The Australian dumping of asylum seekers on Nauru has always seemed abusive. But a recent interview given by the new Vatican Secretary of State provides grounds for believing that it might also amount to usury.
Cardinal Bertone described loans by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to impoverished nations as usury. His reasons were that these funds insisted on such conditions as closing Catholic schools or forced sterilisation. He went on to say that loans should encourage economic creativity and must contribute to the good of all the people.
The lines of connection between usury and, for example, forcibly closing Catholic schools are by no means clear. Usury has traditionally been defined as charging interest—any interest or excessive interest—on loans. At first glance, it is hard to see how the conditions imposed by the World Bank and the IMF amount to interest. And even if they did so, why they should constitute usury in a world that considers other interest-bearing loans as unexceptionable?
What Cardinal Bertone meant when he made these connections remains obscure, but reflection on the history of usury suggests the shape of a possible argument.
In the Old Testament and early Christian world, charging interest on loans was attacked. But the context was salient. In the early books of the Old Testament, the practice was condemned only when Jews lent money to Jews. Loans 'in the family' must not be interest bearing. The New Testament is silent about lending money with interest; early Christian writers denounce money lenders who extort money from the poor. Loans to people who need money to survive must be gratuitous. Clergy were regularly forbidden to charge interest on loans.
Later, opposition to lending at interest hardened. The Koran stipulated that interest may not be charged on loans, and this prohibition remains in force in Islamic countries. In medieval Christendom, it was also forbidden to lend money at interest. Thomas Aquinas supported the ban on interest by arguing that it was unjust to make people pay both for the money loaned and for the use of the money. This was double dipping. His objection assumed that that the loan was without cost to the lender. If the loan carried administrative costs, they could be passed on. Venture lending, in which the lender shared the risks carried by the borrower, could also carry interest.
As economies became more complex, churches gradually came