Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q78. The sin of usury
Source context
- Theme
- moral prohibition of usury as the sin of selling time, which belongs to God alone
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Aristotelian economic ethicsAquinas's argument that money is sterile by nature and that usury violates commutative justice draws directly on Aristotle's condemnation of chrematistics in the Politics, where money-breeding-money is characterized as the most unnatural form of acquisition.
- Deuteronomic / Levitical lawAquinas's prohibition aligns structurally with the Hebrew Torah's ban on lending at interest to fellow Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:19–20; Leviticus 25:36–37), framing economic exchange within a covenantal rather than purely contractual order.
- Islamic jurisprudence (riba)The Qur'anic prohibition of riba (Surah 2:275–279) presents a cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's usury doctrine: both frame the taking of increase on a loan as a violation of justice grounded in the nature of exchangeable goods.
Q78. The sin of usury
Article 1
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that it is not a sin to take usury for money lent. For no man sins through following the example of Christ. But Our Lord said of Himself (Luke 19:23): "At My coming I might have exacted it," i.e. the money lent, "with usury." Therefore it is not a sin to take usury for lending money.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc non sit forma hujus sacramenti: « Hoc est corpus meum; » et: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei. » Illa enim verba videntur pertinere ad formam sacramenti, quibus Christus corpus suum et sanguinem consecravit. Sed Christus ante benedixit panem acceptum et posteadixit: Accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum, ut habetur Matth., xxvi, 26; et similiter fecit de calice. Ergo prædicta verba non sunt forma hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.2] Further, according to Psalm 18:8, "The law of the Lord is unspotted," because, to wit, it forbids sin. Now usury of a kind is allowed in the Divine law, according to Deuteronomy 23:19-20: "Thou shalt not fenerate to thy brother money, nor corn, nor any other thing, but to the stranger": nay more, it is even promised as a reward for the observance of the Law, according to Deuteronomy 28:12: "Thou shalt fenerate* to many nations, and shalt not borrow of any one." ['Faeneraberis'--'Thou shalt lend upon usury.' The Douay version has simply 'lend.' The objection lays stress on the word 'faeneraberis': hence the necessity of rendering it by 'fenerate.'] Therefore it is not a sin to take usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Eusebius Emissenus dicit, Hom. v de Pascha, quæ incipit: « Magnitudo cælest., » a princ., quod « invisibilis sacerdos visibles creaturas in suum corpus convertit; dicens: Accipite et comedite; hoc est corpus meum. » Ergo totum hoc videtur pertinere ad formam hujus sacramenti, et eadem ratio est de verbis pertinentibus ad sanguinem.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.3] Further, in human affairs justice is determined by civil laws. Now civil law allows usury to be taken. Therefore it seems to be lawful.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, in forma baptismi exprimitur persona ministri et actus ejus, cum dicitur: « Ego te baptizo. » Sed in præmissis verbis nulla fit mentio de persona ministri nec de actu ejus. Ergo non est conveniens forma sacramenti.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.4] Further, the counsels are not binding under sin. But, among other counsels we find (Luke 6:35): "Lend, hoping for nothing thereby." Therefore it is not a sin to take usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, forma sacramenti sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti; unde sacramentum baptismi quandoque perfici potest solis verbis formæ prolatis, omnibus aliis prætermissis. Si ergo prædicta verba sunt forma hujus sacramenti, videtur quod aliquando possit hoc sacramentum perfici his solis verbis prolatis, et omnibus aliis prætermissis quæ in missa discuntur; quod tamen videtur esse falsum: quia ubi verba alia prætermitterentur, prædicta verba acciperentur ex persona sacerdotis proferentis, in cujus corpus et sanguinem panis et vinum non convertuntur. Non ergo prædicta verba sunt forma hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.5] Further, it does not seem to be in itself sinful to accept a price for doing what one is not bound to do. But one who has money is not bound in every case to lend it to his neighbor. Therefore it is lawful for him sometimes to accept a price for lending it.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.5] 5. Præterea, pretium accipere pro eo quod quis facere non tenetur, non videtur esse secundum se peccatum. Sed non in quolibet casu tenetur pecuniam habens eam proximo mutuare. Ergo licet ei aliquando pro mutuo accipere pretium.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.6] Further, silver made into coins does not differ specifically from silver made into a vessel. But it is lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver vessel. Therefore it is also lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver coin. Therefore usury is not in itself a sin.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.6] 6. Præterea, argentum monetatum, et in vasa formatum, non differt specie. Sed licet accipere pretium pro vasis argenteis accom- * Difficile exuitur negotians a negligentia, et non justificabitur caupo a peccatis labiorum. modatis. Ergo etiam licet accipere pretium pro mutuo argenti monetati. Usura ergo non est secundum se peccatum.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.7] Further, anyone may lawfully accept a thing which its owner freely gives him. Now he who accepts the loan, freely gives the usury. Therefore he who lends may lawfully take the usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.arg.7] 7. Præterea, quilibet potest licite accipere rem quam ei dominus rei voluntarie tradit. Sed ille qui accipit mutuum, voluntarie tradit usuram. Ergo ille qui mutuat, licite potest accipere.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.sc] It is written (Exodus 22:25): "If thou lend money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries."
