Question III: How simony is committed on the part of the act of exchange itself

The first question can be, whether to receive temporal goods in any way whatever for spiritual ones is Simony, or conversely.

It is answered that it is not, unless the temporal good is received as the price of a spiritual thing, or conversely; but when it is exchanged as a motive only, or solely by way of gratuitous compensation, no Simony occurs, at least in the forum of conscience. Thus by the mind of D. Thomas q. 100 a. 1, and D. Bonaventure in the places cited in the preceding questions, especially in 4 dist. 25 in dubiis, litt. and q. 4; the rest: Sylvester V. Simonia q. 3, Cajetan V. Simonia, Navarrus c. 23 n. 100, Valencia q. 16 puncto 3, Fagundez de contractibus lib. 5 cap. 18 and following, Tanner disp. 5 q. 8 dub. 3. The reason appears from what was said at q. 1.

There will be, however, Simony in cases expressly stated by law.

From what has been said you have that it is not Simony for priests to receive some stipend for Masses and other spiritual ministries; for they receive them only out of gratitude; by justice indeed they receive them insofar as such ministries are burdensome, as Valencia notes at the place cited, and Tannerus n. 68, who thereby falls into the sense of D. Bonaventure q. 2 cited above, that it is lawful to receive a price for the sacred rites on account of intrinsic labor.

You also have that some donations can be bestowed on the Church under the obligation of celebrating Masses, because the spiritual thing is then only a motive, nor is it a purchase. See Sylvester V. Simonia q. 17.

Nor will it be Simony to confer something spiritual on someone out of fear, for he receives nothing belonging to another, but only keeps his own, and being induced by it as by a mere motive, gives the spiritual thing, as Victoria n. 24, Valencia at the place cited, and Tannerus n. 74 teach. Yet Valencia thinks it would be Simony if out of fear of losing a future good the spiritual thing were given; Tannerus however adds this is not true when he bestows it from a mere motive, unless perhaps it becomes Simony by presumption; hence the Saintly Doctor dist. 25 dub. 6 places one cause of Simony in a fear that humiliates badly.

Whether indeed it is Simony to confer a benefice on account of kinship, Tanner and others deny, with S. Thomas q. 100 a. 5, Navarrus n. 101, Soto q. 7 a. 5, Victoria n. 27, Valencia at the place cited, unless there be an expectation of some other benefit as a price, though they say one can otherwise sin by acceptance of persons.

S. BONAVENTURE at the place cited asserts that it is Simony, as also to give for the sake of acquiring honors and popular fame, provided these are reckoned as price, whether they be given immediately to the conferer, say a benefice without collateral agreements, for all temporal goods are such as cannot be compensated by spiritual ones, and thus the Saintly Doctor does not depart from the others. A grave doubt however arises here: whether it is ever lawful to make an agreement about restoring something temporal in return for a spiritual benefice.

The first opinion is that in the external forum indeed Simony is presumed, yet per se in the forum of conscience it can be done, provided the temporal thing is not sought as the price of a spiritual thing, and provided such an agreement is not specially prohibited by positive law, as happens in the exchange of benefices; for then it would be Simony at least of positive law. So Tannerus disp. 5 de Resignatione 8 dub. 3 n. 76, Gabriel in 4 dist. 25 q. 2, Cajetan q. 10 a. 3 and in the Summa, v. Simonia, Soto lib. 9 de Iustitia q. 6 a. 1, Navarrus Manual cap. 23 n. 101, Valencia q. 16 puncto 3, whom Diana calls probable, p. p. Tract. 16 resol. 49, where he also reports, from Suarez Tom. 1 de Religione lib. 4 following Navarrus, that it is not Simony if something is given for the labor undertaken in going and returning to the conferer of the benefice, or in compensation for some loss suffered on that account; but he warns that care must be taken lest Simony be palliated here.

The same Diana, part. 6 tract. 7 miscell. resol. 42, reports Coelestinus in the Compendium Theologiae moralis tract. 17 cap. 4 n. 3, where he teaches that it is not Simony to bring into an agreement, under the title of gratitude, a promise made on account of a benefice conferred; yet it is not lawful if a pact of gratitude is demanded by a debt of justice. Ghilinus subscribes, in the practice of resolving cases of conscience, s.v. beneficium, n. 7.

Yet Diana in practice does not accept this opinion.

Therefore Sylvius teaches that such a pact is Simoniacal, in the various resolutions, v. Simonia 2 comb. 2; for a contract and pact is not from a mere cause of gratitude when it is brought into a pact. The same judges Bonacina Tom. 1 disp. 1 de Simonia q. 5 puncto 1 n. 7, Filliucius Tom. 3 tract. 45 cap. 10 n. 24. See Raphael de la Torre 2. 2 q. 100 a. 6 dub. 3.

This opinion seems declared in the final chapter extra de pactis, where it is said: In spiritual matters every pact and every agreement ought to cease, and in the chapter quaesitum extra de rerum permutatione it is noted that pacts of this kind always contain the stain of Simony. See also the chapter Tua nos, and Simonia, and the chapter quem Pio I. q. 2.

D. BONAVENTURE in the Speculum animae cap. 2 affirms that a transaction concerning a spiritual benefice is Simony, and says: But a transaction is a pact concerning any spiritual thing that is not gratuitous.

Here he most subtly has the reason, which Sylvius takes up, namely, that to transact and to make a pact are repugnant to what is gratuitous; and so he follows the first opinion, which is greatly approved by me; for I do not perceive by what reasoning such a pact could stand together with a sincere giving back from the mere offering of a grateful mind. Therefore all pacts are declared Simoniacal, 1 q. 1 cap. ordinationes; cap. sunt nonnulli; cap. statuimus decretum; cap. si quis a Simoniacis, as D. Bonaventure notes in the Confessionale cap. 5 particula 47, and after him others in Bassaeus 8 and following, where however he says one may pact, but under suspension awaiting the consent of the Prelate.