Summa Theologica

Name

Professor

Course

Date

Title

The exchange of goods throughout history has certainly shaped the evolution of human civilization. With the ancient epiphany of tools and agriculture, societies created business to aid the collective wealth and wellbeing of the people. This achievement was surely a magnificent one but it gives ample room for the inherent greed of humankind to flourish. Such greed can be found in charging interest on loans, which was called usury in medieval Europe. The notion of a middleman cunningly "taking a cut" from a transaction became widespread and unavoidable, even until this day. The possibility of this practice being ethical has been debated since the idea was conceived. Civil law permitted usury at the time, and as people were naturally eager to extract money from nowhere, a great discussion on the matter ensued. St. Thomas declared that it is impossible to ethically charge interest on money lent unless the profit was spent on philanthropic necessities. His opinion on the matter was encoded in Catholic dogma for all believers to follow.

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas considers various moral objections to his stance on usury and supplies a rebuttal to each. Most notably, the theologian offers an objection regarding the difference between silver in the form of a vessel and silver in the form of coins. Requesting a price for the use of the vessel for a period of time is permitted in God's law. So should not the request of a price for the use of the coins be permitted too? The vessel and the coins of silver are both manufactured material things. They should not be regarded differently in business and in religious doctrine.

To this objection, St. Thomas replies, "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 into exchange, so that it is unlawful to sell its use and expect restitution of the loan." CITATION #1 In other words, it is not permitted to take usury on lent coins because they are not tools for use but symbols of value. So the use of money is simply a concept that enables exchange. Ergo, taking usury would be the same as charging for the use of the money lent and this is sin, so no profit should be made by the lending of money.

The willingness of the borrower to pay interest is also discussed. St. Thomas gives another objection to his argument that suggests that giving usury is a voluntary act. If a lender is able to provide the sum needed by the borrower but charges interest, the borrower may voluntarily pay the fee and therefore, usury is not sinful. Since the charging of interest is clearly stated before the transaction is made, the borrower knows the conditions of the agreement and is willing and prepared to pay the fixed amount. If there is an agreement, no sin is committed.

The rebuttal that St. Thomas delivers is a short but strong one. He states, "He who gives usury does not give it voluntarily simply, but under a certain necessity, in so far as he needs to borrow money which the owner is unwilling to lend without usury." CITATION#2 If person is desperate for money, they would pay the interest because it is necessary, not