[II-II.q.78.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit in lib. IV De sacramentis, cap. iv, § 14, col. 459, t. 3: « Consecratio fit verbis et sermonibus Domini Jesu: nam per reliqua omnia quæ dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro cæteris; ubi autem venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum. »
[II-II.q.78.a.1.co] To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. On order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.
On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.
Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod hoc sacramentum ab aliis sacramentis differt in duobus; primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiæ, alia vero sacramenta perficiuntur in usu materiæ consecratæ. Secundo quia in aliis sacramentis consecratio materiæ consistit solum in quadam benedictione, ex qua materia consecrata accipit instrumentaliter quamdam spiritualem virtutem, quæ per ministrum, qui est instrumentum animatum, potest ad instrumenta inanimata procedere; sed in hoc sacramento consecratio materiæ consistit in quadam miraculosa conversione substantiæ, quæ a solo Deo perfici potest: unde minister in hoc sacramento perficiendo non habet alium actum nisi prolationem verborum. Et quia forma debet esse conveniens rei, ideo forma hujus sacramenti differt a formis aliorum sacramentorum in duobus: primo quidem quia formæ aliorum sacramentorum important usum materiæ, puta baptizationem vel consignationem; sed forma hujus sacramenti importat solam consecrationem materiæ, quæ in transubstantiatione consistit, puta cum dicitur: « Hoc est corpus meum, » vel: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei. » Secundo, quia formæ aliorum sacramentorum proferuntur ex persona ministri, sive per modum exercentis actum, sicut cum dicitur: « Ego te baptizo, » vel: « Ego te confirmo, » sive per modum deprecantis, sicut cum in sacramento ordinis dicitur: « Accipe potestatem, » etc.; sive per modum deprecantis, sicut cum in sacramento extremæ unctionis dicitur: « Per istam unctionem et nostram intercessionem, etc. » Sed forma hujus sacramenti profertur quasi ex persona ipsius Christi loquentis, ut detur intelligi quod minister in perfectione hujus sacramenti nihil agit, nisi quod profert verba Christi.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.1] In this passage usury must be taken figuratively for the increase of spiritual goods which God exacts from us, for He wishes us ever to advance in the goods which we receive from Him: and this is for our own profit not for His.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod circa hoc est multiplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod Christus qui habebat potestatem excellentiæ in sacramentis, absque omni forma verborum hoc sacramentum perfectit, et postea verba protulit, sub quibus alii postmodum consecrarent. Quod videntur sonare verba Innocentii III dicentis, lib. III De myster. missæ, cap. vi, in fin.: « Sane dici potest, quod Christus virtute divina confecit, et postea formam expressit, sub qua posteri benedicerent. » Sed contra hoc expresse sunt verba Evangelii, in quibus dicitur quod Christus benedixit, quæ quidem benedictio aliquibus verbis facta est. Unde prædicta verba Innocentii sunt opinative magis dicta quam determinative. Quidam autem dixerunt quod benedictio illa facta est quibusdam aliis verbis nobis ignotis. Sed nec hoc stare potest, quia benedictio consecrationis nunc perficitur per recitationem eorum quæ tunc acta sunt; unde si tunc per hæc verba non est facta consecratio, nec modo fieret. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod illa benedictio eisdem etiam verbis facta est quibus modo fit; sed Christus ea bis protulit, primo quidem secrete ad consecrandum, secundo manifeste ad instruendum. Sed nec hoc stare potest, quia sacerdos consecrat, proferens hæc verba, non ut a Christo in occulta benedictione dicta, sed ut publice prolata. Unde cum non habeant vim hujusmodi verba, nisi ex Christi prolatione, videtur quod etiam Christus manifeste ea proferens consecraverit. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod Evangelistæ non semper eumdem ordinem in recitando servaverunt, quo res sunt gestæ, ut patet per Augustinum, in lib. II De consensu Evang., cap. xxxi et xliv, col. 1415, etc, t. 3. Unde intelligendum est ordinem rei gestæ sic exprimi posse: « Accipiens panem benedixit dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, ac deinde fregit et dedit discipulis suis. » Sed idem sensus haberi potest etiam verbis Evangelii non mutatis. Nam hoc participium, « dicens, » concomitantiam quamdam importat verborum prolatorum ad ea quæ pracedunt. Non autem oportet quod hæc concomitantia intelligatur solum respectu ultimi verbi prolati, quasi Christus tunc ista verba protulerit, quando dedit discipulis suis; sed potest intelligici concomitantia respectu totius pracedentis; ut sit sensus: dum benediceret, frangeret, et daret discipulis suis, hæc verba dixit: Accipite, etc.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.2] The Jews were forbidden to take usury from their brethren, i.e. from other Jews. By this we are given to understand that to take usury from any man is evil simply, because we ought to treat every man as our neighbor and brother, especially in the state of the Gospel, whereto all are called. Hence it is said without any distinction in Psalm 14:5: "He that hath not put out his money to usury," and (Ezekiel 18:8): "Who hath not taken usury [Vulgate: 'If a man . . . hath not lent upon money, nor taken any increase . . . he is just.']." They were permitted, however, to take usury from foreigners, not as though it were lawful, but in order to avoid a greater evil, lest, to wit, through avarice to which they were prone according to Isaiah 56:11, they should take usury from the Jews who were worshippers of God.
