VIII. On Simony

What is simony and what is its malice? - Simony is the studious will of buying or selling for a temporal price something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual. Studious, not only because, like any other sin, it requires deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that the pact be actually completed by mutual consent; rather, the interior will, even of one person, to make a bargain or to oblige another is sufficient. Acts 8:18 seqq.

Spiritual, here, is understood as everything which of itself or by the institution of God or of the Church pertains to the salvation of the soul, and therefore to the order of spiritual goods, namely supernatural goods; wherefore natural things, although spiritual, do not belong here. Hence civil or natural honorableness is outside simony, but not sanctification of the soul, and God's offense and glory. Moreover some things are spiritual in themselves and formally, for example, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace; others causally, namely insofar as they are the cause of spiritual gifts, for example, sacraments and sacramentals; others finally effectively, which proceed from a spiritual cause, such as dispensation in vows, absolution from censures, etc.

Something can be annexed to the spiritual in three ways: antecedently, to which the spiritual accedes, as that which is ordered to the spiritual, such as sacred vessels, which are ordered to the use of the sacraments; consequently, to which the spiritual is presupposed and which depends upon the spiritual, such as the right to revenues of benefices, which is had on account of a spiritual office; concomitantly, either intrinsically, if in reality it is not separable, as labor in the administration of sacraments, or extrinsically, if it is separable, as singing in the celebration of Mass. Whether the labor is intrinsic or extrinsic, it is always something temporal in itself.

Now, per se, it is licit to sell a temporal thing which is antecedently annexed to the spiritual, such as the silver of a chalice; for that thing always retains its intrinsic value, independent from the spiritual thing, C. Hoc eius 2, sec. 1, c. 10, q. 2, yet with no account of the consecration being taken in the price. But if a chalice or sacred vestment is sold for profane uses, they must first be broken or unstitched, so that they lose consecration, Authent. Praeterea, C. de SS. Ecclesiis, the material thing remaining with its own value. Since this cannot be done in temples - for thus only a heap of stones would be sold - hence several deny that temples can be sold. Benedict XIV, Quaest. Can., q. 142. But if a church has been profaned, has ceased to be a church, and Apostolic approval is present, it too can be sold for profane uses. Pallottini, v. Ecclesia in genere, sec. II, nn. 48, 51, 55. It is said per se, for it can happen that a sale of this sort is prohibited by ecclesiastical law. And thus by ecclesiastical law the sale of a church is prohibited, C. Querelam 15, de Simonia; of the goods of a benefice; of chrism; of blessed oil; of a cemetery.

Likewise, for something annexed concomitantly extrinsically, it is permitted to receive a stipend, for example, for a journey in celebration of Mass, at a certain hour, in a certain place, etc. Those things which are annexed to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically can likewise be sold per se. For indeed intrinsic labor, insofar as it is labor, differs in nothing from extrinsic. Besides, in a sung Mass, in the celebration of Mass at the first hour after noon, are not the singing and the hour most truly intrinsic to the Mass? And yet a richer stipend is received on account of the singing, on account of the first hour. And if something can be required by reason of deprivation of liberty for carrying out other works and receiving emolument from them, as the adversaries themselves confess, then that can be required by reason of that labor from which that deprivation comes. For only by reason of such labor in favor of another can that deprivation give title to requiring the owed stipend from him. Therefore to receive something on account of labor, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, as wages of work, not as the price of a spiritual thing, is not simony per se. And thus in the celebration of Masses a stipend is received; in the preaching of the word of God an honorarium is also received. "Likewise some temporal things are given to those praising God in the celebration of the ecclesiastical office, whether for the living or for the dead, not as a price, but as a stipend of sustenance." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2; Trent, sess. 21, c. 3 de R. "Stipends are owed to work and labor." S. Th., Quodl. 7, a. 18. "Sustenance is owed from one's own labor." S. Th., Quodl. 7, a. 18. But since this stipend is ordered to the necessary support of the ministers themselves, and therefore is in fact required, it is called a stipend of sustenance or of necessity. Hence it is clear that a stipend is given per se not on account of the work, but on account of the work performed, on account of labor merely according to the very notion of labor furnished in favor of another, in order to the one working, by whose necessary sustenance it is measured; not on account of labor in order to the work as spiritual, and to the spiritual utility of the neighbor from it, which would be simony. And therefore it is a stipend, not a price, because it is not the price of the work, but the stipend of the work performed or of labor. Indeed the worker, by reason of his work, is worthy of his wage. This wage indeed is not measured properly and per se by the thing or labor, but by the condition of the one laboring. Price, on the contrary, is properly and per se measured by the thing. And therefore the stipend accepted is called the stipend of sustenance, insofar as from that labor the priest has a title of sustenance. 1 Cor. 9:13, 14.

