This work is meant as a summary of the Catholic Teaching on usury based upon Papal and Conciliar teaching, and the works Sts. Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas. This is a catechetical work and so is meant for instruction rather than dialectic. I have attempted to include questions that are most relevant and which have reasonably clear answers. Not all sources have equal authority, nor are all significant authorities included in each questions. If you have other questions let me know. All errors are my own.
Disclaimer: I am amateur Latinist, but I have translated a few short passages with no English translations. If they include errors, please let me know. Further, I have taken liberty with texts that have English translations to correct obvious mistranslations (e.g. “usura” does not mean “interest-taking” nor does “aliquid moderatum” mean “moderate rate of interest.”)
Contents
1. What is usury?2. Is usury only in a mutuum?
3. What is a mutuum contract?
4. What are examples of personally secured contracts?
5. What is considered profit?
6. is usury intrinsically evil?
7. Is a moderate profit licit?
8. Is profit from a merchant, businessman or wealthy person licit?
9. Is profit from a loan used for productive purposes licit?
10. Is profit on the basis of time preference, time value of money, or opporunity cost licit?
11. Is there any reason a lender may receive more than the principal?
12. Are there other contracts where profits are licit?
13. Did the Fifth Lateran Council propose a definition of usury?
14. Did the Fifth Lateran Council teach that usury is licit?
15. Did the responses of the Holy Office in 19th century teach usury is licit?
Notes on Source for Citations
1. What is usury?
Usury is profit from a mutuum contract.
“And do you think you are acting piously because you receive as it were a loan [mutuum] from the merchant? Thereby he commits fraud in the price of his goods from which he pays usury to you.”
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339 – 397), De Tobia, #49
Commentary: When referring to usury St. Ambrose always speaks of the “mutuum.” As a former Roman government official he would have been versed in Roman Law and the specific nature of the mutuum.
“Usury is profit owed or exacted from a mutuum pact.” [Usura est lucrum, mutuo pacto debitum, vel exactum.]
Pope Innocent IV (c. 1195-1254), Apparatus in quinque libros Decretalium, Lib V, Tit. XIX, Cap. I
“We must now consider the sin of usury, which is committed in loans [in mutuis].”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica II-II, q.78, intro
“All profit from a mutuum precisely by reason of lending… are usurious.” [Omne lucrum ex mutuo, praecise ratione mutui…usuraium.]
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), De Synodo, Lib X, Cap IV
Back to Contents“Therefore [the lender] contends some gain is owed him beyond he principal by reason of the loan [ratione mutui], but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.I
2. Is usury only in a mutuum?
Yes. Usury only arises from a mutuum contract.
See Citations in #1.
“A contract of this kind cannot be considered usurious from its form, which is a sale and not a mutuum.”
[Huiusmodi contractus, non potest censeri usurarius ex forma, quia venditio est, et non mutuum.]
Pope INNOCENT IV (c. 1195-1254), APPARATUS IN QUINQUE LIBROS DECRETALIUM, LIB V, TIT. XIX, CAP. V
Commentary: The contract discussed cannot be considered usurious, because it lacks the proper form, namely it is not a mutuum contract. This implies that in order for a contract to be usurious, it must have the form of a mutuum.
“And so if one gives money sealed in a purse to someone to post it as security and then receives recompense, this not usury, since it involves a renting or hiring out [locatio et conductio], not a contract for a loan [mutui].” –
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), De Malo, q. 14, a. 4, ad. 15
Commentary: Aquinas asserts that the aforementioned sealed purse is not usury precisely because it is “not a contract for a loan [mutui]” implying that usury arises specifically from the mutuum.
” The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract [contractu mutui].”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.I
3. What is a mutuum contract?
A mutuum is a personally secured or guaranteed loan. This means that the principal is guaranteed by the borrower himself.
“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…”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST II-II, q. 78, a. 2, ad. 5
Commentary: Aquinas asserts that the borrower is responsible for the good at his own risk and he is bound to pay it all back. Even if the good is destroyed, the borrower is still responsible for the return.”