Where we find it promised to them as a reward, "Thou shalt fenerate to many nations," etc., fenerating is to be taken in a broad sense for lending, as in Sirach 29:10, where we read: "Many have refused to fenerate, not out of wickedness," i.e. they would not lend. Accordingly the Jews are promised in reward an abundance of wealth, so that they would be able to lend to others.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in his verbis: Accipite et comedite, intelligitur usus materiae consecratæ, qui non est de necessitate hujus sacramenti, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo nec hæc verba sunt de substantia formæ. Quia tamen ad quamdam perfectionem sacramenti pertinet materiae consecratæ usus, sicut operatio non est prima, sed secunda perfectio rei, ideo per omnia ista verba exprimitur tota perfectio hujus sacramenti: et hoc modo Eusebius intellexit his verbis confici sacramentum 4 quantum ad primam et secundam perfectionem.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.3] Human laws leave certain things unpunished, on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them. Wherefore human law has permitted usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing with justice, but lest the advantage of many should be hindered. Hence it is that in civil law [Inst. II, iv, de Usufructu] it is stated that "those things according to natural reason and civil law which are consumed by being used, do not admit of usufruct," and that "the senate did not (nor could it) appoint a usufruct to such things, but established a quasi-usufruct," namely by permitting usury. Moreover the Philosopher, led by natural reason, says (Polit. i, 3) that "to make money by usury is exceedingly unnatural."
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in sacramento baptismi minister aliquem actum exercet circa usum materiae, qui est de essentia sacramenti, quod non est in hoc sacramento; et ideo non est similis ratio.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.4] A man is not always bound to lend, and for this reason it is placed among the counsels. Yet it is a matter of precept not to seek profit by lending: although it may be called a matter of counsel in comparison with the maxims of the Pharisees, who deemed some kinds of usury to be lawful, just as love of one's enemies is a matter of counsel. Or again, He speaks here not of the hope of usurious gain, but of the hope which is put in man. For we ought not to lend or do any good deed through hope in man, but only through hope in God.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt hoc sacramentum perfici non 1 In Bucerus vult nulla verba esse proferenda; Lutherus ad consecrationem requiri non solum ordinaria verba, sed et pracedentia et subsequentia; Calvinus vult verba recitative tantum esse proferenda; quidam schismatici graeci dicunt eucharistiam confici precibus quas post ordinaria verba proferunt; Kemnitius docet totam Christi institutionem pertinere ad integritatem formæ; Scotus censuit verba Christi ad consecrationem non esse efficacia, nisi praemissis: Qui pridie, etc. — Scotum tamen ab hac sententia sui discipuli vindicant. — Inter Thomistas lis est circa formam calicis; quidam enim volunt esse essentialia: Novi et aterni Testamenti, etc.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.5] He that is not bound to lend, may accept repayment for what he has done, but he must not exact more. Now he is repaid according to equality of justice if he is repaid as much as he lent. Wherefore 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.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod ille qui mutuare non tenetur, recompensationem potest accipere ejus quod fecit: sed non amplius debet exigere. Recompensatur autem ei secundum aequalitatem justitiæ, si tantum ei reddatur, quantum mutuavit. Unde si amplius exigat pro usufructu rei, quæ alium usum non habet nisi consumptionem substantiæ, exigit pretium ejus quod non est; et ita est injusta exactio.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.6] 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 in exchange, so that it is not lawful to sell its use and at the same time expect the restitution of the amount lent. It must be observed, however, that the secondary use of silver vessels may be an exchange, and such use may not be lawfully sold. On like manner there may be some secondary use of silver money; for instance, a man might lend coins for show, or to be used as security.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.6] Ad sextum dicendum, quod usus principalis vasorum argenteorum non est ipsa eorum consumptio; et ideo usus eorum potest vendi licite, servato dominio rei. Usus autem principalis pecuniæ argenteæ est distractio pecuniæ in commutationes; unde non licet ejus usum vendere cum hoc quod aliquis velit ejus restitutionem quod mutuo dedit. Sciendum tamen, quod secundarius usus argenteorum vasorum posset esse commutatio: et talem usum eorum non liceret vendere. Et similiter potest esse aliquis secundarius usus pecuniæ argenteæ, ut puta si quis concederet pecuniam signatam ad ostentationem vel ad ponendum loco pignoris; et talem usum pecuniæ licite homo vendere potest.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.7] 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.
[II-II.q.78.a.1.ad.7] Ad septimum dicendum, quod ille qui dat usuram, non simpliciter voluntarie dat, sed cum quadam necessitate, inquantum indiget accipere pecuniam mutuo, quam ille qui habet non vult sine usura mutuare. Rossignol, et alii quibus assentiendum esse reor. Hæc fœcunditas ignota erat D. Thomæ temporibus, sive propter leges usuras et usurariorum enormes abusus reprimentes, sive propter morum differentiam; alioquin S. Doctor quæstionem aliter determinasset. — Sic cod.; QUÆST. LXXVIII, ART. I ET II.
