan for this purpose. Therefore, the lender can legally demand.

[63268] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 13Further, the simony is committed in offering to accept or whatever, from the bay, or by the hand, or from the service rendered. If, therefore, to take a gift for a loan granted by the hand, it would be a mortal sin, it would seem, too, whatever the nature of the service of one were to receive the same for the loan of money, it would be a mortal sin, and this seems very hard.

[63269] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 14Further, there is a twofold interest. There is, indeed, from the fact that something is not present, because he did not acquire that would have been able to acquire, and for this a man is not bound to take part in. The other thing is a big difference from the fact that something is wanting, that is, something which he had made ​​away from the person of this man; , and that is to take part in an obligation arises. Now it happens sometimes that the loss sustained in the fact that he had, because of money lent. Therefore, it seems that it can be without sin receive some compensation for this.

[63270] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 15Further, it is deserving of praise which seems to lend someone money for a useful purpose than only for ostentation. But when one lends someone money for show of them, as he was a rich man, one can on that account receive recompense without sin. Therefore, much more so if the money to alleviate the necessity for some.

[63271] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 16Further, the deeds of Christ in Holy Writ are proposed to us to imitate, according to Jn. 13, 15: I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also . But our Lord says of himself, Luc. 19, 23: that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury , ie the money lent. Therefore, to exact interest is not a sin.

[63272] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 17Moreover, whoever is content to others sinning mortally, he also was a mortal sin: for it is written Rom., 1, 32, are worthy of death; , and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. But those who borrow money at interest, be pleased to lend at interest. If, therefore, lending money at interest is a mortal sin, even to borrow money under a condition of usury, it will be a mortal sin, which seems to be false by a contrary to the custom of many good men.

[63273] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 18Further, he who supplies the one who has sinned mortally, for through not seem to sin, as if one were to lend weapons to a madman, or to slay him that wills.If, then, a usurer sins mortally lending money at interest, it seems that even those who deposit money with them also sin mortally.

[63274] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 19But it must be said, that those who without an obligation to give the money, let him take borrows for usury, or to lay down his money with a usurer sins mortally; if it is of necessity was left by the sin of excusatur.- On the contrary, the need to receive a loan under a condition of usury, he can not be anything but in order to avoid any loss of temporal. But we ought to consent to the loss of the temporal or furnish the matter of any of the offenses of another;because we ought to love the soul of one’s neighbor, and all the temporal goods whatever. Therefore, the aforesaid for such a necessity, is not excused from mortal sin.

[63275] De malo, q. 13. Objection 4. 20Further, the greater the sin of theft seems to be rather than to give money at interest; at all because it is the act to be involuntary, but the latter is in some way voluntary, on the part of the owner of the money is received. Now theft sometimes it can be licit, as is clear with regard to the vessels which are not the children of Israel borrowed from the Egyptians that had received the return them, as is said, Ex., 12, 35-36. Therefore, much more can lending money at interest, it can be without sin.

[63276] De malo, q. 13. 1 4 Onthe contrary. On the contrary, Gregory of Nyssa says: If anyone should call theft or murder, the ruinous consequences to be some malignant hath not sinned.For what does it matter had been taken from a breached wall or to possess it, whether one to take possession of what is forbidden? Now murder, theft is a mortal sin. Therefore, lending money at interest is a mortal sin.

[63277] De malo, q. 13. 4 2.Further, if the purpose of the case in point, and the one opposite to another, as the Philosopher says. But it is not to give money at interest, leads men to eternal life; for it is written, Ezek., 18, ​​17, that he who hath not taken usury, he shall surely live; and Ps. 14, 5: not given his money to usury, those who (…) He shall receive a blessing from the Lord . Therefore, lending at interest leads to death, and takes away the divine blessing is similar; Therefore, it is a mortal sin.

[63278] De malo, q. 13. 4 3.Further, everything which is contrary to the precept of the law, it is a mortal sin. But to give money at interest is contrary to the precept of the divine law; for it is written, Exod., cap. 22, 25: If thou lend money (at interest) of my people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, I will not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with . Therefore, lending money at interest is a mortal sin.