“But if [borrowers] were altogether insolvent, there was the same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was for renewing the loan on account of their need.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST I-II, q. 105, a. 2, ad. 4
Commentary: Aquinas is here discussing the sufficiency of the Old Law and specifically the Jubilee in relation to mutuum loans. Notably, even if the borrower is insolvent, he is still responsible for the principal. It is from the love of the lender that the debt is to be remitted and not the insolvency of the borrower.
“But the [census] buyers, on the other hand, even though the said goods, houses, lands, fields, possessions, and inheritances might by the passage of time be reduced to utter destruction and desolation, would not be empowered to recover even in respect of the price paid.”
Pope Callistus III (1378-1458), Regimini Universalis
Commentary: Callistus III rules the census as described here as not usurious. The received rents arise from the property and the census buyer receives only a claim against the property. If the property is destroyed, he cannot pursue the census seller. Ergo, a contract secured by property is not usurious.
“We by this our constitution decree, that rent or an annuity, can by no means be created, or constituted, unless in an immoveable thing, or a thing that may be considered as immoveable, of its own nature fruitful, and that may be nominally designated by certain limits….
[W]e wish that all rents to be hereafter created, do perish in proportion, not only when the thing is perished in the whole or in part, or rendered in whole or in part fruitless…
[W]e judge that contracts, to be celebrated hereafter, under any other form, are usurious.”
Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572), Cum Onus
Commentary: St. Pius V declares that the census contract which are not constituted or secured by property (i.e. some immoveable thing) are considered usurious. Moreover, the rents diminish according to the property perishes emphasizing the principal and profit are secured by the property. Contract not fully secured by some property are usurious.
“We do in this our perpetual decree, reprobate and condemn all contracts, pacts and conventions whatever, to be celebrated in future, whereby it will be provided on the part of the persons putting into company money, animals, or any other things whatever, that if, even by mere accidence, any injury, loss, or damage, follow, the very principal, or capital be always safe and restored in full by the managing partner ; or that he guarantee to pay yearly, or monthly during the existence of the company a certain sum or quantity. We decree, that such contracts, pacts, or conventions are to be henceforward deemed illicit and usurious…
“… no action real or personal, or any other title appertains to any person either for recovering in full the capital or principal, if it should by any casualty perish, or be lost ; nor to any specific sum or quantity promised yearly or monthly under the appellation of profit….
“If any man do in future rashly presume to contract under the foregoing pacts or conditions ; or under the veil of such conventions, pacts, or contracts formed in the name of a company heretofore existing, do presume to take proceedings for the recovery of the said capital or principal, or the value or price thereof, after it be casually lost or perished, in the whole or in part, or of an annual or monthly specified sum or quantity, We decree that they, and every one of them do, ipso facto, incur the penalties decreed and promulgated by the Sacred Canons and General Councils against notorious usurers…”
Pope Sixus V (1521-1590), Detestablis Avarita
Commentary: Pope Sixtus V declares the mentioned contracts where the the managing partner personally guarantees principal and profit are usurious. He declares again that no legal action can be taken against the managing partner if the property is destroyed. If the partners proceed against the managing partner for recovery of the property, he is to be treated as a usurer.
4. What are example of personally secured contract?
Credit cards, student loans, car loans, full recourse mortgages, etc. Any debt where the creditor can pursue the debtor for the return of he debt.
“An unsecured loan is a loan that doesn’t require any type of collateral. Instead of relying on a borrower’s assets as security, lenders approve unsecured loans based on a borrower’s creditworthiness. Examples of unsecured loans include personal loans, student loans, and credit cards…
If a borrower defaults on a secured loan, the lender can repossess the collateral to recoup the losses. In contrast, if a borrower defaults on an unsecured loan, the lender cannot claim any property. But the lender can take other actions, such as commissioning a collection agency to collect the debt or taking the borrower to court. If the court rules in the lender’s favor, the borrower’s wages may be garnished…
Unsecured loans include personal loans, student loans, and most credit cards—all of which can be revolving or term loans.”
Investopedia, Unsecured Loan
“A recourse loan allows a lender to pursue additional assets of a borrower who defaults if the balance of the debt surpasses the value of the collateral. A non-recourse loan permits the lender to seize only the collateral specified in the loan agreement, even if its value does not cover the entire debt.
Either type of loan may be collateralized. That is, the loan agreement will specify that the lender can seize and sell certain property or properties of the borrower to recoup its money in cases of default.