Article 2
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that one may ask for some other kind of consideration for money lent. For everyone may lawfully seek to indemnify himself. Now sometimes a man suffers loss through lending money. Therefore he may lawfully ask for or even exact something else besides the money lent.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc non sit conveniens forma consecrationis panis: « Hoc est corpus meum. » Per formam enim sacramenti debet exprimi sacramenti effectus. Sed effectus qui fit in consecratione panis est conversio substantiae panis in corpus Christi, quæ magis exprimitur per hoc verbum fit, quam per hoc verbum est. Ergo in forma consecrationis deberet dici: hoc fit corpus meum.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.2] Further, as stated in Ethic. v, 5, one is in duty bound by a point of honor, to repay anyone who has done us a favor. Now to lend money to one who is in straits is to do him a favor for which he should be grateful. Therefore the recipient of a loan, is bound by a natural debt to repay something. Now it does not seem unlawful to bind oneself to an obligation of the natural law. Therefore it is not unlawful, in lending money to anyone, to demand some sort of compensation as condition of the loan.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Ambrosius dicit in lib. IV De sacramentis, cap. iv, § 14 et 15, col. 460, t. 3: « Sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum; quis sermo Christi? hic quo facta sunt omnia. Jussit Dominus, et facta sunt cæli et terra. » Ergo et forma hujus sacramenti convenientior esset per verbum imperativum, ut diceretur: Hoc sit corpus meum.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.3] Further, just as there is real remuneration, so is there verbal remuneration, and remuneration by service, as a gloss says on Isaiah 33:15, "Blessed is he that shaketh his hands from all bribes [Vulgate: 'Which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings? . . . He that shaketh his hands from all bribes.']." Now it is lawful to accept service or praise from one to whom one has lent money. Therefore in like manner it is lawful to accept any other kind of remuneration.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, per subjectum hujus locutionis importatur illud quod convertitur, sicut per prædicatum importatur conversionis terminus. Sed sicut est determi-natum id in quod fit conversio, non enim fit conversio nisi in corpus Christi, ita est determinatum id quod convertitur: non enim convertitur in corpus Christi nisi panis. Ergo sicut ex parte prædicati ponitur nomen, ita ex parte subjecti debet poni nomen, ut dicatur: hic panis est corpus meum.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.4] Further, seemingly the relation of gift to gift is the same as of loan to loan. But it is lawful to accept money for money given. Therefore it is lawful to accept repayment by loan in return for a loan granted.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, sicut id in quod terminatur conversio, est determinatæ naturæ quia est corpus, ita etiam est determinatæ personæ. Ergo ad determinandam personam deberet dici: Hoc est corpus Christi.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.5] Further, the lender, by transferring his ownership of a sum of money removes the money further from himself than he who entrusts it to a merchant or craftsman. Now it is lawful to receive interest for money entrusted to a merchant or craftsman. Therefore it is also lawful to receive interest for money lent.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.5] 5. Præterea, in verbis formæ non debet poni aliquid quod non sit de substantia ejus. Inconvenienter ergo additur in quibusdam libris hæc conjunctio « enim » quæ non est de substantia formæ.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.6] Further, a man may accept a pledge for money lent, the use of which pledge he might sell for a price: as when a man mortgages his land or the house wherein he dwells. Therefore it is lawful to receive interest for money lent.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.6] 6. Præterea, pro pecunia mutuata potest homo pignus accipere, cujus usus posset pretio aliquo vendi; sicut cum impignoratur ager vel domus quæ inhabitatur. Ergo licet aliquod lucrum habere de pecunia mutuata.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.7] Further, it sometimes happens that a man raises the price of his goods under guise of loan, or buys another's goods at a low figure; or raises his price through delay in being paid, and lowers his price that he may be paid the sooner. Now in all these cases there seems to be payment for a loan of money: nor does it appear to be manifestly illicit. Therefore it seems to be lawful to expect or exact some consideration for money lent.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.arg.7] 7. Præterea, contingit quandoque quod aliquis carius vendit res suas ratione mutui, aut vilius emit quod est alterius, vel etiam pro dilatione pretium auget, vel pro acceleratione diminuit; in quibus omnibus videtur aliqua recompensatio fieri quasi pro mutuo pecuniæ. Hoc autem non manifeste apparet illicitum. Ergo videtur licitum esse aliquod commodum de pecunia mutuata expectare, vel etiam exigere.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.sc] Among other conditions requisite in a just man it is stated (Ezekiel 18:17) that he "hath not taken usury and increase."
