Question II: How simony is known on the part of the object

A contention can arise from a twofold head: whether it is Simony; first on the part of the object, while it is doubted whether it is a spiritual thing, and of this is the present question. Secondly on the part of the act, and of this there will be q. 3.

The first doubt: whether to sell the office or the labor of teaching Theology is Simony.

It is answered, with D. Bonaventure in 4 dist. 25 q. 4 ad 4, that to sell neither the office of teaching nor the labor of teaching Theology is Simoniacal. It is indicated by D. Thomas a. 3 ad 3; there follow Durandus in 4 dist. 25 q. 3, Richardus there, Cajetan q. 100 a. 3, Navarrus manu. cap. 23 n. 100, Soto lib. 9 de Iustitia q. 8 a. 1, Victoria relectio de simonia, Valencia q. 16 puncto 2, Suarez Tom. 1 de Religione lib. 3 c. 8 q. 8 dub. 2 n. 36, Fagundez de contractibus lib. 5 cap. 18. 23; although Altisiodorensis lib. 3 summa tract. 21 tit. de Simonia cap. 3, Alensis 2 part. q. 187 memb. 4 a. 3, and others in Sylvester V. Doctor q. 11 simply deny that it is lawful to teach all that science for a price.

Which they assert at least of Theology, as do Paludanus 4 dist. 25 q. 5 and Innocent in the cap. Quia nonnulli de magistris.

You will say. Theological doctrine is a gift of God, Eph. 4: he gave some Doctors.

It is answered, that the science which is ordinarily acquired can be taught; for this is what is properly taught. But something else must be said of the doctrine of faith, of which it is said Matth. 10: Freely you have received, freely give. Similarly in the cap. Prohibeas it is forbidden to Bishops to receive anything for the license given to masters to teach even Grammar, as others say; but rather I maintain the opposite with Fagundez n. 16 and others, since the matter is of the same reason as teaching: Indeed even to teach for a price, says Suarez n. 11, provided only a worthy amount is received.

It is doubted secondly: whether something of those things which are annexed antecedently to spiritual things can be sold without Simony.

It is answered, that those things which are estimable by price, abstracting from the consecration or order which they have toward a spiritual thing, can be sold, such as images, ornaments, sacred vessels, which are only patens and chalices, as Fagundez n. 21 says, which if sold to profane persons ought to be broken up; otherwise if to ecclesiastics for sacred uses. Thus from the common opinion: Durandus 4 dist. 25 q. 3, Sylvester V. Simonia q. 12, Soto lib. 9 de Iustitia q. 7 a. 2 ad 2, Navarrus manu. cap. 23 n. 108, Valencia q. 16 puncto 2, Sà, Tannerus disp. 5 q. 8 dub. 2 n. 44. Yet Fagundez de contractibus lib. 5 cap. 19 n. 19 says that to sell sacred vessels, even as material, to another church without necessity is sacrilege, yet not simony, because they are not sold as sacred.

From what has been related some things are excepted, such as the sale of the office of any administrator of a church, such as the steward, advocate, or sacristan, cap. Saluator 1 q. 3, as Valencia puncto 2 and 5 and Tannerus 46 note.

The rest of this kind, however, are not sellable, such as the Ius patronatus, as D. Bonaventure dub. 5 dist. 25 says, such as the right of presenting, etc.; Agnus Dei, relics; yet a price can be taken for the transport.

As to Agnus Dei, it is forbidden, even by reason of the material alone, by Gregory XIII under excommunication incurred ipso facto, to paint and sell them, and to keep them painted. But Filliucius tract. 14 cap. 6 says that outside the City this is not accepted: Indeed even white Agnus Dei by reason of the labor, etc., are lawful, say many in Diana part. 3 tract. 6 resol. 12. Caramuel subscribes lib. 2 n. 867, nor does Bassaeus refuse it, 3 n. 4.

You will ask thirdly: whether a price may be received for the labor and burden accompanying spiritual things.

It is answered first with D. Bonaventure 4 dist. 25 q. 4 and in dubiis litt. posse; for instance, if one must travel farther to the Mass and spend more. Thus all concede, as in Bassaeus.

Similarly for the obligation of ministering spiritual things of this kind. Thus Innocent cap. Quoniam, Navarrus n. 103, Valencia punct. 2, Tanner n. 49; for it is something distinct from spiritual things; yet so, unless they are prohibited by positive law, for then it will be presumed Simony.

Hence Valencia thinks that neither for Ordination, nor for dimissorial letters, nor for wax or parchment can anything be received, on account of the Council of Trent sess. 21 cap. 1 de Reformatione.