However, a recourse debt gives the lender the recourse to pursue additional assets of the borrower beyond the value of the collateral if it is necessary to recoup its losses on the loan.”
Investopedia, Recourse vs. Non-Recourse Loan
5. What is considered profit?
In this definition profit means anything in excess of the principal.
“…whatever is added to the capital [principal] is usury.” […quodcumque sorti accedit usura est]
St. Ambrose (C. 339 – 397), De Tobia #49
“In 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.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST II-II, q.78, a. 1, co.
“Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond he principal by reason of the loan [ratione mutui], but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.I
6. Is usury intrinsically evil?
Yes, usury is intrinsically evil. One can never licitly contract a mutuum for profit.
“But killing an innocent person brings in a species of evil, and this cannot be done righteously, just as lending at usury [dare mutuum ad usuram]”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), De Malo, q.14, a. 4, ad 11.
“If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic.”
Council of Vienne (1311-1312), #29
“The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.III
7. Is a moderate profit licit?
No, no profit from a mutuum is licit.
“One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive…”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit, 3.II
8. Is profit from a merchant, businessman or wealthy person licit?
No, no profit from a mutuum is licit.
“[Usurers] lay snares for recent heirs, they hunt out rich young men through their friends, they attach themselves, pretending friendships with their father or grandfather; they wish to learn their private needs… [Usurers] stretch nets, and as soon as he has entered the space surrounded by its enclosing folds, they force [a rich young man] into the toils of obligations, the snares of usury.”
St. Ambrose (C 339 – 397), De Tobias 6,23
“…neither can [usury] be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich…”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit, 3.III
9. Is profit from a loan used for productive purposes licit?
No, no profit from a mutuum is licit.
“However, whatever arises from the money loaned beyond the measure of the loan, due to the use of what I have loaned to him, this is due to the industry of him who sagaciously made use of the money. However, I ought not try to sell him his own industry, just as neither ought I to have less because of his own foolishness.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Scriptum Super Sententiis Lib III, Dist 36, A. 6, ad. 4
“…nor [can usury be excused] even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.II
10. Is profit on the basis of time preference, time value of money, or opportunity cost licit?
No, time preference nor time value of money nor opportunity cost excuses usury.
Commentary: Time preference and time value of money hold that money today is more valuable then money in the future. Opportunity cost is a related concept that there is some cost associated in not doing something else. If I choose to lend, I forgo the profits I could have made had I invested the money.
“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.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST II-II, q. 78, a. 2, ad. 1
“There is indeed one kind of compensation because something is not present, namely, that one did not acquire what one could have acquired, and one is not obligated to compensate for this.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), De Malo, q. 14, a. 4, obj. 14
Commentary: In the above two passages, Aquinas clearly rejects opportunity cost as a excuse for usury. The profit a lender could have made is not something he has a title to because it doesn’t exist and will never exist.
“[Condemned proposition:] Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury.”
Pope Innocent XI (1611-1689), Various Errors on Moral Subjects, #41
11. Is there any reason a lender may receive more than the principal in a mutuum?
No, not from the mutuum itself. However, there may be titles or claims apart from or extrinsic to the mutuum.
“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.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST II-II, q. 78, a. 2, ad. 1
Commentary: Aquinas remarks that an agreement may be entered. This agreement is extrinsic to but conditionally related to the mutuum. That is the lender makes the compensation of loss a condition of the mutuum, but the compensation remains a separate agreement. Aquinas specifically notes that this is related to “something [the lender] ought to have,” so there is some claim or title apart from the mutuum present here.
“A lender by reason of money lent can in two ways incur the loss of something already possessed. The lender incurs loss in one way because the borrower does not return the money lent at the specified date, and then the borrower is obliged to pay compensation.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), De Malo, q. 13, a. 4, ad. 13
Commentary: Aquinas makes a more narrow claim then the prior statement. Here he only specifies a loss due to delay. However, again he specifies that this is on the basis of “something already possessed,” that is some specific claim of the lender.
“We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the contract-may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit, 3.III
Commentary: Pope Benedict here makes a conservative statement. He does “not deny” these titles. So, he doesn’t affirm they exist; he simply refrains from affirming that they don’t exist. There is no clear evidence that the Magisterium has approved of specific extrinsic titles on a mutuum.
