I have probably read half of it so far, and it is really good.   It is very readable, and understandable.  There is one part so far that I somewhat take issue with.  And, it is # 23 where aquinas gives the reasons why we can borrow with usury, but we cannot lend with usury.

23) Does this mean that I can’t take out a student loan without committing mortal sin?

Here is Aquinas’ answer (ST II-II, Q78, A4):

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.”

Since borrowing at usury is inherently scandalous, it probably depends on the extent of the need. But you’ve got pretty wide moral discretion to hand over your property to thieves, so you’ve probably got similar prudential latitude here.  As a matter of intrinsic morality, usury – insisting on interest when making a mutuum loan – is a sin on the part of the lender, not the borrower.


The second paragraph was not aquinas, but was the writer of the article.

I take issue with this.  The usurer is not compelling you to borrow at the expense of your life, nor does a lack of money truly threaten ones life.  So, borrowing at usury is not comparable to jeremiah 41:8.  I am not knowledgeable of all aqauinas' teachings on usury, but at face value, I see a flaw in this reasoning.  Vix pervenit talked about how there are times when charitable loans are an option, but also talked about how there are times when charity/free giving is called for/required.  If someone is in such dire straights financially that they consider it life threatening, then usury can have no part in the solution.  It is that simple.  

And, if one is borrowing at usury to relieve another, then that is suspicious.  It is like saving the drowning person.  If you are not an expert swimmer, don't try to rescue a drowning swimmer.  They are capable of taking you under as well.  Likewise, if you are not financially well off(an expert), don't get in debt trying to relieve another from debt.  Dire financial straights are best resolved by true charity.  And, a charitable loan also works.  But, approving of a usurious loan in such a case is the polar opposite of the best course, which is true charity.  And, that seems to me to be erroneous.  

You shouldn't be including in a Catholic "Library" a link to something that is not approved by the Church. What you linked to is not approved, and it is also promoting error. Usury is sinful WHEN it is tied to particular extrinsic circuмstances that make it so. Those extrinsic circuмstances can change, and with that change it can remove the sinfulness.

Usury is an intrinsic evil, like acts of sodomy. It doesn't depend on circuмstances. "To sell what doesn't exist"* is always wrong.

*(This is St. Thomas's excellent and correct definition of usury in Summa II-II q. 78 a. 1)

You shouldn't be including in a Catholic "Library" a link to something that is not approved by the Church. What you linked to is not approved, and it is also promoting error.

See this, then: Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J., 1855-1928 Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries (vol. 1) (ch. IV, p. 321) "On Mutuum and Usury."
Imprimitur: 1 Dec. 1924