But for the labor and burden intrinsically pertaining to the ministry, some deny it, as Durandus dist. 25 q. 3, Gabriel q. 2, Victoria relectio de Simonia part. 2 n. 20, Soto lib. 9 de Iustitia q. 6 a. 1, Cajetan q. 100 a. 2, Navarrus cap. 23 n. 101, Valencia puncto 2, Tanner n. 50, Malderus tract. 9 cap. 3 dub. 6, Filliucius cap. 3 q. 11, Reginaldus lib. 23 dub. 228, Lessius lib. 1 de Iustitia lib. 2 c. 13 dub. 8, Suarez Tom. 1 de Religione lib. 4 de simonia cap. 21, Fagundez de contractibus lib. 5 cap. 21.

On the contrary they assert it, D. Bonaventure at the place cited, Altisiodorensis lib. 3 tract. 21 cap. 2, Adrianus quodlibet 9, Maior in 4 dist. 25 q. 6, Marsilius q. 25, and most Canonists with the Gloss on cap. significatum de praebendis, nor does Suarez entirely disapprove it, 3 part. Tom. 3 disp. 86 sect. 7, Tanner disp. 50, Bassaeus 3. See Sylvius q. 100 a. 2, Laymann lib. 4 tract. 10 morab. 41, Lessius lib. 2 cap. 35 dub. 8.

In truth the Saintly Doctor ad 4 brings a reason and resolves the opposing argument; for he says that for the labor of the sacred ministry a price can be taken in the ordinary way, in order to a decent sustenance, that we may devote ourselves to spiritual things; but not by putting the end in this price, as if it were given simply for the labor annexed to the spiritual thing. Wherefore even for intrinsic labor a price can be received, as for the ordinary labor of celebrating Mass, as the Saintly Doctor says; otherwise very many would receive a price from the labor of the Mass in a Simoniacal way, since they spend only the ordinary effort with no other inconvenience, which is false; and to this point pertains 1 Corinth. 9: If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great matter if we reap your temporal things? The same he asserts absolutely in the Speculum animae cap. 1.

Whence it comes that an increase of intrinsic labor can also increase the price, as if a priest be so corpulent that he undertakes the journey with difficulty. So many judge it probable, as in Malderus above, to whom Bonacina adheres q. 6 part. 3, and Fagundez judges it probable cap. 21 n. 2.

From what has been said the adverse argument also collapses, namely, that that labor, as intrinsic, imbibes the nature of the spiritual thing.

For it is answered that it is separated by reason of the end intended in taking the price, as it is our labor ordained to ministering to God. Woe to innumerable priests if that opinion were true! For the price is received for the thing, not as it is a spiritual labor, but as it is burdensome, as even Tannerus saw n. 50.

The fourth doubt is: whether Ecclesiastical benefices can by natural law, without Simony, be sold. I suppose three things to be in a benefice. The first is the Title, or spiritual office. The second is the faculty of receiving the fruits. The third the fruits themselves.

As to the first, to sell that spiritual office is a horrendous Simony. Thus the Doctors commonly, as in Molina Tom. 2 dub. 340, Fagundez de contractibus lib. 5 cap. 19 n. 23, Tannerus n. 51, Bassaeus 4 n. 3. For a spiritual thing is sold for a temporal one against all law, and it is indispensable even by the Pope.

As to the right of receiving the fruits,

I say first, that that right can be leased. For the right still remains founded in the title in first act; yet it is forbidden to make a lease beyond three years; but this is not in use. Hence Valencia puncto 2 says it can be leased during the life of the lessor.

Yet in no way can that right, connected with that title, be sold. Thus the Theologians commonly with D. Bonaventure in 4 dist. 25 dubiis litt., D. Thomas q. 100 a. 4, Valencia at the place cited, Tannerus n. 53, who says it is against natural law. Against them Navarrus n. 108, Butrio cap. ex parte 1 de officio delegati, Turrecremata in cap. 1 de Simonia, where Panormitanus as to simple benefices. See what you have discussed on the collation of benefices tom. 4 disp. 17 de conscientia q. 10 ad prop. 22, condemned by Alexander VII.

Whether indeed the Pontiff can dispense in this.

The first opinion is that it can be done by the Pope, because the whole prohibition, that benefices not be sold in order to temporal profit, is ecclesiastical. So Suarez Tom. 1 de Religione lib. 4 de simonia cap. 24, Julius Clarus lib. 5 receptarum §. Simonia, Navarrus n. 108, Ugolinus Tab. 1 cap. 3 §. 5, Carbo de restitutione q. 60, Parisius de resignatione beneficiorum lib. 14 q. 3, Garzia de beneficis part. 1 cap. 2. And it is common among the Canonists, and Tanner follows it n. 54, saying that this right, taken materially, can be sold by reason of a cause by the supreme Pontiff, and he adduces Lessius lib. 2 cap. 35 dub. 2 and others; Fagundez n. 26 cap. 10 says it can be done by the Pontiff if he separates the right of the fruits from the spiritual title, which is the same as to sell it materially. This seems to me to be the mind of D. Bonaventure in the places adduced, who everywhere constantly says that, the spiritual being separated, the temporal can be sold.