12. Are there other contracts where profits are licit?
Yes. Other contracts, such as leases (locatio), partnerships (societas), annuities or rents (census/redditus), have licit profits.
“We command that you have the dowry assigned to [the husband] under what security he can furnish, or at any rate commit it to some merchant, so that from honest gain [the husband] can sustain the burdens of matrimony.”
[…mandamus, quatenus dotem assignari faciatis eidem sub ea quam potest cautione praestare, vel saltem alicui mercatori committi, ut de parte honesti lucri dictus vir onera possit matrimonii sustentar…]
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216), Letter to Archbishop of Genoa, Decretals Lib IV, Tit 20, Cap VII
“A contract of this kind [i.e. the census or redditus] cannot be considered usurious from its form, which is a sale and not a mutuum.”
[Huiusmodi contractus, non potest censeri usurarius ex forma, quia venditio est, et non mutuum.]
Pope Innocent IV (1195-1243), Apparatus in quinque libros Decretalium, Lib V, Tit. XIX, Cap. V
“On the other hand he that entrusts his money to a merchant or craftsman so as to form a kind of society [societatis], 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.”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), ST II-II, q.78, a.2, ad. 5
“But if persons grant their money to others for another use in which the money is not consumed, their will be the same consideration as regarding the things that are not consumed in their very use, things that are licitly rented and hired out [locantur et conducuntur]. And so if one gives money sealed in a purse to someone to post it as security and then receives recompense, this not usury, since it involves a renting or hiring out [locatio et conductio], not a contract for a loan [mutui].”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), De Malo, q. 14, a. 4, ad. 15
“We, therefore, … in order to remove every doubt springing from these hesitations, by our Apostolic authority, do declare by these present letters that the aforesaid contract [i.e. census or redditus] are licit and in agreement with law, and that the said sellers, yielding all opposition, are effectively bound to the payment of the rents and revenues in conformity with the terms of the said contracts.”
Pope Callistus III (1378-1458), Regimini Universalis
“But rather let all people know that Fellowships [societas] of this nature, when one man will hereafter contribute money, animals, or other things or goods, and another yields his labor or industry, are to be formed or entered into honestly, sincerely and with good faith, as it should be, with fair and just conditions, according to the provisions of the law…. Moreover, let the contractors cast up the fruits, costs and losses, and let them share and divide them fairly and justly.”
Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590), Detestablis Avarita
“Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans [mutui], to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.”
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), Vix Pervenit 3.III
13. Did the Fifth Lateran Council propose a definition of usury?
No, the Fifth Lateran Council did not propose a definition of usury.
“Indeed, we have learnt that among some of our dear sons who were masters in theology and doctors of civil and canon law, there has recently broken out again a particular controversy, not without scandal and disquiet for ordinary people, with regard to the relief of the poor by means of loans made to them by public authorities. They are popularly called [montes pietatis] and have been set up in many cities of Italy by the magistrates of the cities and by other Christians, to assist by this kind of loan the lack of resources among the poor lest they be swallowed up by the greed of usurers…
Some of these masters and doctors say that the [montes] are unlawful. After a fixed period of time has passed, they say, those attached to these [montes] demand from the poor to whom they make a loan so much per pound in addition to the capital sum. For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan. For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk. The same masters and doctors add that in these credit organisations neither commutative nor distributive justice is observed, even though contracts of this kind, if they are to be duly approved, ought not to go beyond the bounds of justice. They endeavour to prove this on the grounds that the expenses of the maintenance of these [montes], which ought to be paid by many persons (as they say), are extracted only from the poor to whom a loan is made; and at the same time certain other persons are given more than their necessary and moderate expenses (as they seem to imply), not without an appearance of evil and an encouragement to wrongdoing .”
FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1512-1517), SESSION 10
Commentary: The Council notes there is dissension between the theologians regarding whether the Montes Pietatis are usurious. The frequently cited definition appears in the section articulating the position of those theologians opposed to the Montes Pietatis. The Council ultimately rejects this opinion and declares that the Montes Pietatis are not usurious. There is no reason to suppose this definition is proposed by the Council.