It is also clear that nothing consequently can be accepted by way of a stipend ordered to sustenance, by reason of sacred ministry performed for the utility of another, considering in it also not the specific and spiritual utility of that labor, but only the generic notion of a work furnished in favor of another, if, for example, the priest is a pastor or beneficiary who is bound by office to that sacred ministry. For then from the revenues of the benefice he already receives sufficient stipends for his sustenance; and from justice he is bound to exercise that sacred ministry. Per se; for if there intervenes, as indeed often intervenes, a prohibition of the Church, then simony is committed. Indeed on the occasion of ministering Confirmation, nothing is accustomed to be given. The Eucharist also is to be ministered with no gift accepted on that occasion. On the occasion of ministering Penance, nothing is to be accepted. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. poenit. Likewise nothing is accepted for administration of extreme unction. And Orders are to be conferred altogether gratis from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1. In addition, Innocent III forbade clerics to accept anything at all for the sake of burying the dead. C. 13, de Sepult.; C. 9, 41, de Simon. Yet in the present time, on the occasion of burying the dead, money is generally paid to pastors and church attendants. But pastors are bound to bury the bodies of the poor gratis. S. Congr., 5 May 1617.

Finally, those things which follow upon a spiritual thing cannot be sold while this connection remains; for that which is annexed consequently to some thing supposes the thing itself, and behaves as its accessory. Therefore if the principal cannot be sold, neither can what necessarily follows from it. C. Si quis obiecerit, c. 1, q. 3. Hence it is simony to sell the right of living from the goods of a monastery, since this is annexed consequently to profession, which is spiritual. While this connection remains; for by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff separation can be made. "Temporal things themselves indeed may be sold; but their order to spiritual things ought not fall under sale." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 1. And thus a dowry is required from nuns for their sustenance.

For a temporal price, that is, for a thing estimable by price, or which bears before itself temporal advantage, although perhaps it cannot be estimated by price or money; whether it is a gift from the hand, that is, money itself, or any other temporal good equivalent to it; or a gift from the tongue, that is, favor, or an office to be furnished by voice or writing, such as praise, blame, patronage; or a gift from service, namely a temporal office by some deed, such as service. There will be simony on account of a gift from the hand if you give someone a benefice with a pact that he remit a debt to you or to another. There will be simony on account of a gift from the tongue if a Bishop confers a benefice on someone so that by him he may be adorned with praises, affected with favors, or so that he may not incur his hatred. Finally there will be simony on account of a gift from service if a Prelate confers a benefice on a servant or on the son of a servant, so that he may serve him gratis, or so that his duty of serving may thus be compensated. Whence it is not simony to give a spiritual thing for a spiritual thing; for example, I say Mass for you, so that you say so many rosaries for me; to give relics for other relics, a chalice for a ciborium, or with the authority of a legitimate superior to exchange one benefice with another. For things of the same order are well estimated mutually.

Of buying or selling. These words signify any onerous contract, or the will of obliging another by pact to give something spiritual for something temporal, or conversely. Of obliging, so that either an obligation is first had from it, or from it there is had a new onerous obligation of a temporal thing, or from fidelity, whatever that temporal thing may be, although not properly a thing, but some contract to be entered into, for example, a loan. C. 114, caus. 1; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 78, a. 2 ad 4, a. 5; L. 56, 57; Suarez, c. 37.

Therefore the malice of simony is in this, that the spiritual is equated with the temporal. This can have place in two ways, formally and virtually. Formally, when someone directly intends, in place of the temporal and on account of its estimation or on account of price, to receive the spiritual. Virtually, when someone wishes by means of a temporal thing, not as a price but as the proximate and immediate motive of giving, to obtain the spiritual, and no other true and honorable motive intervenes. For in this will is virtually included the intention of exchanging one thing with the other. For then someone confers a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, or conversely, as for an intrinsic and final motive; and thus at least in the mind there is given a virtual pact. Hence simony is had if the one furnishing the spiritual imposes upon the recipient an obligation or condition of furnishing something for the utility of the giver or of another. Simony, on the contrary, is not present if someone freely hands over some temporal thing to another for a benefit already received, or for alluring him so that some spiritual thing may be furnished for him; for example, if a rich man gives alms to a poor man so that he may pray for him. In this sense it is also permitted to promise someone a gift for his spiritual utility, for example if he hears Mass or receives the sacraments, because this is a simple donation, indeed under a condition or under a mode, for the utility of the recipient; but there is no onerous contract. Nor consequently is any obligation imposed upon the other of furnishing a spiritual thing. And thus also a dowry is licitly offered to a girl, if she enters a monastery. C. Sunt nonnulli 114, caus. 1, q. 1; L. 49, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 104, 70, 72, 93; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, aa. 1, 2, 4, 5; 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2; Quodl. 4, a. 23; Quodl. 5, a. 23; Quodl. 6, a. 10; Ithur., Cas. 36; Suarez, de Simon., c. 45; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 62 seqq., 82 seqq.; Lessius, l. 2, c. 35; Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, nn. 13, 14, 15, 42; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 165; E. M.

Of how many kinds is simony? - By reason of pact, one simony is mental, another conventional, another real. Mental is when something temporal is given with the mind of obliging to render something spiritual, or conversely, but without any external pact; or when something temporal is given as a compensation owed from justice for a spiritual thing received, or conversely, yet without any previous pact. Conventional simony is that which proceeds to the external pact itself, yet without its real execution. Conventional simony is called purely conventional if the pact has been fulfilled by neither party; it is called mixed from conventional and real, namely, if the pact has been fulfilled by only one party. Finally, real simony is that by which the pact is fulfilled by both parties, at least inchoatively, by real giving or acceptance of the thing. S. Th., Quodl. 5, a. 23; 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 29 seqq.; Struggl 24, 25; L. 49, 67.