The second opinion denies that it can be done. So Victoria relectio de simonia n. 44, Valencia q. 16 puncto 2, Soto lib. 9 de Iustitia q. 5 a. 2, Sylvester V. simonia q. 12, Covarruvias regulae peculiares 2 part. lib. 8, and very many others in Garzia. But Suarez and Fagundez n. 17 hold it in the case where the Pontiff does not separate from the spiritual benefice the right of the emolument, which Bassaeus n. 5 says cannot be separated, because the right to the fruits is sold.

But as to the fruits the Pontiff can dispose of them, impose a pension, etc., not without the right of receiving them, nor by giving at the same time the spiritual title. Thus commonly, as in Victorius n. 50, Valencia and others, and it is evident from the canons and from practice. See the Council of Trent sess. 24 cap. 13 de Reformatione.

What I said of benefices, say the same of pensions which are given on account of a spiritual title, not of those that are exchanged for a temporal one. So Valencia and Tanner after Soto and Victorius. Now they are temporal, such as those of sacristans, ringers of bells, etc.; spiritual, those given to Clerics as Clerics, and which impose the obligation of the clerical habit and tonsure by the Constitution of Sixtus V.

To benefices are reduced also the Praestimonia, which are certain portions abstracted from the revenues of benefices and designated to be conferred, by way of sustenance and help, on young men for undertaking studies, that in that way they may be educated and serve the Church, as Suarez lib. 4 de horis canonicis cap. 12 says, and Fagundez n. 19. The more probable party judges these are to be reckoned with benefices, as in Suarez Tom. 1 de Religione cap. 25 n. 4, where he says it was so declared by Pius V in a certain motu proprio. See Malderus de Simonia disp. 12 and 13, Reginaldus lib. 23 cap. ult., Fagundez cap. 20.

You will ask fifthly: whether it is Simony to exchange a spiritual thing for a spiritual one.

It is answered that it is not Simony if no temporal thing is connected. So Valencia puncto 3, Fagundez n. 58, and others. Thus concerning prayers a pious usage has grown up. So also Bassaeus 4 n. 4.

The exchange of benefices, however, where temporal things are annexed to spiritual, is forbidden by positive law, if it is done without legitimate authority, cap. Quaesitum; cap. Cum olim de rerum permutatione; and in this sense D. Bonaventure speaks in the Speculum animae cap. 2, saying that by exchanging spiritual benefices without the authority of a superior, Simony is contracted according to the laws: for it is repugnant to the Canon law related above, indeed even to natural law, because a prior person cannot confer a benefice on another. See the Doctors in Bassaeus 5 n. 8.

But if an exchange, or transaction, or pact is made, giving the spiritual for the temporal, or conversely, as the price of a resignation or exchange, it will be simony, forbidden by natural law, as Tanner n. 60 says after D. Bonaventure at the place cited.

Yet one can resign a benefice, reserving to oneself a moderate pension, by the authority of a superior. So Lessius dub. 15. See Tannerus n. 62 and Bassaeus n. 9.

You will ask sixthly: whether the Ius patronatus, annexed to a church, can be sold.

It is answered that to sell the Ius patronatus precisely and simply is Simony; but per accidens it can be, as when the town to which it is annexed is sold. So S. Bonaventure in 4 dist. 25 dub. 5 litt. and q. 3, whom Molina follows commonly, Tom. 2 de Iustitia dub. 340, Navarrus tract. 2 consiliis tit. de Simonia consilium 87, Gregorius Lopez lib. 5 tit. 5 partita 5, Covarruvias lib. 1 variarum cap. 5, Menochius de praesumptionibus lib. 3 praesumptio 90 n. 25, Garcia de beneficis part. 5 cap. 9, Suarez Tom. 1 de religione lib. 4 cap. 28, Rodriguez Tom. 2 quaestionum regularum q. 122, Paulus Citadinus de Iure patronatus part. 9, who nevertheless adds that if in the sale of the castle the Ius patronatus is expressed, the sale is null, and he cites Geminianus, who however says the opposite with Baldus leg. fin. Cod. de edicto D. Adriani. See Fagundez cap. 19 n. 16.