[II-II.q.78.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus hac formain consecrando est usus, ut patet Matth., xxvi.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.co] 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.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod hæc est conveniens forma consecrationis panis. Dictum est enim, quod hæc consecration consistit in conversione substantiae panis in corpus Christi. Oportet autem formam sacramenti significare id quod in sacramento efficitur. Unde et forma consecrationis panis debet significare ipsam conversionem panis in corpus Christi, in qua tria considerantur: scilicet ipsa conversio, et terminus a quo, et terminus ad quem. Conversio autem potest considerari dupliciter: uno modo ut in fieri, alio modo ut in facto esse. Non autem debuit significari conversio in hac forma ut in fieri, sed ut in facto esse: primo quidem quia hæc conversio non est successiva, ut supra dictum est, sed instantanea: in hujusmodi autem mutationibus fieri non est nisi factum esse. Secundo quia ita se habent formæ sacramentales ad significandum effectum sacramenti, sicut se habent formæ artificiales ad repræsentandum effectum artis. Forma autem artificialis est similitudo ultimi effectus, in quem fertur intentio artificis; sicut forma artis in mente ædificatoris est forma domus ædificatæ principaliter, ædificationis autem per consequens. Unde et in hac forma debet exprimi conversio, ut in ipso facto esse ad quod fertur intentio. Et quia conversio exprimitur in hac forma ut in facto esse, necesse est quod extrema conversionis significentur ut se habent in facto esse conversionis. Tunc autem 1 Parm.: « ergo sicut ad determinandam natuterminus ad quem habet propriam naturam suæ substantiae; sed terminus a quo non manet secundum suam substantiam, sed solum secundum accidentia quibus sensui subjacet, et ad sensum determinari potest. Unde convenienter terminus conversionis a quo exprimitur per pronomen demonstrativum relatum ad accidentia sensibilia, quæ manent; terminus autem ad quem exprimitur per nomen significans naturam ejus in quod fit conversio, quod quidem est totum corpus Christi, et non sola caro ejus, ut dictum est. Unde hæc forma est convenientissima: « Hoc est corpus meum. »
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.1] A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod fieri non est ultimus effectus hujus consecrationis, sed factum esse, ut dictum est, et ideo hoc potius exprimi debet in forma.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.2] Repayment for a favor may be made in two ways. On 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 received in loan: and consequently it is against justice if he be obliged to pay back more. On 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.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sermo Dei operatus est in creatione rerum, qui etiam operatur in hac consecratione, aliter tamen et aliter; nam hic operatur effective et sacramentaliter, id est, secundum vim significationis: et ideo oportet in hoc sermone significari ultimum effectum consecrationis per verbum substantivum indicativi modi et præsentis temporis. Sed in creatione rerum operatus est solum effective, quæ quidem efficienia est per imperium suæ sapientia: et ideo in creatione rerum exprimitur sermo divinus per verbum imperativi modi, secundum illud Gen., 1, 3: Fiat lux et facta est lux.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.3] If a man were, in return for money lent, as though there had been an agreement tacit or expressed, to expect or exact repayment in the shape of some remuneration of service or words, it would be the same as if he expected or exacted some real remuneration, because both can be priced at a money value, as may be seen in the case of those who offer for hire the labor which they exercise by work or by tongue. If on the other hand the remuneration by service or words be given not as an obligation, but as a favor, which is not to be appreciated at a money value, it is lawful to take, exact, and expect it.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod terminus a quo in ipso facto esse conversionis non retinet naturam suæ substantiae sicut terminus ad quem. Et ideo non est simile.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.4] Money cannot be sold for a greater sum than the amount lent, which has to be paid back: nor should the loan be made with a demand or expectation of aught else but of a feeling of benevolence which cannot be priced at a pecuniary value, and which can be the basis of a spontaneous loan. Now the obligation to lend in return at some future time is repugnant to such a feeling, because again an obligation of this kind has its pecuniary value. Consequently it is lawful for the lender to borrow something else at the same time, but it is unlawful for him to bind the borrower to grant him a loan at some future time.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod per hoc pronomen « meum » quod includit demonstrationem primæ personæ, quæ est persona loquentis, sufficienter exprimitur persona Christi, ex cujus persona hæc proferuntur, ut dictum est.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.5] He who lends money transfers the ownership of the money to the borrower. Hence the borrower holds the money at his own risk and is bound to pay it all back: wherefore the lender must not exact more. On the other hand he that entrusts his money to a merchant or craftsman so as to form a kind of society, does not transfer the ownership of his money to them, for it remains his, so that at his risk the merchant speculates with it, or the craftsman uses it for his craft, and consequently he may lawfully demand as something belonging to him, part of the profits derived from his money.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod hæc conjunctio « enim » apponitur in hac forma secundum consuetudinem Romanæ Ecclesiæ, a B. Petro Apostolo derivatam; et hoc propter continuationem ad verba præcedentia; et ideo non est de forma, sicut nec verba præcedentia formam.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.6] If a man in return for money lent to him pledges something that can be valued at a price, the lender must allow for the use of that thing towards the repayment of the loan. Else if he wishes the gratuitous use of that thing in addition to repayment, it is the same as if he took money for lending, and that is usury, unless perhaps it were such a thing as friends are wont to lend to one another gratis, as in the case of the loan of a book.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.6] Ad sextum dicendum, quod si quis pro pecunia sibi mutuata obliget rem aliquam cujus usus pretio æstimari potest, debet usum illius rei ille qui mutuavit, computare in restitutionem ejus quod mutuavit; alioquin si usum illius rei quasi gratis sibi superaddi velit, idem est ac si pecuniam acciperet pro mutuo, quod est usurarium; nisi forte esset talis res cujus usus sine pretio soleat concedi inter amicos, sicut patet de libro commodato.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.7] If a man wish to sell his goods at a higher price than that which is just, so that he may wait for the buyer to pay, it is manifestly a case of usury: because this waiting for the payment of the price has the character of a loan, so that whatever he demands beyond the just price in consideration of this delay, is like a price for a loan, which pertains to usury. On like manner if a buyer wishes to buy goods at a lower price than what is just, for the reason that he pays for the goods before they can be delivered, it is a sin of usury; because again this anticipated payment of money has the character of a loan, the price of which is the rebate on the just price of the goods sold. On the other hand if a man wishes to allow a rebate on the just price in order that he may have his money sooner, he is not guilty of the sin of usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.2.ad.7] Ad septimum dicendum, quod si aliquis carius velit vendere res suas quam sit justum pretium, ut de pecunia solvenda emptorem expectet, manifeste usura committitur, quia hujusmodi expectatio pretii solvendi habet rationem mutui. Unde quidquid ultra justum pretium pro hujusmodi expectatione exigitur, est quasi pretium mutui, quod pertinet ad rationem usuræ. Similiter etiam si quis emptor velit rem emere vilius quam sit justum pretium, eo quod pecuniam ante solvit quam possit ei res tradi, est peccatum usuræ, quia etiam ista anticipatio solutionis pecuniaæ habet mutui rationem, cujus quoddam pretium est quod diminuitur de justo pretio rei emptae. Si vero aliquis de justo pretio velit diminuere, ut pecuniam prius habeat non peccat peccato usuræ.