[63279] De malo, q. 13. 4 co.reply. Must be said that lending money at interest is a mortal sin. Nor for that reason is a sin because it is forbidden; but rather for this reason it is prohibited, because it is in itself a sin; it is contrary to natural justice. This is evident, if we consider the nature of interest. For it is using by use, that is to say the price of a kind of for the use of the money received in return, as if he were the use of money lent sold. It should be considered is the use of different of different things. The consumption of a substance which are used in some of the things themselves, for they are, as the proper use of wine is to drink of it, and in this respect the substance of the wine is consumed; and the proper use of wheat or bread likewise consists of eating it, and this consumes the wheat, or of the bread; Thus the proper use of money is that we consider it in exchange for other things. For there are found to be money exchange, as 7 the Philosopher says in the Politics. Other things are the consumption of substances whose use is not one of them, just as the use of the house is to dwell in; it is not of the nature of Christ to dwell in, that the house be destroyed; is to the advantage or to its disadvantage, however, in any way, if it happens that a house is by dwelling in it, that is, by an accident; and the same thing must be said of the horse, and the garment, and the like. Since, therefore, come to an end through the use of this kind of thing is not, strictly speaking, the thing itself can be separately leased or sold, or distributed, or the use, or both at the same time; is possible to act to sell the house, retaining one ‘s use of the house for a time; and in like manner a man may sell the use of the house, retaining one ‘s property and the ownership of the house. But in those things which are used in consumption, and use of the thing and the thing itself is not the other; so that whoever is granted the use of such things, is also granted the dominion over things, and of the individual, and vice versa. Since, therefore, be restored to the money lent person lends money with the stipulation that the principal, and further to have a fixed fee for the use of the money he wants, it is clear what he sells separately the use of money, and she is in the money, to substance. Now the use of the money itself, as has been said, is not the same as his substance;consequently they either do not sell that which is not, or is selling the same thing twice, ie a sum of money, the use of which consists of its consumption; And this is evidently contrary to the notion of natural justice. Hence, lending money at interest, is in itself a mortal sin: and the same applies to all the other things whose substance is consumed in its use; as is the case with wine, the corn, and the like.

[63280] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 1to the first argument, therefore, it must be said, that they take money as interest from strangers, was not granted to the Jews, as it were lawful for him, but in order, so that they would not be punished for this temporal punishment. Indeed, he was the reason for this was that, because they were inclined to the love of money: from which it was permitted to them that are less evil, namely, the acceptance of usury from the gentiles, in order to avoid a greater evil, that is, the acceptance of usury from the Jews, worshipers of God. But afterwards it was said by the prophets, warned that they should completely abstain from taking interest, as shown by the authorities to the contrary set forth.

[63281] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 2to the second, it must be understood to mean lending Lending is sometimes large, as is clear Ecclus., 29, 10: Many people, however, are not out of wickedness, lendeth to his , that is, would not lend. Now it belongs to the one who exceeds the borrower, and therefore what is said, thou shalt lend , it is understood mutuabimus; so as to give us to understand, that they are so general abundance of temporal goods, that could lend themselves to others, and receive from no one in need of the loan.

[63282] De malo, q. 13. 4 ad 3To the third, it must be said, that according to the Gospel can not be the sense of the letter of the surface, is counsel to lend; but if a loan that it is given without any hope of usurious gain, This is the ordinance: and with respect to the first, is placed with our plans. Or we may say, that there are as a matter of the truth of the precepts or prohibitions, according to the precepts of the Pharisees, which, however, are beyond the understanding; as in Matth. 5, 22, at this commandment: Thou shalt not kill , that the Pharisees understood to mean external homicide. Adds to the Lord: one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment . Not as much as to be prohibited in general, and in this way to revel in money at interest to be given to the Pharisees, it is reckoned among the counsels that one lend without expecting interest as profit. Or we can say that he speaks not here of that hope of usurious gain, but of the hope which is included in man. It is not what we ought to do our good deeds, hoping for a reward from man, but from God alone.

[63283] De malo, q. 13. 4 up to 4To the fourth, it must be said, as some say, that the house and the horse of deterioration through use, and, therefore, for the recompense of something may be taken; But money was not injured. But this is no argument for this is that, accordingly, he could not justly receive greater price for, facing, for the house of their own, which the house would thereby lose value. We must therefore conclude, what is sold also in the practice of the house it is lawful; but not in the money, because of the reason mentioned above.