It is to be noted in advance, as the Saintly Doctor q. 3 says, that "spiritual" is said in a threefold way. In one way that which is purely spiritual, such as grace, virtues, and gifts; and these can be sold neither in fact nor in law; indeed if anyone having them wished to sell them, not only would he acquire no more, but he would even lose what he had. For whoever acquires in a Simoniacal way is bound to restitution. Therefore he who receives a price not only for the sacraments, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Priesthood, and the benefit of the Church, but wishes to be repaid also for exercising them duly, say for duly administering the Sacraments, is bound to restitution, because by the justice of Religion he is bound to accomplish and minister them duly, as Fagundez lib. 5 cap. 18 n. 9 notes; and say the same of the works of virtues, to which we are bound by justice, as Molina Tom. 1 de Iustitia tract. 2 dub. 89 and others note; nor for those to which we are bound by vow, as Molina disp. 93 says, nor for those to which we are bound by precept, as the same Molina says in the same place, and others. Finally sacred and religious things cannot be validly sold.

Wherefore one selling in bad faith is bound to the price of the thing and to interest before every sentence, as Molina disp. 340 says. The reason is because fraud ought to patronize no one, cap. sedes Apostolica de rescriptis; cap. ex litteris de dolo.

There are other spiritual things (the Saintly Doctor says) which, though they are corporeal in themselves, are joined to spiritual ones, such as the Sacraments of the Church; and these cannot be sold by law; yet the corporeal thing joined can be sold; consequently the spiritual thing also is sold. Thus a Simoniacal Bishop, a price having been paid, confers the ministerial power dispensed through some Sacrament, or outward sign, to which the spiritual power is inseparably joined; for by the very fact that he validly confers a Sacrament, he also confers the spiritual power inseparably annexed, even against the law; for the Character is conferred, and consequently the power of Order. Hence the sale of Orders is prohibited as Simoniacal in 1 q. 1, by Calixtus, Gregory, and Leo, Pontiffs, who declare that the grace of the Holy Spirit, not necessarily connected with the Character, is not conferred on one receiving in a Simoniacal way, even though the power be conferred.

There are other spiritual things annexed to corporeal things, which however are temporal, such as a consecrated chalice, or the Ius patronatus, because there the consecration is enjoined to the augment, and the Ius patronatus to the fund; and this being done it can be sold, because it is sold validly, yet not by law, because it is sold illicitly; yet with the thing to which it is annexed it passes into the dominion of the buyer; even though the consecration of the chalice is not sold, but the chalice. So also the fund can be sold, to which the Ius patronatus is annexed; but not the Ius patronatus itself by law, without Simony being committed. Therefore, he who sells sacred vessels (and they are only those that are consecrated, namely chalices and patens, as the Archbishop of Braga p. p. deu. disp. 23 in cap. liceat, Sanchez summa lib. 2 cap. 43, and others in Fagundez lib. 5 de contractibus cap. 19 n. 20 teach) is a Simoniac; likewise he who sells the Ius patronatus, because they are spiritual things. Yet if the annexed thing is sold, as a castle or a field, there will be no Simony, as I said above.

A huge question is: whether Commendaes can be sold and bought — not indeed clerical ones, which are given as it were in title of a benefice; for these are spiritual, as Suarez lib. 4 de simonia cap. 27 and Fagundez cap. 20 n. 7 prove — but military commendams, which are given to soldiers of certain orders.

It is certain that the militias which are Religions are spiritual, such as the Religion of the knights of S. John of Malta, and these enjoy the benefit of the forum.

The others, however, of Alcantara, of Calatrava, are not religions, nor do they enjoy a forum. Therefore to give money in order to be admitted to those orders will not be Simony. So Diana Tract. 2 de dubiis Regularium resol. 64, Fagundez at the place cited n. 9, and others among them; but to receive money for the habit of the Maltese will be fraudulent Simony, and much more for the religions of regulars. So the Doctors in Bassaeus 3 n. 9.

Hence it also follows that the commendams of those Orders which are not religions can be sold without Simony. So commonly, as in Fagundez n. 10 cit. But the commendams of the Religion of Malta are spiritual, nor can jurisdiction be sold for them.

Much more Simoniacal will it be to sell jurisdictions for hearing confessions, for obtaining absolution, for Indulgences. Similarly for licenses to labor on a feast day, or not to fast. Likewise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the external forum. Finally every act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is matter of Simony, as Bassaeus notes with others, 3 n. 12. So the Doctors in Fagundez cap. 22, with D. Bonaventure in the Confessionale cap. 5 particula 49.

Yet the Pontiff can receive something for dispensations. See Suarez Tom. 2 de Religione lib. 6 de voto cap. 27, Lessius Tom. 1 lib. 2 cap. 40 dub. 10, Sanchez lib. 4 Decalogo cap. 46, where they teach that it is sound counsel, in dispensations from vows, to enjoin some commutation, because commonly such dispensations are rarely sufficient. Fagundez adds n. 11 that if the causes are open and sufficient, no commutation is to be made.