47. On Simony

1. Ascanius fictitiously promised that he would give a gem of great value to Anselm, if he should withdraw from contention for the parish, certainly hoping that, with him withdrawing, the parish would fall to himself, otherwise not unworthy. The matter fell out according to his opinion; but, having become master of his wish, he denies that he wishes to give the gem, nor does he give it except terrified by Anselm's long-lasting threats.

Q. What as to the case?

R. "It is most certainly certain that that guilty man (Ascanius) is guilty of the sin of unjust deception and of cooperation in the mental simony of Anselm, yes even of presumed simony, so that therefore in the forum of the court he can be punished by the Judge.... For the rest, I altogether deny, against several, with far more doctors of the first rank, among whom is the distinguished Doctor, that the agreement, as in the case, was simoniacal; although he professes that Navarrus' affirmative opinion does not lack every appearance of probability, nevertheless he pronounces without hesitation that the negative opinion, which we embrace with him, is true. - And indeed, since a fictitious promise is posited, the intention of paying the price is lacking; therefore also, and necessarily, the will of buying the benefice is lacking, so that no place remains for mental simony; but, mental simony having been removed, conventional simony, which is founded on mental simony, falls; and, conventional simony having been removed, real simony is simply taken away, which cannot consist without it. Therefore, since the promise of the gem is posited as fictitious, the agreement of Ascanius is stained with no stain of true simony. Indeed there is fictitious simony in the contract; but if it is fictitious, then it is not simony just as fictitious gold is not gold....

Anselm, withdrawing from contention for the parish with the empty hope of the gem, himself committed simony as to affection, or mental simony, through the depravity of his internal mind; yet as to effect, none except fictitious and altogether merely apparent. For just as the will of each spouse is required for true marriage, so the will of the buyer, as equally of the seller, is required for true purchase and sale. If either spouse is unwilling to marry, the marriage is simply null; therefore, whether the seller is unwilling to sell, or the buyer unwilling to buy, there is no purchase, sale, and consequently in the case there is no simony, which consists in the studious will of buying or selling....

But what after the gem has been handed over?... I consider this one thing in the present matter: that Ascanius paid the fictitiously promised gem only late and terrified by the long-lasting threats of Anselm, so that consequently he seems to have paid it not as the price of the parish, but to redeem himself from unjust vexation. For this is called unjust vexation, by which someone intends to deprive another of a right already absolutely acquired and certain, and indeed by unjust means, such as threats of revealing, for example, an offense; which we suppose to be hidden, not without great dishonor of the delinquent joined with immense harm to him. This Anselm intends; therefore he was inflicting unjust vexation by threats upon Ascanius, possessing the parish by acquired right, as regards value, in order to deprive him of the right of the parish. But the common opinion with the Angelic Doctor, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2, ad 5, teaches that it is not simoniacal if someone by money redeems vexation unjustly done to him in a right already acquired, with an express text in chap. Dilectus 1, de Simonia; therefore, even after the gem has been handed over, Ascanius can retain the parish in the forum of the Pole." Ithur., Case 36.

2. Hieronymus obtained a canonry from the bishop, by a spontaneous commendation made by his vicar general. When Hieronymus learned this, he approached the aforesaid vicar and, giving thanks to him for his efficacious and spontaneous favor, spontaneously promised him that he would leave to him the fruits of the first semester, as a sign of a grateful mind.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Assuredly no stain of simony is had in the commendation made to the bishop by the vicar general, since it was wholly spontaneous, imposed no obligation on the bishop, nor was there any intention of it, since nothing of this sort is said in the case. Nor indeed is there a stain of simony in that promise of Hieronymus. For simony indeed would be had if, before the office of commendation had been furnished and before the conferral of the canonry, the vicar general had stipulated those fruits of the first semester, or Hieronymus had promised them, although for the sake of a grateful mind alone, because from the stipulation and promise a new obligation, at least of fidelity, would have arisen. But in the case that promise was made after the office of commendation had already been furnished and after the canonry had already been obtained. Therefore it was made altogether spontaneously and liberally, from a grateful mind. And indeed, if someone, with no benefit accepted from another, can liberally promise and give to him, why could he not do the same after receiving a benefit, from a grateful mind? And if, for services furnished, it is licit to confer a benefice on another on account of gratitude, it will assuredly be licit also to give him only the smallest part of the fruits. In order that simony be had, it would be necessary in the case that that which is given, although it is given spontaneously, nevertheless be given not principally, and much less solely, on account of gratitude, as in the case; but that it be given by the title of compensation or gratuitous repayment, and as owed under this name. I. M. 508.