[63284] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 5Reply to Objection, which, 9: As the Philosopher says in the Ethics., repayment of a favor received, otherwise than in the way it is made ​​in the friendship for the useful friendship of honesty, that he received in the friendship for the useful is to be measured to compensate for a person who receives a benefit according to use; in friendship for a noble person, it is measured according to the sentiments of the repayment of a benefactor. This is so out of friendship for a noble does not belong to a fixed contract to a benefit repayment for: good and gave you the feeling of a friend of a friend down to because they are in such a friendship to him freely by and to be liberally to repay it when the opportunity was. But to bind a fixed contract to repayment for favor received, it is one’s own in friendship for the useful, and therefore ought not to be obliged to pay back more than he has received. But it is not something we have received greater than the very sum of money, because of its use, which is consumptive of money, it is not only the very money, and therefore ought not to be obliged to do more than return the money they bring.

[63285] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 6to the sixth, it must be said, that the right of a positive intend principally to the common good of the multitude. It may happen, however, it happens that if an evil is prevented, there results in the greatest harm to the community, and therefore a positive law sometimes permits something, as stated above, it is not because it is just that the thing to be done, but to prevent the community suffer greater disadvantage; the same way God permits that some evil to be done in the world, he knows how to draw from these evils the goods which are not to be hindered. In this way the positive law permits interest on account of some of the many advantages that result from the money lent, though exposed to the condition of usury.

[63286] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 7to the seventh, it must be said that this man who gives usury, man suffers an injustice, not from the thing itself, but from a usurer: those who, though not in any way to the violence of the absolute, he adds, it ought to be as it were violently aroused mingled feelings; namely, the need of a loan, because it is, a powerful, imposes the condition, so that the borrower pay back, which they had freedom. And it is as if one were a thing to another in need to sell for much more than they are worth: the sale would be unjust, as well as loans at interest is unjust.

[63287] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 8to the eighth, it must be said, that there are two is not necessary, as is said in 5 Metaph. One kind of it can not be, indeed, without which the thing, just as food is necessary; necessary, without which, however, is a kind of something else can exist, yet not so well and conveniently, and according to this reason all the useful things necessary. But invariably, And the borrower is, she suffers from the necessity of the first or in the second way.

[63288] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 9to the ninth, it must be said, because the one who gives the money to a usurer, does not give an absolute sense voluntary, but in a measure compelled by force, as stated above.

[63289] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 10to the tenth, it must be said, that, just as the creditor is entitled to accept less for their own free-will, so also debtors can of their own to which it gives the will giue them no more, and he may lawfully receive the sacraments; but if this is included in the contract for a loan, the contract and unlawful, and there is no respect unlawful.

[63290] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 11to the eleventh, it must be said, that killing does not generally opposed to God, that they can not borrow; and both can be done well or ill: but killing an innocent man, for it implies the determination of the evil, and this can never be good deeds, such as, to give a loan at interest.

[63291] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 12,to the twelfth, it must be said that, when the obligation is licit, one can licitly exact from another that to which he has bound himself; But she was herself obligation to pay interest is by nature unjust: hence it is not bound her lender at interest can not exact that to which the borrower illicitly.

[63292] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 13to the thirteenth, it must be said, either by the hand or that of fulfilling a mission from the lender of money can expect a recompense from a borrower in from the tongue and allow it, in two ways. In one way, as a means to some kind of agreement tacit or expressed, and so whatever the role of hope, it is unlawful to hopes for. In another way it can be to hope for some gift, not as a means, but as the free and offered without obligation could prevent, and thus is entitled to expect a recompense from him: He who lends to the borrower; as the one who does the service to any one man, and trusteth in his own time of Him as of the service of the social cause. The other, however, a result of simony, and of the reason for this is of a usurer, for it does not give that which is guilty of simony, is not its own, but that which is of Christ; to hope for some sort of compensation for self and, therefore, ought not to be, but only for the praise of Christ and the good of the Church: to give to another what is not his, but the usurer who is nothing; from which he can expect a friendly recompense the way mentioned above.

