99. On Commerce and Trading

1. “An Apostolic Vicar (Kouytcheou) deposits money sent to him with a certain merchant dwelling in his province, and from time to time takes and spends part of that money as necessities require; and thus at the end of the year more or less money remains in the hands of the merchant, who uses that money in order to exercise his commerce, and receives profit from it, and wonders that the Apostolic Vicar receives no part of the profit accruing.

The Apostolic Vicar asks that it be lawful for him to enter into partnership with that merchant, so that he may be a participant of profit or loss, according to the proportion of the money deposited by the Apostolic Vicar with the aforesaid merchant.

R. As regards entering into partnership, in the negative; and let the Apostolic Vicar of Kouytcheou consult Benedict XIV in his Constitution Apostolicae Servitutis, and de Syn. dioeces., l. 10, c. 3, and let the Decree of 13 Aug. 1834 be given, namely: That missionaries, etc., can consult for the security of subsidies owed to them and for the good of the mission itself by receiving by way of exchange goods bought with money owed to them, and selling the same goods brought to them, and making their own the price to be drawn from the sale of the same.” S. O., 29 Jan. 1851, A. S. S., v. 24, p. 707.

2. Caesar, a priest, gives an immense sum of money to his brother Caesarinus, so that he may open a shop for selling medals, sacred images, rosaries, and other objects of devotion. Caesarinus alone gives his name to the shop and manages the care of the business. But at the end of the year he gives to Caesar an account of receipts and expenditures, and with him divides the profit, the proportion being observed between the money of his brother and his own work. — Does Caesar act licitly?

R. In the negative. For he truly exercises trading through an interposed person, prohibited by Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicae servitutis, 25 Feb. 1741, and by Clement XIII, Const. Num primum, 27 Sept. 1759. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, c. 9, nn. 4, 5.

3. Bernardus, rector of a seminary, buys grain in twice the quantity which he needs for a year. For he says: The price of grain is now, beyond custom, very low; after six months it will be very high, and then I will sell the surplus with profit. But if I foresee that next year the price is to be increased, then I will keep what remains for the future year. — Is this rightly done?

R. If he buys with the direct intention of selling more dearly, he acts illicitly; for it is an act of true trading. But if he buys on account of the danger which can occur next year, so that he may provide for the household affairs of the seminary, and, that danger ceasing, afterwards resells the surplus, he acts licitly; for it is not an act of trading, but of domestic economy. Cf. Lugo, de Iust. et Iure, d. 26, s. 3, n. 32.

4. Olivarius, a priest, seeing that the value in Europe of notes of the banking market of South America is always diminishing greatly day by day, writes to his friend dwelling in South America, who owes him two thousand lire, that he should spend them in buying goods of that region, which afterwards he should send to him. For by selling these goods himself in Europe, he will be able without detriment, and perhaps even with profit, to recover his whole money. — Does Olivarius act licitly?

R. In the affirmative. For he does not intend profit by buying cheaper so that he may afterwards sell dearer, but the recovery of his own money without detriment. Cf. Lugo, de Iust. et Iure, d. 26, s. 4, n. 33.

5. Onuphrius, a priest, lends money to his brother Angelus. Onuphrius receives annual profit according to the legal rate. But Angelus expends it in trading. — Does Onuphrius act licitly?

R. In the affirmative. For he himself is not the trader, but his brother. He himself is a simple lender of money, which is not prohibited to him.

