It may not be sufficiently clear the criticism that is leveled against the Scholastics and the Church by the claims in the previous post.
When the scholastics were making arguments about the evil of usury and proposing that it is intrinsically evil, they were doing this all under the presupposition of uncertain economic gain. This is perhaps the farthest thing possible from their actual considerations, but even considered on that basis they and the Church were eminently wrong. One cannot arrive at a claim that something is intrinsically evil, that is every where and under all conditions, under the assumption of uncertain economic conditions. There must have been a fundamental flaw in their arguments, a mistaken proposition and for the Church a manifest error in teaching. The usury that is owed the lender is based on economic conditions, rather than something intrinsically unjust for the lender to demand by the nature of usury itself.
Moreover, if right, the author must also admit that the usury ban was in effect during the financial crisis when making a profit through investment of money was very uncertain.