By reason of matter, simony is distinguished into confidential simony, which concerns ecclesiastical benefices, and common simony, which concerns any matter whatever. Confidential simony consists in this, that he who procures a benefice for another in any way, that is, either by electing, presenting, postulating, conferring, giving in commendam, instituting, or ceding and resigning in favor of another, reserves something by his own authority from a pact, express or tacit, either concerning the fruits of the benefice or concerning the benefice, afterwards obtaining the consent of the superior in that cession or resignation; otherwise it would be common, not confidential, simony.

Moreover a fourfold reservation is distinguished. 1. Reservation of access, when someone confers or procures a benefice for another in any way, yet with this pact, that the latter at a suitable time resign it to another, for example to a blood relative, or to himself. Access is said to be reserved to this person, because he had not previously obtained either institution or possession of the benefice. 2. Reservation of ingress, when someone resigns to another a benefice already conferred upon himself but not yet possessed, on this condition, that in a given case and time the resigning person himself have the right of obtaining its possession, or of actually entering into the benefice. 3. Reservation of regress, when one who resigns a benefice already possessed by himself to another does so with this pact, that in some determined case and time it is to return to the resigning person himself. 4. Reservation of pension or fruits, when the one conferring or resigning a benefice, whether only conferred or also possessed, causes it to come to someone with a pact that this person should furnish to him, or to another designated by him, all the fruits of the benefice or part of them, or pay a pension from it. To himself or to another; if to another, all agree that it is confidential simony. If to himself, several deny that it is confidential simony, but say it is common. This confidential simony is only of positive law. But if the confidence is extended to the exchange of a spiritual thing with a merely temporal thing, then it is also simony of divine law, concerning which it must be said at once. But it is understood what the price or quasi-price is in this confidential simony. For it is either one and the same benefice, which is conferred or renounced so that it may be returned and as it were restored to the one conferring or renouncing, or to another; or the fruits of the same benefice, or a pension or part of them, to be conferred upon the same. Pius IV, Const. Romanum Pontificem, 16 Kal. Nov. 1564; St. Pius V, Const. Intolerabilis, 1 June 1569; Trent, sess. 24, cc. 9, 19; sess. 25, c. 7 de R.; Suarez, de Simon., c. 43; Ithur., Cas. 34, n. 24; Cas. 36, n. 25; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 39; L. 49, 90.

The aforesaid reservation ought to be from a pact. Besides, confidential simony ought to be either real or at least mixed conventional; whence it is called confidential because it is with a certain confidence and pact. Therefore mental simony, although concerning benefices, is not properly confidential simony. With a pact; according to Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 40-42, and others, without an express pact, only the intention of the one resigning or conferring, expressed by an external sign, of obliging another to give to himself or to another access, ingress, regress, or a pension is sufficient; yet St. Alphonsus, nn. 86, 87, and others more probably deny this. In addition, that reservation ought to be without due authority of the superior; otherwise there will be no confidential simony. Finally, the same reservation ought to concern only ecclesiastical benefices. From Extr. 2. Wherefore, if simoniacal pacts are made concerning pensions, or any other right which is not properly comprehended under the name of benefice, it pertains to common simony, not to confidential. Common and confidential simony are distinguished on account of special laws and penalties which are had in law against this latter; wherefore it is not extended beyond the cases determined in the same law. Whence those exchanging benefices among themselves with a certain confidence or pact that the exchange is to be dissolved at a given time, and that regress is to be granted, for example to the benefices thus exchanged for themselves or others, or that a pension is to be paid to themselves or others, do not commit confidential simony, but common. For the Constitutions of Pius IV and St. Pius V speak only of cession and resignation of benefices. Those exchanging among themselves; otherwise it would be concerning a Bishop or any other collator of a benefice making such a pact with one or the other, or both, of those exchanging. But it is not confidential simony, but common, if the cession and resignation of a benefice is had with confidence or a pact not concerning the benefice itself or its fruits, but concerning another temporal or spiritual thing to be given or returned; or even not concerning the same benefice, but concerning another to be resigned. C. Quaesitum 5; C. Cum olim 7, de Rer. permut.; L. 85, 88.

By reason of the law by which simony is prohibited, one simony is of natural or divine law, another of ecclesiastical law. Simony of divine law is had where the dignity of a spiritual thing, namely one which is such in itself or from the institution of Christ, is vilified by comparison with a temporal thing; that is, when one is given and accepted for the other. For the other, namely as though the price of the other. Hence simony of divine law is not had if someone, moved by the recommendation of a powerful man, confers a benefice upon an unworthy person, unless namely by that conferral he principally intends human favor. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; for he gives a spiritual thing, but receives nothing for it. Likewise if someone gives a dowry to a girl so that she may become a nun; for he gives something temporal, but again receives nothing for it.

