REVIEWS
| Date | 01 October 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1946.tb01018.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1946 |
316
REVIEWS
INTEREST
AND
USURY
IN
CATHOLIC
THEOLOGY.
By the Rev.
LEWIS WATT,
S.
J.
(Oxford: Catholic Social Guild.
2s.
6d.)
THE
author of this little book
is
an admitted solicitor who,
many years ago, left the practice
of
the law, and all things
else, for the more fruitful science of theology. In this essay
he sets out in plain and popular language the essential
elements of Catholic theology in relation to Usury. Apart
from the circumstance that (as we shall see) the teaching
of
the theologians
is,
after
a
long interval, again being accepted
by leading economists, the essay is of interest to lawyers,
since these elements of Christian theology furnish the key to
an understanding of the attitude
of
the English law in
relation to Usury over
a
period of centuries.
For,
in its
attitude to Usury
as
in other matters, the common law of
England
was
framed and directed over
a
long stretch of
time by men who were 'formed' in the schools of Christian
philosophy and theology.'
For
the Christian theologians, Usury is wrong in itself
(mdum
in
se)
since it
is
unjust to attach to the sale of
a
'
fungible
'
thing
a
charge (by way
of
'
interest
')
for
the
right to
use
that thing, over and above the just price
of
the
thing itse1f.l
Now money
as
such
(i.e.,
in
so
far
as
it
is
a
means
of
exchange) is
a
fungible thing.
If
A lends
B
ten units
of
current coin,
B
pays his debt by handing back to
A
ten units
of
current coin. The right
of
user passes to
B
with the coin.
It
is, therefore, unjust for
A
to seek to charge
B
interest
for
the
right to use
a
'
fungible
'
thing like coin.'
1
Thus,
Stephen Langton was for
a
period of
some
twenty years
8
professor
of
theology at tlic ITniversity of Paris. Patteahull and Raleigh and Bracton,
who
Arc named on the final page of Pollock and Maitland's History
wcre
in their
true
profession canonists and prclates
of
the Christian
Church.
Sir
John
Fortescue, as he who runs may read in the
De
Natura
Legis
Naturac
and
elsewhere. was not only
a
constitutional lawyer but
8n
accomplished theologian.
Sir Thomas
More
wns
not only the grcatest advocate of his time put one
who
wae
'
thorooghl, familiar with the theology of the Schoolmcn
.
And
Christopher
St.
Gerinan
','::is,
on his
own
showlng and on the testimony of
Professor Vinogradofl.
&rpIp
indebted
to
John
Gerson, Chancdlor of Paris,
and throiigli Gerson
to
zt,
I'liornas Aquinas.
2
A
'
fungible
'
thing, it is
:;rzi.cc!y
necessary
to
add, is a thing which is consumed
in the
nnc
and therefore ~:~imtluctive.
8
In
1821
an official instrucbion of
the
Roman Church declared that
Usury
is
against natural
law
and
jiidtiec.
om.,
1946
REVIEWS
817
The technical arguments which underlie and explain the
prohibition of Usury are set out by Aquinas in the Treatise
De Justitia,
Q.
78,
Aa.
1-4.l
Though the medieval con-
demnation of Usury was rejected by Cal~in,~ the traditional
teaching
was
re-affirmed by Pope Benedict XIV in the
Encyclical
Vix Pemenit
in
1745:
‘The species of sin which
is called Usury, and which has its roots in the contract of
mutuum,
consists in this:
solely on the ground
of
the
mutuum,
the nature of which
is
to require that only
so
much.
be returned
as
was received, a person demands that more be
returned to him than was received; and
so
maintains that,
solely
on the ground
of
the mutuum,
some profit is owed to
him over and above the principal.’
And in the Code of Canon Law in
1917
it is decreed:
‘
If
a
fungible thing be given to someone in such
a
way that
it becomes his, and that later he
is
to return its equivalent
in
quantity and kind,
no
profit can be taken
merel!!
bu
reason
of.
this
contract.’
Merely by reason
of
the contract
:
A
stipulation for legal
interest is not in itself wrong if there
is
a just title to it
extrinsic to the contract of
mutuum.
In other words, the
lender may lawfully ask to be protected against the risk
of
the debtor not repaying his debt;
or,
for any damage
accruing to him through parting with his money;
or,
for
any
loss of opportunity of making a justifiable profit with the
money in trade.
This loss
or
damage accruing to the lender (technically
called
lucruni cessans
or
damnum emergens)
was known
as.
an
extrinsic
title since it arose from circumstances extrinsic
to the loan which might
or
might not be present, and not
from the bare fact of the transfer of the money. The interest
allowed was thus in the words of Professor Ashley‘ ‘com-
pensation not for the loan of money but for the loss suffered
by the lender in consequence of the loan’. Like Professor
Ashley who, if one may judge from the preface to the seoond
edition of his work, appears to have been converted to the
medieval view
of
Usury, the late Lord Keynes stated in his
See
thc admirable
pocket
edition
of
the
rAin text and French translation,
with notcv and
renreignements techniques,
by
PBre
Spicq, O.P.
(DesclBe
et
Cie..
Paris) wllcrc
the
history
of
Usury
is
traced
from
its
eourccs
in Ariatotle
and
in the
Old
and
the
New
Testament, through
thc
Christian Fathers,
to
Aquinas and tlic Cnnonists.
See
Tawncy:
Ilcligton
and
thc Rise
of
Capitalism,
1937,
Pelican edition;
Wilson,
A
Discoicrse
on
Usury,
with introduct.ion
by
Dr.
Tawney.
English
Economic
Mistory,
Vol.
I.
p.
398.
See
also,
Holdsworth,
History
of
English
Law.
vol. viii,
100-1,
112;
vol.
rii,
397,
note
(9).
To continue reading
Request your trial