3. Alphonsus makes an agreement with Augustinus, that he not compete with him in the present concursus for the parish, promising back to him that he himself, in the next concursus for a canonry, will by no means give his name.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Alphonsus would indeed commit simony by agreeing with Augustinus that he abstain from the concursus, if he offered him money or another temporal thing. For then, evidently, by money or a temporal thing he would directly and proximately prepare for himself the way to obtaining spiritual things; the temporal thing would evidently be given principally, indeed solely, on account of the spiritual; and therefore in fact, by the moral estimation of human actions, the temporal would be given for the spiritual, which is simoniacal. But in the case simony, at least certainly, does not appear. The reason is that in the case it is not verified that a spiritual thing is given or promised on both sides for a temporal thing; but altogether the same right, quasi-spiritual, is renounced, and on account of a spiritual thing. Certainly simony of divine law is not had when either spiritual things alone or temporal things alone are given on both sides, as if two should exchange between themselves either offices alone or revenues alone. Simony, if there be any, can be had only from positive law, as if someone should exchange a benefice with the benefice of another, without the legitimate faculty of an approving superior. Yet this is not verified in the case; for no prohibition is had by positive law. La-Croix, l. 3, n. 142, affirms that simony is had in the aforesaid case; but he assigns no special reason.

4. Cleonicus, a priest, furnished services for many years to a certain Count enjoying the right of patronage over a benefice, having in his heart this hope, that at some time he would be presented by the Count for obtaining the benefice. Hence, when the benefice is vacant, he himself sets forth his merits to the Count, to whom he promises a grateful mind; and he asks a friend that he set these forth to the Ordinary. But to the Countess, whom he knew well to be very greedy for gold, he gives six hundred lire, so that she may intercede for him with the Count. The Countess in fact furnishes this, and Cleonicus obtains the benefice.

Q. What as to the case?

R. 1. Cleonicus committed no simony from this precisely, that he served the Count under the hope of obtaining the benefice. The reason is that in this hope no pact is had of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, and of obtaining a spiritual thing for a temporal thing. This hope likewise gives Cleonicus no right, imposes no obligation on the Count. Nor indeed is he to be accused of simony because he himself alleged his merits and asked a friend that he report them to the bishop. For the worthy are to be promoted to benefices, and therefore it is altogether necessary that the various gifts and merits of candidates be known. And thus, as common and received practice has it, especially in concursus, the candidates themselves are accustomed to set forth the various offices which they have held, studies formerly made, academic degrees which they have obtained, and other things of this sort. Nay indeed, it is not simony, although it is dangerous, "if you give someone money so that he simply propose your merits to the bishop, because for simony it is required that the obtaining of the spiritual thing be the immediate end of the furnishing of the money, but it is not sufficient that it be something consequent from another immediate end having no connection with it." Lig. l. 3, n. 64. Likewise, Cleonicus, in itself, is not to be charged with simony from the fact that he promised that he would be grateful. Because this promise of a grateful mind, speaking in itself, also contains no pact, nor does it contain any intention of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing; but only of having gratitude, which by the law of nature is owed to any benefactor. I. M. 515.

Cleonicus is guilty of simony by giving money to the Countess for intercession; the Countess is guilty of the same crime by accepting the money. For that money is not given merely for favor and intercession, which in itself is something temporal, without the benefice being intended by the same offering of money; but it is indeed given for favor and intercession, intending at the same time and principally by that offering of money to obtain the benefice. This is not obscurely allowed to be gathered even from this, that for favor alone or for intercession alone he would never in any way give so great a sum. And certainly, if Cleonicus had offered the Count six hundred lire, and by asking at the same time had requested that that benefice be conferred upon him, he would have incurred simony, cc. 18, 34, de Simonia; and this for this reason, because it would prudently be presumed that by this offering, as a certain motive, he principally intended the benefice. Therefore the very same thing seems to have to be said if, with the weight of gold offered, he petitioned for himself through the Countess. Nor is it to be doubted that the Countess herself also, as greedy for gold, intended this sum more in view of the benefice than of her intercession. Besides, although such mediation formally is something temporal and extrinsic to the spiritual thing, nevertheless in itself and proximately it "prepares the way for obtaining a spiritual thing," St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2, ad 5; and therefore on account of this connection and order which it has toward the conferral of the benefice, it is a certain virtual conferral of the benefice; whence a true comparison of the temporal and the spiritual is had. Lig. l. 3, n. 64. - Elbel 603-608; G. 285-287; D'Annib., p. 3, ed. 3, n. 38; I. M. 508, 511.

