Case 6. Trading

Caius, the procurator of a certain religious Order, proposed to Julius, his confessor, certain scruples of conscience to be resolved. For since the Order needed money to build new monasteries, and the government stock which it possessed was not very profitable, Caius, having found an opportunity when its price had risen modestly, sold it and bought more remunerative shares, some in railways and others in a certain recently established company for providing all things (General Stores). Afterwards, however, he doubted whether these things were lawful for religious. Hence it is asked:

1. What is trading?

2. What kind of trading does ecclesiastical law prohibit, and to whom?

3. What is to be said of the case?

Trading in the strict sense is buying commodities with the intention of selling them at a higher price without changing their nature. Buying commodities for use or for consumption is not trading, nor is selling the produce of one’s own land or labor.

2. What sort of trading is forbidden by ecclesiastical law and to whom?

Ecclesiastics in sacred Orders and all religious are forbidden to trade in the strict sense. They are also forbidden to buy material and change it by hired labor for sale at a profit, and to buy animals and fatten them for sale on hired land, for such actions have the appearance of trading. Benedict XIV also declared that they are forbidden to trade by means of agents.

3. The case. Caius did nothing reprehensible in selling government stock at a profit when it rose in price, provided that it was not bought cheaper with the intention of selling afterwards at a profit when it should rise. Nor did he do wrong in investing part of the proceeds in railway stock which brought in a higher interest. There is more difficulty about his buying shares in the company which owned the stores. Most authors would say that this is not lawful, inasmuch as Caius thereby became a member of a trading company and traded by means of the servants of the company. However, unless he is a director of the company or otherwise takes an active part in managing its affairs, it is probable that he does not do wrong here either. Practically all that he does is to buy the right to receive a dividend on his shares if the company succeeds in business; there is no scandal, and no interference with his spiritual avocations. This is the opinion of several recent authors, quoted and followed by Génicot (II, n. 41), and others. We suppose of course that Caius has no reason to suspect that the company does business dishonestly.