14. Did the Fifth Lateran Council teach that usury is licit?
No, the Church has never taught usury is licit.
“With the approval of the holy Council, we declare and define that the aforesaid “Mountains of piety” established by the civil authorities and thus far approved and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See, in which something moderate [aliquid moderatum] is received exclusively for the expenses of the officials and for other things pertaining to their keeping, as is set forth, for an indemnity of these as far as this matter is concerned, beyond the capital without a profit for these same Mountains, neither offer any species of evil, nor furnish an incentive to sin, nor in any way are condemned, nay rather that such a loan is worthwhile and is to be praised and approved, and least of all to be considered usury. . . . Moreover, we declare that all religious and ecclesiastics as well as secular persons, who henceforth shall dare to preach or dispute in word or in writing against the form of the present declaration and sanction, incur the penalty of excommunication of a sentence [automatically] imposed [latae sententiae],a privilege of any nature whatsoever notwithstanding.”
FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1512-1517), SESSION 10
Commentary: The Fifth Lateran Council addressed controversies around the Montes Pietatis, which were charitable pawnshops. The Council permits “something moderate” (aliquid moderatum) be received “without a profit” and only to cover expenses. Historically, the loans granted by the Montes were full secured by the pawn, such that the lender could not pursue the borrower for a return in case the pawn didn’t cover the principal. Also, if the pawn was sold, any excess was returned to the borrower.* This means that the loans were not strictly mutuum loans. This shows Lateran V is consistent with all other teaching on the nature of usury and the mutuum.
*”First, when the borrower could not repay the loan the property securing the loan was sold, and any surplus was returned to the debtor, not the mons, and it appears to be the case that the mons could not pursue what modern law would call a deficiency judgement against the debtor.” (Brian McCall, The Church and Usurers, 77-78)
15. Did the responses of the Holy Office in the 1830’s teach usury is licit?
No, the Church has never taught usury is licit.
“The Bishop of Rheims in France explains that. . ., the confessors of his diocese do not hold the same opinion concerning the profit received from money given as a loan to business men, in order that they may be enriched thereby. There is bitter dispute over the meaning of the Encyclical Letter, “Vix pervenit”. On both sides arguments are produced to defend the opinion each one has embraced, either favorable to such profit or against it. Thence come quarrels, dissensions, denial of the sacraments to many business men engaging in that method of making money, and countless damage to souls. To meet this harm to souls, some confessors think they can hold a middle course between both opinions. If anyone consults them about gain of this sort, they try to dissuade him from it. If the penitent perseveres in his plan of giving money as a loan to business men, and objects that an opinion favorable to such a loan has many patrons, and moreover, has not been condemned by the Holy See, although more than once consulted about it, then these confessors demand that the penitent promise to conform in filial obedience to the judgment of the Holy Pontiff whatever it may be, if he should intervene; and having obtained this promise, they do not deny them absolution, although they believe an opinion contrary to such a loan is more probable. If a penitent does not confess the gain from money given as a loan, and appears to be in good faith, these confessors, even if they know from other sources that gain of this sort has been taken by him and is even now being taken they absolve him, making no interrogation about the matter, because they fear that the penitent, being advised to make restitution or to refrain from such profit, will refuse.
Therefore the said Bishop of Rheims inquires:
1. Whether he can approve the method of acting on the part of these latter confessors.
2. Whether he could encourage other more rigid confessors who come to consult him to follow the plan of action of those others until the Holy See brings out an express opinion on this question.
Pius Vlll responded:
To 1: They are not to be disturbed. To II: Provided for in the first.”
Response of Pope Pius VIII, August 18, 1830
Commentary: Several responses similar to the above were given regarding specifically the administration of the Sacrament of Penance to supposed usurers. The response is consistently “They are not to be disturbed” regarding the confessors. The responses are pastoral in nature and no doctrinal statement is implied in the responses. Some responses include a provision that the confessor or penitent be willing to submit to the judgment of the Holy See at some later date.