5. "A certain ecclesiastic, suitable for obtaining benefices, desires to institute a new benefice from his own goods, with this condition nevertheless interposed: that to himself first, and then after his death to certain blood-relatives, the right of nominating be attributed. He likewise adds that he wishes to enjoy this benefice first, and for that reason to present himself to the bishop, by whom he ought altogether to be admitted to the benefice."

Q. Is this licitly?

R. This can seem simoniacal for the following reasons: 1. "From chap. Tua nos de Simonia this is inquired: If someone should offer certain things from his own goods to some church, asking that in his life it may be licit for him to hold the same goods in that church as a prebend, whether goods offered thus ought to be received; and whether the same cleric can be assumed as a canon of the same church without the vice of simony. But the Supreme Pontiff makes response in these words: We therefore respond thus to your devotion: that if some cleric with condition or pact gives or offers his goods, so that afterward he may retain them as a prebend, and that he be admitted as a canon, an offering or reception of this sort cannot be made without the vice of simony, since in such matters every pact or agreement ought to cease according to the canonical sanctions; but if purely and without any pact and condition he offers his goods, humbly asking that he be admitted as a canon, and that it be licit for him to retain the goods themselves as a prebend, and the clerics of the same church consent purely, a reception of this sort undoubtedly can be made without scruple of simoniacal depravity.

2. The distinguished man Fagnanus, in the same chapter Tua nos, n. 4, de Simonia, likewise commemorates that this happened to him: Since a certain cleric not so long ago had conferred his patrimonial goods for the erection of an archpresbyterate in a cathedral church, with reservation of the right of patronage, this pact having been added, that he could present himself and not others; when consulted by the same cleric, I responded that the erection and institution thence following had been simoniacal and null by this decretal, and that there was need of a new erection and provision of the Apostolic See, which the same cleric afterward obtained from Our Most Holy Lord Urban VIII; for from presentation there is acquired a spiritual right to obtaining the benefice, and the bishop can be compelled to institute.

3. But the recent Nicolius hands down a sentence promulgated by the S. C. C. in the year 1686, by which an agreement proposed by a certain man is rejected and disapproved as simoniacal: he promised an augmentation of the endowment of a canonry of lay right of patronage, with this law added, that afterward he be nominated by the patrons to the same canonry. When the canonry in the collegiate church of St. Mary of the Snow, of the right of patronage of the brothers de Mantellis, had been vacant for several months, the priest Thomas Maria Verrus proposed to the said patrons that he would increase the endowment of the said canonry by assigning a certain vineyard, with this express law nevertheless added, that he ought to be presented by them to the same canonry." Is the said agreement simoniacal? The S. C. C. responded affirmatively.

4. It cannot so easily be understood by what reason the patron of a benefice can present himself, since this is forbidden in chap. Per vestras de Iurepatronatus. For ought there not to be a distinction between the presenter and the presented?"

But these things in no way agree with the proposed case. "For the cleric asks to erect a new benefice from his own goods; he adds this law nevertheless, that he himself and then his blood-relatives obtain the right of nominating; he likewise adds the condition that it be licit for him to present himself.

Surely, if the institution is legitimate and altogether consonant with law, whereby the founder of a benefice desires to present his son, friend, or blood-relative, how can it happen that no stain of simony is recognized in this, and nevertheless the patron who wishes to present himself is accused of the same mark? Indeed, the agreement from which alone simony flows is proposed on both sides, and that also most aptly agrees which Fagnanus hands down: from presentation there is acquired for the one presented a spiritual right to obtaining the benefice, and the bishop can be compelled to institute.