Article 3
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that a man is bound to restore whatever profits he has made out of money gotten by usury. For the Apostle says (Romans 11:16): "If the root be holy, so are the branches." Therefore likewise if the root be rotten so are the branches. But the root was infected with usury. Therefore whatever profit is made therefrom is infected with usury. Therefore he is bound to restore it.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc non sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. » Sicut enim panis convertitur in corpus Christi ex vi consecrationis, ita et vinum in sanguinem Christi, sicut ex prædictis patet. Sed in forma consecrationis panis ponitur in recto corpus Christi, nec aliquid aliud additur. Inconvenienter ergo in hac forma ponitur sanguis Christi in obliquo, et additur calix in recto, cum dicitur: « hic est calix sanguinis mei. »
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.2] Further, it is laid down (Extra, De Usuris, in the Decretal: 'Cum tu sicut asseris'): "Property accruing from usury must be sold, and the price repaid to the persons from whom the usury was extorted." Therefore, likewise, whatever else is acquired from usurious money must be restored.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, non sunt majoris efficaciæ verba quæ proferuntur in consecratione panis, quam ea quæ proferuntur in consecratione vini, cum utraque sint verba Christi. Sed statim dicto: « Hoc est corpus meum, » est perfecta consecration panis. Ergo statim cum dictum est: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei, » est perfecta consecration sanguinis; et ita ea quæ sequuntur non videntur esse de substantia formæ, præsertim cum pertineant ad proprietates hujus sacramenti.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.3] Further, that which a man buys with the proceeds of usury is due to him by reason of the money he paid for it. Therefore he has no more right to the thing purchased than to the money he paid. But he was bound to restore the money gained through usury. Therefore he is also bound to restore what he acquired with it.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, testamentum novum pertinere videtur ad internam inspirationem, ut patet ex hoc quod Apostolus ad Hebr., vIII, 8, introducit verba quæ habentur Jerem., xxxi, 31: Consummabo super domum Israel testamentum novum... dando leges meas in mentem eorum. Sacramentum autem exterius visibiliter agitur. Inconvenienter ergo in forma sacramenti dicitur, « novi Testamenti. »
[II-II.q.78.a.3.sc] A man may lawfully hold what he has lawfully acquired. Now that which is acquired by the proceeds of usury is sometimes lawfully acquired. Therefore it may be lawfully retained.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Ecclesia ab apostolis instructa utitur hac forma in consecratione vini.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 1), there are certain things whose use is their consumption, and which do not admit of usufruct, according to law (ibid., ad 3). Wherefore if such like things be extorted by means of usury, for instance money, wheat, wine and so forth, the lender is not bound to restore more than he received (since what is acquired by such things is the fruit not of the thing but of human industry), unless indeed the other party by losing some of his own goods be injured through the lender retaining them: for then he is bound to make good the loss.
