(note - we’re going to be spending a bit of time on usury. St Thomas Aquinas lays it out the best of anyone, thus we’ll be looking at him for most of this series.)
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.
- St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda, Secunda Q78 A2
We find ourselves upon infertile ground, wondering what the moderns were thinking. Seriously, what drug were they on where they saw two gold coins screwing, and a baby coin come forth later?
So, that out of the way, commenter
did me the wonderful favor of queuing up the next topic for me, by confronting the great issue of hidden usury.That is, as Aquinas says above, tacit or express gain upon a loan.
Sai was wonderful, and expressed their culture’s standard of cooking a dish or giving a gift if borrowing cookware. And then judged if you don’t do so.
The same would be true if, upon asking to borrow a car, the lender demanded a full tank, rather than what was used, from the borrower.
Now, doing so might be a favor - gratuity - at Aquinas says. And perfectly legitimate morally.
But, either tacit or express expectation beyond the amount is usurious. Again, as with the last post, notice the lack of interest involved.
Note that there are all other kinds of hidden usury - loaning out one thing and expecting the return of the same number of something more expensive is one (say silver to gold coins). The schemes of hidden usury are as numerous as clever, perfidious people are wickedly inclined to devise. The point of this post is to point to hidden usury, and that it can simply be a social expectation.
Should someone have an expectation of such compensation, or judge you for not meeting an unspoken guideline….
That person is a predatory lender.
A fiend.
Destructive to the common good of any community they’re in.
At best they’re deluded as to the nature of goods, and have predatory and materialistic tendencies.
Instead of being that guy, as Aquinas says, it is perfectly lawful to ask non-monetary compensation for a loan. Love, appreciation, honor, respect, the common good, etc.
Anything that can’t, or shouldn’t, be valued by money.
And yes, almost anything material can be valued by money.
So don’t ask for it.
The higher goods though, are perfectly acceptable, and more desirable to the virtuous man.
So, look to the immaterial if you want compensation for the loan itself. We will get into other ways in which we can morally make money another day.
Until then, ponder giving to each other in Charity.
And consider how much richer the world would be.
Repayment for a favor may be made in two ways. In 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 receive in loan: and consequently it is against justice if he be obliged to pay back more. In 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.
- St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda, Secunda Q78 A2
Excellent article. The examples really do help tell the tale. Thank you!