Chap. Tua nos de Simonia by no means seems contrary. For he who then had offered goods, asking that it be licit for him to hold them as a prebend, and that he also be enrolled among the canons, was not instituting a canonry, but only desired to be assumed, and with a change of name to retain his patrimonial goods as a prebend, lest perhaps the canons refuse to enroll him in their body because he lacked a prebend. Besides, since in the same place there is no mention whether the same prebend ought to remain for posterity, it is most plainly established that simony was then implicit. Nevertheless the Pontiff testifies that the contrary would be the case if, without any agreement, he had offered his goods to the church, declaring that he wished to enjoy them as a prebend, and the canons, no consideration of the offered gift being had, had received him into their body.

What Fagnanus asserts cannot be approved by all, on account of those causes which we have lately explained. But that which was then carried out ought in no way to be adverse to those who defend the contrary opinion. Since no one is ignorant that even in causes which contain no impediment of law, if someone nevertheless anxious and solicitous flees to the Pontiff for obtaining absolution, it is very easily granted, so that an entrance may be closed to scruples, and the faithful may be rescued from all solicitude.

But those who run through the sentence of the S. C. C. brought forward above will recognize a manifest distinction between this question of ours and that which was then proposed. For we are treating of the institution of a benefice, which is perfected with the bishop knowing and approving; we are treating of retaining the right of patronage, which sane condition is permitted by the sacred sanctions, so that the faithful may be stirred up to establish new benefices. Finally, we are treating of the condition of presenting oneself, which is joined together with the institution of the benefice, which indeed bears before itself nothing alien from equity. But in that cause the canonry had already been instituted: he who superadded a vineyard for the augmentation of the endowment was not acquiring for himself any right of patronage over the same canonry, which remained with the former owner. The augmentation of the vineyard was decreed without the authority of the bishop; and although he himself had known and approved the matter beforehand, this nevertheless was not sufficient that the most manifest stain of simony be avoided. Since Thomas Maria Verrus, without the institution of a benefice, and with no right of patronage obtained, was augmenting the endowment of the canonry, and by agreement was treating with the patrons of the benefice, that they nominate him to it.

Finally, what was set forth concerning the distinction between the presenter and the presented is very strong when the benefice has already been instituted, of which, if a vacancy should occur, the patron asks the benefice for himself. Then also that distinction has force when, in instituting the benefice, the condition was not added that it be licit for the patron to nominate himself. For it is most certain that conditions can be decreed by the founder of a benefice which even are repugnant to Pontifical law, which nevertheless the bishop ought to admit. But if he himself refuses to assent, it is certain that his dissent is to be supplied by the higher Power." Benedict XIV, Institution 95.

To all these things this also is added, which the same Benedict XIV notes, l. c., namely that several institutions occur approved by bishops without any hesitation, "an agreement having been interposed, by which it is conceded to the founder of the benefice to present himself." - M. E., v. 9, p. 1, p. 173.

6. Anselmus, a beneficiary, on a certain day resolved not to go to choir partly on account of laziness, partly on account of very rainy weather. But when he recalled that on that day extraordinary and rich distributions were to be made among those present, on the occasion of some funeral, altogether energetically he immediately flies to the church. Then, reconsidering the matter in his mind, he fears lest he has become guilty of simony.

Q. Whether he who goes to church on account of distributions, otherwise not going to go, sins by reason of simony?

R. Simony is had if a spiritual thing is sold for a temporal price. To celebrate the divine office in church is indeed a spiritual act, belonging to a cleric from this very fact that he is a cleric. And therefore he commits simony who intends to sell this act. But in any sale the price itself is the end. "And therefore in the aforesaid case a distinction must be made. For if he receives distributions of this sort as the end of his work, principally intended, he commits simony, and thus sins mortally. But if he has for his principal end God in such an act, and looks to distributions of this sort secondarily, not as to an end, but as to that which is necessary for his sustenance, it is established that he does not sell the spiritual act, and thus does not commit simony, nor sin. For thus the accepting of the distributions will not be the cause why he goes to church, but properly the determination of this sort why he goes now, and not at another time." St. Thomas, Quodl. 8, a. 11; I. M. 512.

7. Gerontius, a parish priest, already advanced in age, resolved to resign his benefice to his nephew Quirinus; but with the burden that Quirinus annually pay, from the fruits of the benefice, a certain pension to his poor niece Sophia, during her life. Quirinus accepts the burden; and Gerontius seeks and obtains the assent of the bishop, that he himself may resign the benefice, at the same time most humbly supplicating him that he be willing to confer the parish on Quirinus; which the bishop furnishes, ignorant of the pact between Gerontius and Quirinus.

