Renz's Thesis No. 7 - Ancient opposition to usury was related to a call to invest with God by helping the poor

Thomas’ seventh thesis is rather odd. As stated, the thesis does not embody a point, but instead advances a rather easily dissolved generalization: The early church’s opposition to usury was closely related to a call to invest money with God by helping the poor. It is not difficult to cite many cases where the early fathers’ expression of opposition to usury involves no such call. But, suppose the generality were to hold: one still is prompted to wonder: What is the point? We must jump ahead to Thomas’ concluding remarks, where the point is more directly spelled out:

“The condemnation of usage charges on loans in the past was most often connected with concern for the poor. The montes pietatis, non-profit making Christian credit institutions established in the fifteenth century for charitable loans, either went bankrupt once the bequest was used up (if they provided interest-free loans) or charged a small sum of interest to cover running costs and actually helped the poor. Those who condemned these latter institutions on the basis that they were charging interest, and without providing money for all the poor who made use of these loans, drove the poor into the hands of those who charged much, much higher interest rates.”

In other words, Thomas suggests that the Ancients did not oppose usury per se, but opposed oppression of the poor. He suggests that those who lend to the poor on terms of usury actually do a good thing, if they succeed thereby in helping the poor. But the hardships suffered by the borrower speak to only half of the case against usury. Usury constitutes a burden upon the debtor that he ought not to bear, and also constitutes a gain to the lender to which he is not entitled. If usurers find a way to alleviate the sensation of burden, so that debtors no longer undergo an experience of suffering as a result usury, this addresses only one half of the injustice. It remains the case - miserable, suffering debtors or not - that usurers collect gains to which they are not entitled.

The early fathers’ case against usury was more comprehensive than Thomas allows. Thomas sharpens his focus quite narrowly upon a treatise of Cyprian and a dozen or so pages of Gonzalez [Thomas continues to put “Gonzales”]. Certainly, the early fathers were ardent advocates of the poor, and energetically denounced the injustice of their sufferings. Equally certainly, they opposed usury simply because it was unlawful, and they equally energetically denounced the unjust gains of usurers. If we look at the early fathers more broadly, it is not difficult to cite many passages where the concern is not so much the hardship of the debtor as it is the unjust gain of the lender. Just for one example: in the letter of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome (c. 5th Century, AD) “to all the bishops appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the provinces,” he complains about the practice of usury: “This point, too, we have thought must not be passed over, that certain possessed with the love of base gain lay out their money at interest, and wish to enrich themselves as usurers. For we are grieved that this is practiced not only by those who belong to the clergy, but also by laymen who desire to be called Christians. And we decree that those who have been convicted be punished sharply, that all occasion of sinning be removed.”

This exhortation of Leo the Great shows that Thomas’ generalization does not hold, and shows also that Ancient opposition to usury was in fact more comprehensive than simply a concern for the poor. Thus, Thomas’ seventh thesis is denied.