|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful, in trading, to
sell a thing for a higher price than we paid for it. For Chrysostom
[Hom. xxxviii in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St.
John Chrysostom] says on Mt. 21:12: "He that buys a thing
in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is
the trader who is cast out of God's temple." Cassiodorus speaks in
the same sense in his commentary on Ps. 70:15, "Because I
have not known learning, or trading" according to another version
[The Septuagint]: "What is trade," says he, "but buying at a
cheap price with the purpose of retailing at a higher price?" and he
adds: "Such were the tradesmen whom Our Lord cast out of the
temple." Now no man is cast out of the temple except for a sin.
Therefore such like trading is sinful.
Objection 2: Further, it is contrary to justice to sell goods at a
higher price than their worth, or to buy them for less than their
value, as shown above (Article 1). Now if you sell a thing for a
higher price than you paid for it, you must either have bought it for
less than its value, or sell it for more than its value. Therefore
this cannot be done without sin.
Objection 3: Further, Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot. lii):
"Shun, as you would the plague, a cleric who from being poor has
become wealthy, or who, from being a nobody has become a celebrity."
Now trading would net seem to be forbidden to clerics except on account
of its sinfulness. Therefore it is a sin in trading, to buy at a low
price and to sell at a higher price.
On the contrary, Augustine commenting on Ps. 70:15,
"Because I have not known learning," [Obj 1] says: "The
greedy tradesman blasphemes over his losses; he lies and perjures
himself over the price of his wares. But these are vices of the man,
not of the craft, which can be exercised without these vices."
Therefore trading is not in itself unlawful.
I answer that, A tradesman is one whose business consists in the
exchange of things. According to the Philosopher (Polit. i,
3), exchange of things is twofold; one, natural as it were, and
necessary, whereby one commodity is exchanged for another, or money
taken in exchange for a commodity, in order to satisfy the needs of
life. Such like trading, properly speaking, does not belong to
tradesmen, but rather to housekeepers or civil servants who have to
provide the household or the state with the necessaries of life. The
other kind of exchange is either that of money for money, or of any
commodity for money, not on account of the necessities of life, but
for profit, and this kind of exchange, properly speaking, regards
tradesmen, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3). The
former kind of exchange is commendable because it supplies a natural
need: but the latter is justly deserving of blame, because,
considered in itself, it satisfies the greed for gain, which knows no
limit and tends to infinity. Hence trading, considered in itself,
has a certain debasement attaching thereto, in so far as, by its very
nature, it does not imply a virtuous or necessary end. Nevertheless
gain which is the end of trading, though not implying, by its nature,
anything virtuous or necessary, does not, in itself, connote anything
sinful or contrary to virtue: wherefore nothing prevents gain from
being directed to some necessary or even virtuous end, and thus trading
becomes lawful. Thus, for instance, a man may intend the moderate
gain which he seeks to acquire by trading for the upkeep of his
household, or for the assistance of the needy: or again, a man may
take to trade for some public advantage, for instance, lest his
country lack the necessaries of life, and seek gain, not as an end,
but as payment for his labor.
Reply to Objection 1: The saying of Chrysostom refers to the
trading which seeks gain as a last end. This is especially the case
where a man sells something at a higher price without its undergoing any
change. For if he sells at a higher price something that has changed
for the better, he would seem to receive the reward of his labor.
Nevertheless the gain itself may be lawfully intended, not as a last
end, but for the sake of some other end which is necessary or
virtuous, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Not everyone that sells at a higher price
than he bought is a tradesman, but only he who buys that he may sell at
a profit. If, on the contrary, he buys not for sale but for
possession, and afterwards, for some reason wishes to sell, it is not
a trade transaction even if he sell at a profit. For he may lawfully
do this, either because he has bettered the thing, or because the
value of the thing has changed with the change of place or time, or on
account of the danger he incurs in transferring the thing from one place
to another, or again in having it carried by another. In this sense
neither buying nor selling is unjust.
Reply to Objection 3: Clerics should abstain not only from things
that are evil in themselves, but even from those that have an
appearance of evil. This happens in trading, both because it is
directed to worldly gain, which clerics should despise, and because
trading is open to so many vices, since "a merchant is hardly free
from sins of the lips" (Ecclus. 26:28). There is also
another reason, because trading engages the mind too much with worldly
cares, and consequently withdraws it from spiritual cares; wherefore
the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:4): "No man being a soldier to
God entangleth himself with secular businesses." Nevertheless it is
lawful for clerics to engage in the first mentioned kind of exchange,
which is directed to supply the necessaries of life, either by buying
or by selling.
|
|