Q. 1. What is confidential simony? - 2. Have Gerontius and Quirinus committed confidential simony? - 3. Was the bishop also guilty of simony?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 509. To the second, affirmatively. For this is established from the very definition of confidential simony, "which is committed concerning ecclesiastical benefices, namely when one procures an ecclesiastical benefice for another, whether by electing, or by presenting, etc., or by resigning, but from confidence, that is, from a pact either expressed or at least tacit, that the other in turn resign that benefice to the procurer or to some third person, or resign a certain pension from the same benefice." Elbel 592. Hence the aforesaid resignation, as simoniacal, was altogether null and invalid, and consequently null was the conferral made by the bishop. Besides, there is inability for the same benefice, and excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - I. M. 521; Elbel 647-649; G. 291, 292.

To the third. The bishop could be guilty of simony insofar as he conferred the benefice on Quirinus at the prayers of Gerontius. For "a gift from the tongue is called either praise itself, pertaining to human favor, which falls under price; or also prayers, from which human favor is acquired or the contrary avoided; and therefore, if someone principally intends this, he commits simony." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5, ad 3. If therefore the bishop had given the benefice for prayers, service, flattery, or favor to be procured for himself, he would indeed have committed simony; for he would have equated a spiritual thing with a temporal thing. But this simoniacal intention does not appear from the case. But if he gave the benefice, as it is commonly given by all who are timorous, indeed in view of an intercession of this sort, that is, only impelled by those prayers, and therefore without a pact, without a burden, without the mind of comparing thing with thing and of repaying thing for thing, then there was no simony. For for simony it is not sufficient to give a spiritual thing on account of, or because of, a temporal thing, consanguinity, friendship, prayers, services; but it is necessary that it be given for a temporal thing, as for a price, that is, in compensation for it, as from an obligation of justice. I. M. 512; Elbel 612; Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, § 3, n. 26; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 274, 276.

8. Celinus, money having secretly been given, procured a rich benefice for his son. Several years having passed, struck by remorse of conscience, he opens the matter to the confessor, who orders Celinus to reveal the matter to his son and persuade him to renounce the benefice and restore the fruits received, since there had been no conferral.

Q. When simony intervenes inculpably in a benefice matter, is the conferral of the benefice null?

R. 1. If all are immune from fault, namely both those giving and promising, and those receiving and accepting, and all others who cooperate in that conferral of the benefice, the conferral of the benefice is valid. The reason is that, just as excommunication and other penalties, so also the nullity of a simoniacal conferral seems to be a penalty, not from defect of solemnity or of required form, but in hatred of the offense, as is established from the Extravagant Cum detestabile de Simonia. But when the cause ceases, the effect ceases; and consequently, when fault ceases, which is the cause of that invalidation, the invalidation itself ceases. Therefore. Thus Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 6, d. 4, n. 8-10.

2. When the one receiving the benefice is excused from fault and the sin of simony on account of ignorance, but the collator or another third person, noticing the matter well, commits the sin of simony, the conferral of the benefice is null. The reason is that the Church pursues the crime of simony with so great a hatred that, by whomever it may have been committed, she does not leave it unpunished; although, for the punishment of another, the innocent receiver himself suffers per accidens. Thus Lugo, l. c., n. 11-13; Suarez in the same Lugo; and other doctors commonly.

Yet the first case is excepted, if another acted in fraud in this matter, namely in order to render the elected or presented man incapable of the benefice. Schmalzgr., l. 5, t. 3, n. 266. Second, if the one receiving the benefice has persevered for three years with the same good faith in peaceful possession of the benefice; for the 36th Rule of the Chancery concerning triennial possession is defended, and therefore, when that three-year period has elapsed, he is held to restore neither the fruits nor the benefice itself. Schmalz., ibid., n. 267; Castropal. in Lugo, l. c., n. 8; and others; Lig. l. 3, n. 507.

3. If the son of Celinus does not possess the benefice for three years, consequently he must leave it. He must indeed restore the extant fruits; but by no means the others, which, during good faith, he consumed or received as the stipend of labor. But if he possesses it for three years, he can retain that benefice. Elbel 640-642; G. 238-290; I. M. 521 seqq.