But simony of ecclesiastical law exists when, contrary to the prohibition of the Church, a spiritual thing is given for another spiritual thing, as in an exchange of benefices made by one's own authority; or when a thing temporal in itself, annexed to another spiritual thing or ordered to it, is given for a temporal price, as if someone buys the ecclesiastical office of steward, treasurer, sacristan of a Church, etc.; or when in the administration of sacred things a gift or wage is required or accepted, when this is forbidden by Law. For although the malice of equating the spiritual with the temporal is properly absent from those exchanges and acceptances, nevertheless they bear before themselves the appearance of a certain sale and purchase of spiritual things, and contain danger. Whence the Church deservedly forbade them from a motive of religion and reverence toward sacred things. Therefore this simony of merely ecclesiastical law is not intrinsically evil, but is evil only because it is prohibited by the Church on account of reverence toward sacred things. For law has the force of causing its object to be the matter of some virtue, in view of the cause on account of which it commands it; thus, for example, Communion made by a man not fasting, without an excusing cause, is sacrilege, because the Church from a motive of reverence forbade the taking of food or drink before Communion. Hence, since penalties are of strict interpretation, penalties against simoniacs are to be limited to those guilty of simony of divine law, unless something else is clearly deduced from the law itself. L. 68, 69, 108.

What kind of sin is simony? - Simony is a most grave sin of irreligiosity; and, if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter; but if the simony is of ecclesiastical law, smallness of matter can be given in it. The first part is proved: 1. from the common opinion of theologians; 2. because any spiritual thing, by comparison with a temporal thing, is vilified with great injury to God himself.

And therefore it is a certain species of sacrilege; indeed, according to Suarez, c. 1, n. 7, it is a species distinct from all other sacrileges, because a spiritual thing exceeds every temporal thing by its most excellent dignity. Whence by that comparison there is a special injury to it. This is also established from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8:20: Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God may be possessed by money. The second part is proved. For on the part of the spiritual thing, this, although very small, is always of the greatest estimation. But on the part of the price, the less this is, the more the spiritual thing is vilified. The third part is proved. Because simony of ecclesiastical law is not forbidden because, as it were, a temporal price is given for a spiritual thing; but it is prohibited by the Church for removing every appearance of simony and avarice, and other inconveniences. Whence through this an injury is not properly done to the sacred thing, but only a precept of the Church is violated; but in this smallness of matter can be found. Yet according to some an exception seems to have to be made as to examiners in a competition for a parish. Trent, sess. 24, c. 18. But others omit this exception or expressly deny it. Can. 1, q. 1, 2, 3, de Simon. et ne aliq., etc.; L. 50; E. M.

Is it simony to give principally something temporal on account of something spiritual, or conversely, but not uniquely? - R. Affirmative. The reason is that even thus comparison of a temporal thing with a spiritual thing is present. For although the temporal is not given as a price, but as a motive, so that the other may give the spiritual, if it is given as the principal motive, it would not be given if it were known that the other would not give the spiritual. Whence virtually it is a certain price. But the motive which is added, however honorable it may be, does not destroy the malice of the prior motive, on account of which principally the temporal is given. Confirmation is from propositions 45 and 46 condemned by Innocent XI.

But in order that simony be had, when one thing is not given for another but is given on account of another, it is necessary that, although it is given without a previous pact, it nevertheless is not given gratis, but is given either with the mind of obliging to give, or by title of compensation or retribution, however much it is given voluntarily and is given from gratitude, namely if it is given as owed. For only then is the thing which is given on account of another, equivalently in moral estimation, truly given for the other. Then there is in reality at least implicitly an unnamed contract: I give that he may do; I do that he may give. But otherwise it would be if something temporal is given on account of something spiritual, or conversely, principally on account of gratitude, but not for obliging, nor as owed, every obligation even of mere fidelity having been removed, merely for signifying a grateful mind, or for attracting benevolence, etc. For one thing is the quasi-intrinsic motive of the work, on account of which, for which, the work itself is intended; another is the extrinsic end of the work performed or of the one working, who orders his action in favor of another to this or that. "For in any sale the price is received as the end" of the thing or work sold. S. Th., Quodl. 8, a. 11. L. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 64; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2, q. 2; E. M.

Is it simony to perform sacred functions for earning a stipend, and to receive something for the spiritual instruction of others? - R. To the first. These words are from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, aa. 2, 3: "To receive money for spiritual grace is the crime of simony, which can be excused by no custom, because custom does not prejudice natural or divine law.... But to receive something for the support of those who minister the sacraments of Christ, according to the ordination of the Church and approved customs, is not simony nor sin. For it is not taken as the price of a wage, but as a stipend of necessity.... Yet in such a way that the intention of buying and selling is absent, and that it is not exacted from the unwilling by withdrawal of spiritual things which are to be exhibited; for this would have a certain appearance of sale. Yet spiritual things first having been exhibited gratis, established and customary oblations, and any other revenues, can licitly be exacted from those unwilling and willing to pay, the authority of the superior intervening." "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 God as the principal end in such an act, but 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 he does not commit simony nor sin. For thus the acceptance of 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." S. Th., Quodl. 8, a. 11. "In certain Churches also some are enticed to serve the Church by temporal distributions; not that they receive a reward, but they are certain secondary inducements to serving God, just as the Lord also says, Matt. 6:33, Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things, namely the necessities of life, will be added to you." S. Th., Quodl. 4, a. 23.