Notes on Sources
St. Ambrose, De Tobia
This is one of the most extensive treatise on usury by a Church Father. St. Ambrose was also in a unique position, because he was educated in Roman jurisprudence and worked in the Roman government before becoming a bishop. This gave him a unique insight into the nature of usury from the perspective of Roman Law and the Holy Scriptures.* He appears to be the first authority in the Church to specifically link the Scriptural condemnation of usury and the Roman Law concept of usury specifically tied to the mutuum contract.
* Lois Zucker, S. Ambrosii De Tobia, 19
Pope Innocent IV, Apparatus
Innocent was a master canonist in his time. The Apparatus represents his commentary on the Code of Canon Law. It doesn’t necessarily represent a Magisterial statement and can be understood as his commentary as a private canonist, but it is notable nonetheless.
Pope Callistus III, Regimini Universalis
These are excerpts from Callistus’ Apostolic Constitution. He is addressing a controversy between a buyer and seller of a census. The census grants a claim to the buyer over some fruitful property for some rents in return for a lump sum payment to the seller. The seller in this case claimed that the contract was usurious and he was not obliged to pay the rents. Callistus rejects this claim.
This Constitution affirms a prior decision from Pope Martin V concerning the census. This has a high level of authority as Callistus invokes his “Apostolic Authority” (auctoritate Apostolica) on a matter of faith and moral regarding a question from a German bishop.
Pope Saint Pius V, Cum Onus
This decree comes from a translation by Fr. Jeremiah O’Callaghan in his work Usury, Funds, and Banks. It ostensibly deals with what was known as the census personalis. In such a contract, the census is based on the future labors of the seller or all of goods considered generally. St. Pius rejects this and insists that the census be grounded in some real specific property.
St. Pius’ bull is consistent with Callistus and extends this. He references his “Apostolic servitude” and declares the problematic contracts as usurious. There was some controversy over the the bull, whether it was a matter of positive or natural law. There are clearly some aspects that are positive law. However, there are unqualified aspects as well and these are where he is consistent with Callistus.
Pope Sixtus V, Detestabilis Avarita
Pope Sixtus deals with the controversy around the so called “triple contract” or “German contract” or “5% contract.” It was called a triple contract because it was analyzed as the combination of three different contract, namely an insurance contract on the principal, a second contract exchange variable profits for fixed, and finally a partnership. It was argued that each individually was licit, so the combination was licit.
Pope Sixtus condemns the contracts for reason mentioned above “by the plenitude of Apostolic power” [Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine]*. Hence, Sixtus invokes a high level of authority and his remarks are consistent with the prior bulls of Callistus and St. Pius.
* Cherubini, Laerzio. Magnum bullarium romanum, page 69 (of pdf)
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo
This is a document that Benedict began writing while he was Archbishop of Bologna. It is a wide ranging work that he intended to use as part of a Synod in his diocese. The section on usury includes the traditional teaching, a refutation of the Protestant positions and more. It was not finally published until 1748, several years after he was elected Pope.
This isn’t necessarily a Magisterial document, but it does provide something of the mind of the Pope on usury. Perhaps more importantly, it includes a passage, after a lengthy refutation of erroneous positions, of his intention that Vix Pervenit definitively end the disagreements over usury and protect the purity of Catholic doctrine.*
* Benedicti Papæ XIV. De Synodo dioecesana libri tredecim, 353-354
Pope Benedict XIV, Vix Pervenit
Vix Pervenit is the last significant doctrinal statement on usury. It is the clearest expression of the perennial usury doctrine as the encyclical itself acknowledges. It was originally addressed only to the Italian Bishops, but the Holy Offices extended to the whole Church in the 19th century.
It has been argued that because Vix Pervenit was addressed to the Italian Bishops, it cannot be infallible.* As John Joy shows, this is insufficient reason for failing to obtain the infallibility.** Moreover, Fr. McLaughlin argues that Benedict saw himself as speaking as the Supreme Pontiff to definitively teach a moral doctrine and so reaches the level of infallibility.*** In any case, there is good reason to believe that Vix Pervenit reiterates what has always been taught as Vix Pervenit itself claims.
* Fr. Aruther Vermeersch, S.J., “Usury”, Catholic Encyclopedia
** John Joy, “Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility”, Nova et Vetera, 60-61.
*** Fr. McLaughlin, “Interest and Usury”, Ecclesiastical Review, 246
Lend Hoping Nothing in Return 