[63293] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 14to the fourteenth, it must be said, that it is from the loan of money, as the one who lends, to be guilty of the loss of a thing already had in two ways. First of all, since he did not return the money lent at the specified date; and he who receives a loan in such a case, obliged to pay compensation. Secondly, it will be time set aside; a person who receives a loan in, and then it is not obliged to pay compensation. The repayment of the money, for he who is in want of money, he had taken care not to incur loss. Nor does one who took each other, through the foolishness of it ought to be guilty of the loss of it borrowed. It is similar to buying. For both he that buys a thing of a man, the justly pays for it has the same meaning; not as much as the seller, some of its lack of injure another man.

[63294] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 15to the fifteenth, it must be said, that, just as the Philosopher says in the 1 Polit. i, of a thing, it can be of two kinds: one is the proper and principal, and the other, while the secondary and the common. For example, the proper and principal use of which is calceatio their shoes, a change of the secondary. The main use of which is the exchange of money, there is, however, the other way around; For the sake of this money is made: the use of money, while the secondary can be for anything else, for example because it is placed into a safe, or for display. Consuming, as it’s change of substance of a thing is the use of huts, inasmuch as it makes it to stay away from the one who exchanges. And, therefore, if one gives money to another for use as a means of exchange, which is proper of money, and for this use it to ask the price of something else above the principal, be contrary to justice; if, however, someone were to grant another use in which the money is not swallowed up their money to others, which will be the same as they are used to them, is concerned with human reason, which is not consumed, which are licitly rented and hired out. So that if one gives money sealed in a bag, to someone to post it as a safe, and then receives recompense, there is no usury; since there is no contract for a loan, but rather the renting or hiring. The same applies, if a person gives money to another to use for display, as the shoes of the other and the other way around, if one gives to the use of a means of exchange, and from this the value of the price of shoes, to seek them, there would be interest.

[63295] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 16to the sixteenth, it must be said that the interest is there, in a metaphorical sense are said to be excess in the spiritual things of the good, for the sake of which God requires of us is for our good. Proof can be drawn from the metaphorical speech we.

[63296] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 17to the seventeenth, it must be said, that, it is one thing to consent to a person living in malice, the other is to make use of a person’s wickedness to the good.He to whom it pleases the king to consent to the wickedness of a person in the exercise of the evil, and he leads him to this was, perhaps, and this is always a sin. Uses the fact that a man who does evil to a person’s wickedness, it twists back to some good; and thus, too, God makes use of the sins of men, brings some good out of them. Hence the man is it lawful to make use of another’s sin for good. And this is evident from Augustine, who make use of when Publicola asked whether it were lawful oath of one who swears by false gods, in which there is a manifest sin, he answered, that he who uses the faith of those who have sworn by false gods, and this is not to do evil, but to do good is a sin offering associate itself with them, in which swearing by demons, but by an agreement of good, and those that he kept his word. Otherwise, if we were to approve what the other is to swear by false gods, and to induce him to do this, he would sin. The same applies to the purpose, which is to use a good, if a man, through the wickedness of usurious, taking interest on a loan from him, sinneth not, if, however, to urge a lender prepared to lend at interest to his money at interest and for him who would not be so in every case would be a sin, without a doubt, as for them that sin’s wish.

[63297] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 18to the eighteenth, it must be said, that, if a man use it with the intention of someone who lends the money, so that from that time he sought an usurious gain, without doubt it would be a sin as consenting to the sin. And the same seems to be the one with which it must be said of the man who believes that he knowingly give their money to make use of it to acquire gain, which otherwise could not otherwise acquire. If, however, at other times lends money to a lender to give up, not that He should gain, but for the sake of his need, he more frequently employs the wickedness of his sons, which became a sin, or an occasion of sin to him, he shall give his consent to it; and so, this can be done without sin.

[63298] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 19to the nineteenth, it must be said, that it ought not to consent in another’s sin in order to avoid any material inconvenience; but nevertheless at some disadvantage to be avoided can licitly use the wickedness of others, or the matter to him, do not detract from, but is indispensable: for example, if he wished to slay the thief, and the robber of his treasure to plunder it in order to prevent the danger of death, it is not wrong, an example of the ten men, who have said to Ishmael, Do not kill us; for we have stores hidden in the field , as we read in Jer. Div. 41, 8.

[63299] De malo, q. 13. 4 to 20to the twentieth, it must be said, that the fact that the children of Israel carried off the vessels of the other, it was not to accept the theft, because those things to their ownership have passed the authority of the one who is master of all things.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Economics, Moral Philosophy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s