Nor therefore does it stand in the way that such a person would neither read Mass nor preach without profit; for this does not prove that the temporal is a price, but only that it is an end, namely the end not of the spiritual work but of the one working, occupied in favor of another, or a condition without which he would not work, namely the stipend of fitting sustenance failing, or a stipend for the necessity of sustaining life. S. Th., Quodl. 2, a. 12. Namely, from labor undertaken in favor of the neighbor, someone has a title of sustenance. Therefore the wage is then intended as a means of sustenance, a simoniacal mind being excluded. Therefore simony exists when something temporal is given for something spiritual, as though the price of it; but by no means when something temporal is required as a just stipend or wage of the work and labor, and also of the help or temporal office furnished, and much less if the temporal is given as a subsidy and alms. Labor is any inconvenience by which someone is affected in furnishing or undertaking a spiritual matter. But help is any office which is furnished short of inconvenience. "Tithes," says S. Thomas, Quodl. 6, a. 10, "are owed to priests in common indeed according to natural law. But natural reason dictates that those who labor for the people in spiritual things receive from the people stipends for their support; and according to this it is also sanctioned by divine law in the New Testament. For, as is said in 1 Cor. 9, the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel that they should live from the Gospel. But in the Old Law, by a judicial precept, the quantity of that which was to be paid by the people to the ministers of God was fixed, namely the tithe; and this also is from the statute of the Church, although the priest is rich, nevertheless a poor man is bound to pay him tithes"; namely, because the aforesaid stipend is owed from justice and from positive precept. 1 Cor. 9:7, 11. Yet those who thus "perform sacred ministries principally on account of temporal emolument, (namely as a means of sustenance, not as the price of the sacred ministry) cannot easily be excused from venial fault, since it is a certain disorder to direct spiritual things to the temporal." L. 55. Indeed it is a certain disorder principally to intend, for example, in performing the sacred rite, not the honor of God and the salvation of souls, but one's own temporal utility. Yet the same St. Alphonsus, l. c., says: "It is not illicit to order a spiritual thing, even principally, to an honorable temporal end." Therefore, per se, what is licitly accepted can also be licitly intended. Nor indeed does it stand in the way that such a person does not need sustenance, for this is accidental. But since this stipend is owed from justice, it is also permitted to bargain about it. Whence it is clear that this stipend is owed and does not have simply the character of alms, which is liberally given to one in need. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 89-95; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3; L. 55, 104.

As to Ruthenian priests in the Canadian region, it has been provided that they not exact stole fees and emoluments of sacred ministry from the truly poor; and it is altogether forbidden to extort them under threat of baptism or blessing of marriage, or to exclude a faithful person unable to pay from any sacred function. S. C. de P. F., 8 Aug. 1913, art. 18. Stole fees are so called which are paid to the pastor for sacred functions for the advantage of the faithful, for example for baptism, for marriage, etc. These stole fees are simply the pastor's, without any obligation of spending them for pious causes or giving them to the poor.

R. To the second. One must distinguish: either that instruction by its nature tends only to the spiritual utility of others, for example catechesis, preaching of the word of God, and similar things; or it tends toward some temporal good of theirs, for example to the natural instruction of a matter even sacred and religious, for every doctrine, even revealed, insofar as it is doctrine, is something natural. For it is naturally compared and handed down, and ordered to the erudition of the mind, which is a natural good. Such is the resolution of cases of conscience, instruction for interpreting Sacred Scripture, for unraveling theological controversies, etc.

If the first, certainly it is simony to receive for that instruction something temporal, since it is a merely spiritual thing, unless it is received by reason of the necessary sustenance of the one working, occupied in favor of another. If the second, there will simply be no simony, because he who teaches science can receive a stipend, as though hiring out his services. Nor does it matter that that science is supernatural; for proximately and per se it is not ordered to the salvation of the soul, but to enlightening the intellect, just as other natural sciences are. L. 94; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 3; Schmalzgr., l. 5, tit. 3, nn. 34, 89 seqq.

Is it simony if a priest promises a layman a Mass for the outcome of a game, while his companion puts up a temporal price? - R. Negative per se, because by this reason a spiritual thing is not properly equated with a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which otherwise would have to be handed over. Therefore the commutation of a debt is with a stipend. For he does not sin who offers a creditor 100 Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he remit a debt of 100 francs; therefore, by parity, neither does he sin who promises a Mass for the outcome of a game, while the other puts up 20 asses. Moreover, a game of this kind is rarely without some scandal, and therefore must always be dissuaded. L. l. 3, n. 882; Voit 506.

Is it simony if a priest requires for Mass a stipend above the usual tax, or that established by the Bishop? - R. Negative as to the internal forum and before God, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind, because since he has another title of requiring remuneration, the comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. Indeed he would sin against obedience or justice by requiring more than is equitable, but by no means against religion. Yet in the external forum he would be held as simoniacal, because this kind of increase would be presumed to be required not for sustenance but as the price of a spiritual thing; for this reason several theologians and canonists absolutely affirm that in that case true simony is committed. But the stipend of Masses is not usually so taxed that it alone suffices for the daily sustenance of a priest. For the celebration of Mass does not require the labor of a whole day on the part of the priest, and it is always supposed that the priest is not otherwise lacking other supports of life. It belongs to ecclesiastical authority to determine the just stipend. One requiring a stipend greater than is just, either because above the tax established by ecclesiastical law or because it exceeds the just compensation of labor extrinsically annexed, is bound to restitution, and ought to restore to the giver. Gousset 694; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 5, c. 9, n. 1.