On the other hand, there are certain things whose use is not their consumption: such things admit of usufruct, for instance house or land property and so forth. Wherefore if a man has by usury extorted from another his house or land, he is bound to restore not only the house or land but also the fruits accruing to him therefrom, since they are the fruits of things owned by another man and consequently are due to him.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hanc formam est duplex opinio: quidam enim dixerunt quod de substantia formæ hujus est hoc solum quod dicitur: « hic est calix sanguinis mei, » non autem ea quæ sequuntur. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia ea quæ sequuntur sunt quædam determinationes prædicati, id est, sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent ad integritatem locutionis. Et propter hoc sunt alii qui melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia sunt de substantia formæ usque ad hoc quod postea sequitur: « Hæc quotiescumque feceritis, » quod pertinet ad usum hujus sacramenti: unde non est de substantia formæ. Et inde est quod sacerdos eodem ritu et modo, scilicet tenendo calicem in manibus, omnia hæc verba profert. Lucæ etiam, xxii, interponuntur verba sequentia verbis præmissis, cum dicitur: Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. Dicendum est ergo quod omnia prædicta verba sunt de substantia formæ, sed per prima verba cum dicitur: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei, » significatur ipsa conversio vini in sanguinem, eo modo quo dictum est in forma consecrationis panis: per verba autem sequentia designatur virtus sanguinis effusi in passione, quæ operatur in hoc sacramento, quæ quidem ad tria ordinatur: primo quidem et principaliter ad adipiscendam æternam hereditatem, secundum illud Hebr., x, 19: Habentes fiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi; et ad hoc designandum dicitur: Novi et æterni Testamenti. Secundo ad justitiam gratiae, quæ est per fidem, secundum illud Rom., 111, 25: Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem* per fidem in sanguine ip-* Propitiasius, ut sit ipse justus et justificans eum tionem. qui est ex fide Jesu Christi; et quantum ad hoc subditur, Mysterium fidei. Tertio autem ad removendum impedimenta utriusque prædictorum, scilicet peccata, secundum illud Hebr., 1x, 14: Sanguinis Christi…… emundabit conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis, id est, a pecatis: et quantum ad hoc subditur: Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.1] The root has not only the character of matter, as money made by usury has; but has also somewhat the character of an active cause, in so far as it administers nourishment. Hence the comparison fails.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod cum dicitur: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei, » est locutio figurativa, et potest dupliciter intelligi: uno modo secundum metonymiam, qua ponitur continens pro contento, ut sit sensus: « hic est sanguis meus contentus in calice de quo fit hic mentio, » quia sanguis Christi in hoc sacramento consecratur, inquantum est potus fidelium, quod non importatur in ratione sanguinis; et ideo oportuit hoc designari per vas huic usui accommodatum. Alio modo potest intelligi secundum metaphoram, prout per calicem similitudinarie intelligitur passio Christi quæ ad similitudinem calicis inebriat, secundum illud Thren., 111, 15: Replevit me amaritudinibus, inebriavit me absynthio; unde et ipse Dominus passionem suam calicem nominat, Matth., xxvi, 39, dicens: Transeat a me calix iste; ut sit sensus: « Hic est calix passionis meæ, de qua fit mentio in sanguine seorsum a Græci dicunt: « Hic est sanguis meus. » corpore consecrato; » quia separatio sanguinis a corpore fuit per passionem.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.2] Further, Property acquired from usury does not belong to the person who paid usury, but to the person who bought it. Yet he that paid usury has a certain claim on that property just as he has on the other goods of the usurer. Hence it is not prescribed that such property should be assigned to the persons who paid usury, since the property is perhaps worth more than what they paid in usury, but it is commanded that the property be sold, and the price be restored, of course according to the amount taken in usury.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quia, ut dictum est, sanguis seorsum consecratus expresse passionem Christi representat, ideo potius in consecratione sanguinis fit mentio de effectu passionis, quam in consecratione corporis, quod est passionis subjectum: quod etiam designatur in hoc quod Dominus dicit: Quod pro vobis tradetur; quasi diceret: Quod pro vobis passioni subjicietur.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.3] The proceeds of money taken in usury are due to the person who acquired them not by reason of the usurious money as instrumental cause, but on account of his own industry as principal cause. Wherefore he has more right to the goods acquired with usurious money than to the usurious money itself.
[II-II.q.78.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod testamentum est dispositio hereditatis. Hereditatem autem cælestem disposuit Deus hominibus dandam per virtutem sanguinis Jesu Christi; quia, ut dicitur Hebr., ix, 16, ubi testamentum est, mors necesse est intercedat testatoris. Sanguis autem Christi dupliciter est hominibus exhibitus: primo quidem in figura, quod pertinet ad vetus Testamentum; et ideo Apostolus ibidem concludit: Unde nec primum Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatum est, quod patet ex hoc quod, sicut dicitur Exodi, xxiv, lecto omni mandato legis a Moyse omnem populum aspersit, dicens: Hic est sanguis Testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus. Secundo autem est exhibitus in rei veritate, quod pertinet ad novum Testamentum; et hoc est quod Apostolus ibidem præmittit dicens: Ideo novi Testamenti mediator est, Christus, ut, morte intercedente, repromissionem accipiant, qui vocati sunt æternæ hereditatis. Dicitur ergo: « Hic sanguis novi Testamenti, » quia jam non in figura, sed in veritate exhibetur: unde subditur: « Qui pro vobis effundetur. » Interna autem inspiratio ex sanguinis virtute procedit, secundum quod passione Christi justificamur.