6. “You have set forth to the S. C. de P. F. that entrance into those regions of Tibet, whether subject to the great Lama, is altogether forbidden, under penalty of expulsion, to all foreigners, and especially Europeans, unless for the cause of trading. Your Amplitude understanding this, fearing lest the Apostolic mandate which you have undertaken, namely of evangelizing that savage and superstitious people still sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, should remain incomplete, since no other means, as you assert, was available: you thought it opportune to enter the borders of that kingdom as a trader, under which pretext you contend that you would propagate the Catholic faith more easily and safely. Wherefore, in order to avert from the minds of the infidels every suspicion concerning the true state and condition of Your Amplitude and of the other companions, you strive to demonstrate to them not only by words that all of you are nothing else than a certain society of merchants devoted to earthly profits; but so that they may be further confirmed in an opinion of this sort, it pleased you to establish here and there some storehouses or shops for keeping and selling goods; and, what is remarkable, to have completed all these things without consulting the Apostolic See, to which at last you had recourse, that you might be instructed concerning the liceity of the aforesaid trading. The Eminent and Reverend Fathers of the Congregation of the Supreme Inquisition, your requests having been seriously and maturely weighed, responded: that it is not lawful under any title for missionaries to exercise commerce.

“And certainly, although it is known to the Eminent Fathers that Your Amplitude was moved from zeal with which you burn for propagating the Catholic faith, nevertheless it ought to be clear to you that the sanctions of the Sacred Canons, the Decrees also of universal Councils, Apostolic Constitutions, and the responses of the Sacred Congregations to the requests of Apostolic Vicars are altogether contrary to your aforesaid manner of acting; nor can the goodness of the end legitimize illicit means for obtaining the same, for evils are not to be done that goods may come. Besides, the divine Religion of Christ must not be propagated by fictions and simulations, as heretics try to propagate their venerated dogmas. For our Lord Savior, about to convert the human race, sending his Apostles and Disciples, said to them: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature. Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Behold, I send you as lambs among wolves. Be therefore prudent as serpents and simple as doves. These are divine admonitions, for faithfully executing which preachers of the Gospel ought to apply all efforts. Although the pretext of commerce seems to you most apt for propagating the faith, nevertheless it must never be applied in the conversion of souls, as indecent and very unbecoming to apostolic men, after the example of Christ and the Apostles, who never used these fictions, by which they would seem to serve God and mammon at the same time. For examples are not lacking in which infidels, as soon as they see those who say that they are ministers and legates of the Most High God devoted to temporal affairs, despise the same, thinking that they use the pretext of religion in order to emerge from the straits of poverty. In this way they everywhere lose that veneration and love which they need before other things for gaining souls to God, and acquire for themselves the ignoble name rather of merchants of monies than of curators of souls.

“Therefore, lest you seem to contradict not only the sanctions of the Sacred Canons, but also the Apostolic Constitutions (of Urban VIII, Ex debito Pastoralis officii, 22 Feb. 1633; of Clement IX, Sollicitudo Pastoralis Officii, 17 June 1669; of Benedict XIV, Apostolicae servitutis, 23 February 1751; of Clement XIII in his Encyclical Cum primum, 16 Sept. 1759; and of Pius VI in the response to the Archbishop of Theodosiopolis, 18 March 1782), it is necessary that you abstain in the future from the exercise of commerce, whether through yourself or through others, directly or under any title or color, lest you remain entangled in the most grave penalties laid down in the Sacred Canons and especially in the above-cited Constitutions.

“These things having been premised, do not wonder if you sometimes understand that the S. C. has more often dispensed with some persons from the prohibition of trading of this sort. For all concessions made by the aforesaid S. C. de P. F. to some Apostolic Vicar, or to Chinese priests lacking ecclesiastical patrimony, regard only certain particular cases, indeed most urgent ones. But concessions of this sort were never made so that missionaries could use the exercise of commerce as a means for propagating the Catholic faith, as Your Amplitude greatly desires to obtain.

“Therefore, any trading whatever being excluded, you are able to permit only medicinal substances, to be furnished for the use of the sick gratuitously, or at least without any profit, by missionaries skilled in this art. In the rest, strive that, in the more prudent and better way that you can, the poor who have chosen a dwelling for themselves around the hospices of the missionaries may be evangelized; and as for their children who attend the schools of the aforesaid missionaries, take care that with human letters they may also be imbued with the rudiments of the Catholic religion. These foundations having been laid beforehand, the edifice of religion, with God helping, will rise to the highest things; for neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” S. C. de P. F., 4 Feb. 1860, to the Apostolic Vicar of Lahassa.