Is a cleric serving a Bishop, and expecting something spiritual as recompense, simoniacal? - R. Negative, if he serves in spiritual things, for example, in the office of preacher, for "those sweating over ecclesiastical utilities are worthy to enjoy ecclesiastical remuneration." C. Eccles. 76, c. 12, q. 2. R. Negative also, if he serves in temporal things, and if the primary intention is of giving the temporal gratis, because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the superior. But otherwise, if a spiritual thing is intended as owed recompense, not however as the effect of a grateful mind. L. 51, 62; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 1.

Is it simony to confer a benefice on account of carnal affection, namely on account of kinship? - These words are from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 2: "If someone confers something spiritual on someone gratis on account of blood relationship, or any carnal affection, it is indeed an illicit and carnal conferral, but not simoniacal, because nothing is received there; whence this does not pertain to the contract of buying and selling, on which simony is founded. Yet if someone gives an ecclesiastical benefice to someone with this pact or intention, that from this he may provide for his own blood relatives, it is manifest simony." Quodl. 4, a. 15; Quodl. 5, a. 23.

Is it simony to hand over something temporal for omission of a spiritual thing? - It is simony if it is given for the omission of a thing which someone is bound to place by force of spiritual power, so that that omission is as it were a positive act of authoritatively binding, retaining as impeded, etc., as is, for example, the omission of absolution, dispensation, etc.; or if that omission directly and proximately prepares the way to spiritual things, for example if you give money to another so that he not compete for a benefice, since in the first case the exercise of a spiritual thing is sold for a temporal thing, and in the other, by a temporal thing, at least mediately, a spiritual thing is intended to be bought. "Correction is a spiritual act; whence he commits simony who receives money so that he not reveal or punish a sin which he is bound to reveal or punish." S. Th. 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2, q. 11.

But if omitting the thing depends merely on liberty, and that omission contributes nothing to obtaining a spiritual thing, it will indeed be able to be a shameful sin, but nevertheless it will not be simony, because nothing sacred is sold, since omission is nothing, but only the use of free choice, which is something temporal, as would be the omission of praying, celebrating, etc. Temporal; for simony, on the contrary, will be present if a spiritual thing is handed over, since not doing something spiritual is something temporal, namely the liberty or choice of doing. L. 97; Ithur., Cas. 36, n. 17; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 5; C. 14, de Simonia.

Is it simony to give or receive something for entrance into religion? - It is certain that it is not permitted to give or receive something for entrance alone, because this would be an exchange of a sacred thing, of which sort religion is, with a temporal thing. It is likewise certain that it is permitted for a monastery to require something for the sustenance of novices, because since they do not yet pertain to religion, and can depart at will and often in fact do depart, it is not equitable that the monastery be under so grave a burden for them.

It is also certain that it is permitted for a poor monastery to require something for the sustenance of the one entering, because then a spiritual thing is not exchanged with a temporal thing, and otherwise equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery collapse, burdened by obligations. And when a monastery has no goods, the one entering cannot acquire a right to them. But it is controverted if the matter is of a wealthy monastery. St. Liguori, n. 92, denies, unless the one to be received is old or infirm, who would be an extraordinary burden and of no advantage. For the right to sustenance is annexed to the religious state. But not a few others affirm, provided that money is not required for the entrance itself, but is received or asked only by reason of sustenance or dowry. Because then religious profession is not sold, but sustenance, which is something temporal. As to nuns, from the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation and common practice, it is established that a dowry is to be handed over by individual nuns without distinction for their sustenance. For these monasteries are liable to various misfortunes. Whence it is enough for the Bishop if he imposes moderation on the expenses usually made on the occasion of entrance, etc., as Benedict XIV admonishes him, de Syn., l. 11, c. 6. Yet they ought to take care not to receive unsuitable persons solely on account of dowry or some other temporal thing; for this would be simoniacal. Trent, sess. 25, c. 16, de Reg.; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 4; E. M.

Is it simony to redeem oneself by money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, for example, the sacraments, etc.? - By money, that is, by a temporal thing, whatever it may be, in some way estimable by money. By money; for if vexation is redeemed by a spiritual thing, simony is certainly present. Cf. 511. For vexation is something temporal. For it is to be hostile to someone, whether by doing or by not doing, lest he be able either to obtain or retain some good. But it is unjust when through it the right of him who is vexed concerning the aforesaid good is injured.

Moreover someone can be unjustly vexed either in a spiritual right already acquired, whether in the thing or to the thing, or in such a right not yet acquired but certainly to be acquired. If the first, it is not simony to redeem by a temporal price unjust vexation from whomever it may finally come. For the price is not given for a spiritual thing, but for the cessation of unjust vexation. Therefore it would not be simony to give money to electors so that they desist from the election of an unworthy person, because the Church has an acquired right in worthy persons; whence it would be given for desisting from evil. Just as neither would it be simony to give for choosing a worthy or worthier person in general; for it would be given for this, lest a bad election be made. But if the person were determined, it would be simony, since it would directly be to give money for his election.

Unjust vexation; for if the vexation is just, for example if someone is accused of a true crime on account of which he ought to lose a benefice, or can no longer exercise spiritual rights, it would be simoniacal to redeem this vexation by a price, because such a right is not firm; and therefore by removing just vexation, a firm right is bought, which is spiritual. And the same must be said if the right is doubtful and by redeeming vexation it is rendered certain. For then a certain right is rather bought than vexation redeemed. If the second, it is also lawful to redeem unjust vexation by a price, because the price is given for a temporal thing. Thus, for example, if someone by defamation impedes a patron from choosing you for a benefice, you will certainly be able to give money to the defamer so that he cease from that defamation, because in this case you would redeem nothing but reputation, and would remove force and fraud; these being removed, the patron still remains most fully in his own judgment to choose you or not choose you for the benefice.

