The tenth and eleventh centuries saw no advance in the teaching on usury.  The twelfth century, however, ushered in a new era.  ’Before that century controversy had been mostly confined to theologians, and treated theologically, with reference to God and the Bible, and only rarely with regard to economic considerations.  After the twelfth century the discussion was conducted on a gradually broadening economic basis—­appeals to the Fathers, canonists, philosophers, the jus divinum, the jus naturale, the jus humanum, became the order of the day.’[1] Before we proceed to discuss the new philosophical or scholastic treatment of usury which was inaugurated for all practical purposes by Aquinas, we must briefly refer to the ecclesiastical legislation on the subject.

[Footnote 1:  Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, p. 19.]

In 1139 the second Lateran Council issued a very strong declaration against usurers.  ’We condemn that disgraceful and detestable rapacity, condemned alike by human and divine law, by the Old and the New Testaments, that insatiable rapacity of usurers, whom we hereby cut off from all ecclesiastical consolation; and we order that no archbishop, bishop, abbot, or cleric shall receive back usurers except with the very greatest caution, but that, on the contrary, usurers are to be regarded as infamous, and shall, if they do not repent, be deprived of Christian burial.’[1] It might be argued that this decree was aimed against immoderate or habitual usury, and not against usury in general, but all doubt as regards the attitude of the Church was set at rest by a decree of the Lateran Council of 1179.  This decree runs:  ’Since almost in every place the crime of usury has become so prevalent that many people give up all other business and become usurers, as if it were lawful, regarding not its prohibition in both Testaments, we ordain that manifest usurers shall not be admitted to communion, nor, if they die in their sins, be admitted to Christian burial, and that no priest shall accept their alms.’[2] Meanwhile, Alexander III., having given much attention to the subject of usury, had come to the conclusion that it was a sin against justice.  This recognition of the essential injustice of usury marked a turning-point in the history of the treatment of the subject; and Alexander III. seems entitled to be designated the ’pioneer of its scientific study.’[3] Innocent III. followed Alexander in the opinion that usury was unjust in itself, and from his time forward there was but little further disagreement upon the matter amongst the theologians.[4]

[Footnote 1:  Cleary, op. cit., p. 64.]

[Footnote 2:  Ibid.]

[Footnote 3:  Cleary, op. cit., p. 65.]

[Footnote 4:  Ibid., p. 68.]