Article 4
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that it is not lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury. For the Apostle says (Romans 1:32) that they "are worthy of death . . . not only they that do" these sins, "but they also that consent to them that do them." Now he that borrows money under a condition of usury consents in the sin of the usurer, and gives him an occasion of sin. Therefore he sins also.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod prædictis verbis formarum non insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecra-tionis. Dicit enim Damascenus in lib. IV Orth. fid., cap. xiii, col. 1146, t. 4: « Sola virtute Spiritus sancti fit conversio panis in corpus Christi. » Sed virtus Spiritus sancti est virtus increata. Ergo nulla virtute creata horum verborum conficitur hoc sacramentum.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.2] Further, for no temporal advantage ought one to give another an occasion of committing a sin: for this pertains to active scandal, which is always sinful, as stated above (Question 43, Article 2). Now he that seeks to borrow from a usurer gives him an occasion of sin. Therefore he is not to be excused on account of any temporal advantage.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, opera miraculosa non fiunt aliqua virtute creata, sed sola virtute divina, ut in prima parte habitum est. Sed conversio panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi est opus non minus miraculosum quam creatio rerum, vel etiam formatio corporis Christi in utero virginali; quæ quidem nulla virtute creata fieri potuerunt. Ergo neque hoc sacramentum consecratur aliqua virtute creata dictorum verborum.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.3] Further, it seems no less necessary sometimes to deposit one's money with a usurer than to borrow from him. Now it seems altogether unlawful to deposit one's money with a usurer, even as it would be unlawful to deposit one's sword with a madman, a maiden with a libertine, or food with a glutton. Neither therefore is it lawful to borrow from a usurer.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, prædicta verba non sunt simplicia, sed ex multis composita; nec simul, sed successive proferuntur. Conversio autem prædicta, ut supra dictum est, fit in instanti, unde oportet quod fiat per simplicem virtutem. Non ergo fit per virtutem horum verborum.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.sc] He that suffers injury does not sin, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 11), wherefore justice is not a mean between two vices, as stated in the same book (ch. 5). Now a usurer sins by doing an injury to the person who borrows from him under a condition of usury. Therefore he that accepts a loan under a condition of usury does not sin.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit in lib. IV De sacramentis, cap. iv, § 15, col. 460, t. 3: « Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu, ut inciperent esse quæ non erant, quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quæ erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod erat panis ante consecrationem, jam corpus Christi est post consecrationem, « quia sermo Christi in aliud creaturam mutat, » ut, § 16, subjungit.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.co] It is by no means lawful to induce a man to sin, yet it is lawful to make use of another's sin for a good end, since even God uses all sin for some good, since He draws some good from every evil as stated in the Enchiridion (xi). Hence when Publicola asked whether it were lawful to make use of an oath taken by a man swearing by false gods (which is a manifest sin, for he gives Divine honor to them) Augustine (Ep. xlvii) answered that he who uses, not for a bad but for a good purpose, the oath of a man that swears by false gods, is a party, not to his sin of swearing by demons, but to his good compact whereby he kept his word. If however he were to induce him to swear by false gods, he would sin.
Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jeremiah 41:8): "Kill us not: for we have stores in the field."
[II-II.q.78.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt nullam virtutem creatam esse nec in prædictis verbis ad transubstan-tationem faciendam nec etiam in aliis sacramentorum formis, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentis ad inducendos sacramentorum effectus; quod, sicut supra habitum est, et dictis sanctorum repugnat, et derogat dignitati sacramentorum novæ legis. Unde cum hoc sacramentum sit præ cæteris dignius, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est quod in verbis formalibus hujus sacramenti sit quædam virtus creata ad conversionem hujus sacramenti faciendam, instrumentalis tamen, sicut et in aliis sacramentis, sicut supra dictum est. Cum enim hæc verba ex persona Christi proferantur, ex ejus mandato consequuntur virtutem instrumentalem a Christo, sicut et cætera ejus facta vel dicta habent instrumentaliter salutiferam virtutem, ut supra dictum est.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.1] He who borrows for usury does not consent to the usurer's sin but makes use of it. Nor is it the usurer's acceptance of usury that pleases him, but his lending, which is good.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod cum dicitur sola virtute Spiritus sancti panem in corpus Christi converti, non excluditur virtus instrumentalis, quæ est in forma hujus sacramenti; sicut cum dicitur: Solus faber facit cultellum, non excluditur virtus martelli.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.2] He who borrows for usury gives the usurer an occasion, not for taking usury, but for lending; it is the usurer who finds an occasion of sin in the malice of his heart. Hence there is passive scandal on his part, while there is no active scandal on the part of the person who seeks to borrow. Nor is this passive scandal a reason why the other person should desist from borrowing if he is in need, since this passive scandal arises not from weakness or ignorance but from malice.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod opera miraculosa nulla creatura potest facere quasi agens principale; potest tamen ea facere instrumentaliter, sicut ipse tactus manus Christi sanavit leprosum. Et per hunc modum verba Christi convertunt panem in corpus Christi. Quod quidem fieri non potuit in conceptione corporis Christi, qua corpus Christi formabatur, ut aliquid a corpore Christi procedens haberet instrumentalem virtutem ad ipsius corporis formationem. In creatione etiam non fuit aliquod extremum, in quod instrumentalis actio creaturæ posset terminari. Unde non est simile.
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.3] If one were to entrust one's money to a usurer lacking other means of practising usury; or with the intention of making a greater profit from his money by reason of the usury, one would be giving a sinner matter for sin, so that one would be a participator in his guilt. If, on the other hand, the usurer to whom one entrusts one's money has other means of practising usury, there is no sin in entrusting it to him that it may be in safer keeping, since this is to use a sinner for a good purpose.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[II-II.q.78.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod prædicta verba, quibus fit consecratio, sacramentaliter operantur; unde vis conversiva, quæ est in formis horum sacramentorum, consequitur significationem, quæ in prolatione ultimæ dictionis terminatur. Et ideo in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum prædicta verba consequuntur hanc virtutem, in ordine tamen ad pracedentia; et hæc virtus est simplex ratione significati, licet in ipsis verbis exterius prolatis sit quædem compositio.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q078.json