142 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
situation is more complex than it at first appears. The writings of medieval theolo-
gians and canon lawyers reveal that what it meant to forbid usury depended on
the particular context, that ‘usury’ did not necessarily mean ‘credit’, and that
throughout the period the relationship between debtors and creditors was not
static but varied according to their social and institutional roles.42 Papal oppos-
ition to usury came to be not to all interest but to extortionate rates of interest.
Hence, despite the fact that popes who attempted to implement prohibitions on
usury frequently failed to secure their objectives, they recognized that eco-
nomic policy was a moral as well as a practical and intellectual issue, and that
the price of credit was a key factor in the operation of the medieval economy.
indeed the medieval papacy’s ‘anti-usury regulations’ can be seen as the first
systematic attempt in the west to develop an economic theory and put it into
practice. Religiously motivated, the theory rested on the assumption that freely
available consumer credit would result from the abolition of excessively high
interest on loans, and popes tried hard to make the theory work, even though
the public often failed to act as the theory predicted it would. Although medi-
eval usury theory was not consistent and often produced results that popes did
not expect, it was a significant effort to construct a rational economic policy
and to try to apply it to social problems through decretals, conciliar legislation,
and canon law.
in the twelfth century usury was an important concern of two great ecumenical
councils, the second Lateran of 1139 and the Third Lateran of 1179. Canon 13 of
Lateran ii, held during the pontificate of innocent ii, legislated generally against
usurers in Christian society.43 Lateran iii, the general council called by Pope
Alexander iii, also emphasized the papacy’s commitment to combating usury
which nevertheless continued to grow as trade and mercantile activity increased.44
in particular, Canon 25 of the council ruled that usurers be refused communion
and Christian burial, and that clergy who showed them favour be suspended from
office.45 Thus:
nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omit-
ting other business, practice usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe
how it is forbidden in both the Old and new Testament. we therefore declare that
notorious usurers should not be admitted to communion of the altar or receive
Christian burial if they die in this sin. whoever receives them or gives them Christian
burial should be compelled to give back what he has received, and let him remain42 Giacomo Todeschini, ‘Usury in Christian Middle Ages. A Reconstruction of the Historiographical
Tradition (1949-2010)’, in Religion and Religious Institutions in the European Economy, 1000–1800,
ed. F. Ammannati (Firenze, 2012), p.122.
43 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.200.
44 Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, pp.282–3. For economic growth, see Cohen, Under
Crescent and Cross, pp.77–82; pp.87–8; Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-
Semitism (Berkeley, 1997), p.305; Kenneth stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews and Medieval Latin
Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), p.222.
45 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.223.