The thing is not changed per se if the unjust vexation proceeds from a person who can not only harm but also help, for example, from a co-patron who unjustly turns other co-patrons away, although the matter is dangerous. For the fact that he can help and does help is accidental; for nothing is redeemed except his unjust vexation by which he harms. Therefore there also will not be simony if someone, in order that he may receive baptism, absolution, the Eucharist, which otherwise he could not receive and which otherwise he would have to lack altogether, gave money to the one vexing; yet in this case simony is contracted by the one vexing. Per se; for by Canon Law it is held as simoniacal to redeem vexation, even unjust, in ecclesiastical benefices, from him who by ceasing to harm thereby helps. C. 23, 33, de Simon. Unjust vexation; for when money is given to him who can help or place a just impediment, he is induced not to oppose what he could justly oppose; and thus directly and properly a way is laid to the benefice, for example, by a temporal good having been given. Proposition 45 condemned by Innocent XI. A fortiori, if a temporal price is given for intercession. Then intercession is bought by a temporal price, which in itself is something temporal; yet mediately the thing is as though spiritual, insofar as the intercession is for obtaining a benefice. Struggl 29; Suarez, de Relig., t. 1, l. 4, c. 12; L. 49, 64, 65, 98, 99 seqq.; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 1, ad 5; E. M. 511.

In how many ways is simony of ecclesiastical law committed? - In the following ways. 1. By exchanging benefices, making transactions about them, making pacts, resigning them in favor of another, reserving pensions in them, without license of the superior. C. Quaesitum 5, de Rer. perm.; C. Constituimus 4; C. Super eo 7, de Trans.; C. Nobis 27, de Sim.; C. Ex multis 9, q. 3, caus. 1. The reason of the law is the danger lest this be done in view of a temporal thing, since these include some advantage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 1 ad 5, a. 4 ad 3.

Add: to sell benefices, even according to that which is temporal in them, namely according to the right of receiving fruits. "Yet more probably," says St. Alphonsus, n. 70, "they say that it is simony by divine law from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2... as is gathered from C. Si quis 15, caus. 1, q. 3, and from C. Ex diligenti 17, de Simon." Cf. also L. 76. Add also: to sell the right of patronage of presenting to a benefice. C. De iure 16; C. Praeterea 23, de Iure patr. Yet Lessius, Palaus, Laymann, etc., affirm that this sale is forbidden also by divine law. L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. Transactions concerning the right of patronage and concerning another spiritual thing annexed, an oratory, a temple, etc., are likewise prohibited, if namely on one side something spiritual is given and on the other something temporal, C. Praeterea 9, 10, de Trans. But they are licit if on both sides something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual is given. C. Ad quaestiones 6, de Rer. perm. "The right of patronage cannot be sold per se, nor given in fief; but it passes with the village which is sold or ceded." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. "Trent, sess. 24, c. 14, de R., commands Bishops not to permit any payment or promise for admission to possession of a benefice, as having the stain of simony or suspicion of avarice, any custom to the contrary being rejected. The Council permits only that, if there is a custom, something be given to be converted to pious uses." L. 99; C. Cum in Ecclesiae 9; C. In tantum 36, de Simonia.

2. By giving or accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, before or after, on occasion of an examination for parochial care, for example, when there is a question of choosing a pastor in a competition, from Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R. On occasion of the examination; for to give or receive for the examination itself would be simony of divine law. From the Decree of S. C. Cons., 15 Feb. 1612, synodal examiners and parochial consultors, on occasion of their office, neither before nor after, can receive anything, by the oath taken, even offered under the appearance of a gift. Likewise any gift whatsoever is prohibited to be received by ministers of whatever order in the Roman curia. Ord. serv. in Rom. Cur., Norm. comm., c. 3.

3. By accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, on occasion of the conferral of an order, or of letters for the order itself, or even of first tonsure, from the same Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, de R. Yet there is excepted there the tenth part of a gold coin for the notary, if no salary has been established for him and custom permits him to receive it. But the Sacred Congregation, 8 Oct. 1678, permitted Bishops to receive a candle, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests; indeed the same Congregation, deputed by Innocent XI, also fixed the emoluments which are required for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc. "It is granted to Bishops in dispensations (of marriages) to accept something to be distributed in alms, provided that nothing comes to themselves or their own, by way of penalty or commutation, but not by way of sustenance. For this is forbidden to them from... Trent, sess. 25, c. 18, de R." L. 96.

It is not permitted to a Bishop in the visitation of a diocese to receive gifts besides victuals. Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 3, de R.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1502 seqq. Innocentian Tax: Innocent XI, Decree of 8 Oct. 1678, established what emoluments could be required for various acts and writings of non-contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But with the conditions of times having changed, S. C. C., 10 June 1896, issued a new Decree concerning this matter. According to the norms of this Decree, a description or schedule of these taxes is to be made in individual dioceses and transmitted for approval to the same S. C. C. In France, a determined tax for sacred worship to be imposed on the faithful from obligation is not approved. Secretariat of State, 8 Oct. 1907.

4. By selling or buying temporal ecclesiastical offices ordered to sacred things, of procurator, sacristan, steward, defender of the Church; this indeed has been done in view of religion. C. Si quis 3; C. Salvator 8, c. 1, q. 3; Suarez, c. 29. But to sell spiritual ecclesiastical offices, for example of vicar general, coadjutor of a pastor, chaplain, is simoniacal by its nature.

5. By selling a part of a cemetery; indeed it will be simony of divine law if it is sold as a sacred place, or if the right of burial is sold. Yet the right of a tomb can be bought, so that someone may be buried in such a place, because then burial would not be sold even by reason of the earth, but the price would be required by reason of the burden which is assumed, of not burying others there; this indeed is something temporal, and law does not prohibit it; indeed usage approves it. The same must be said if more is required for carrying a silver cross instead of an iron one; for one is not of greater blessing than the other, but this is a worldly honor, which certainly can be sold. C. Abolendae 13, de Sepult.; L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2.

6. By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; yet the usage has prevailed in cathedral churches that something is accepted from particular churches for compensating the expenses which have been made in procuring the matter. C. Placuit 102, c. 1, q. 1; C. Ea quae 16, de Simonia. Nor indeed is it permitted to accept anything for administration of the sacraments beyond that which has been established by custom and ordination of the superior. Cf. 505, 512. Likewise every shameful profit, trade, and species of business with stipends of Masses is prohibited. S. C. C., 11 May 1904.

7. By requiring money for admission into religion, not for the state itself, which would be simony of divine law, but by reason of sustenance, unless either law, or custom, or the poverty of the monastery excuses. Cf. 518.

8. By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of Confraternities, against the Constitution Quaecumque of Clement VIII. And reception into a Confraternity will be invalid if anything is received contrary to the laws of the Church, even under the title of alms.

9. By publishing Indulgences and other spiritual graces, some wage having been accepted, Trent, sess. 21, c. 9, de R., and by making gain from the concession or publication of Indulgences and other spiritual graces. St. Pius V, Const. Quum plenum, 2 Jan. 1569. By several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it was forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale. And if otherwise is done, the indulgences are lost. Decret., tit. de Simonia, l. 5, tit. 3; Struggl 23; L. 68, 69, 72, 74, 77; E. M.

What are the penalties laid upon simoniacs? - Even now there remains firm the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae against simony committed in the election of the Roman Pontiff. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis on Censures; L. 112, last paragraph. A simoniacal election of the Supreme Pontiff is altogether illicit, but is not void ipso facto, lest a pretext be had for attacking the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff. Pius X, Const. Vacante Sede, 25 Dec. 1904; Julius II, Const. Cum tam divino, 19 Kal. Feb. 1505.

Under penalty of excommunication, pacts by which Cardinals, even with an oath added, oblige themselves to give their vote for someone, are prohibited and are void and null. Likewise void and null are those things which are established by common consent, for doing something if they are assumed to the Pontificate. Pius X, Const. Vacante Sede, 25 Dec. 1914. [Translator's note: the printed text reads "25 Dec. 1914"; this appears to be a printing error, since Pius X died on 20 Aug. 1914.] "He who has simoniacally acquired ecclesiastical dignities shall be deprived of them by the law itself, and for the future shall be incapable of obtaining them and any others." St. Pius V, Const. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, sec. 8.

There is excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. On account of the same real simony, in benefice matter, there is incurred besides nullity of election, presentation, and canonical institution, so that one thus promoted and instituted cannot make the fruits of the benefice his own, even if the money was given by a third person, he himself being completely ignorant; unless perhaps either he possessed the benefice in good faith for the space of three years; or if he, the wicked plan of simony having become known, contradicted, and yet, without his knowledge, another promised or conferred; or if a third party committed simony for this end, that he might render him incapable.

In addition, incapacity for obtaining the same benefice is incurred. The same: for he does not become incapable of obtaining others except after sentence, as they more probably and commonly teach in explaining the Bull of St. Pius V, l. c., where the contrary seems to be hinted, concerning the external forum, since the Bull then speaks of convicted guilty persons. Indeed, if he already has other benefices, he can retain them, because no express law decrees this penalty ipso facto. Riganti, Reg. 36 Canc. 132; Suarez, de Relig., l. 4, cc. 57, 58; L. 111, 112; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6.

These are the words of St. Pius V, l. c., immediately after the other words related above: "He who has obtained a benefice or ecclesiastical office simoniacally shall likewise be deprived of them by the law itself, and shall be bound to restitution of all fruits which he has received, and shall be perpetually incapable of obtaining them and any other ecclesiastical benefices. But if anyone has been convicted of having committed such a crime several times, etc."

It must be noted: Penalties of this sort for real simony are not incurred if there has not been an external sin completed on both sides. For odious things are to be restricted. Hence one accepting an ecclesiastical benefice with a pact of furnishing money is not bound before payment of the money either to resign the benefice or to restore the fruits received from the benefice. But it is otherwise concerning confidential simony, as will soon be said. For then, from the Bull Intolerabilis, 1 June 1569, of St. Pius V, penalties are incurred even through mixed conventional simony, namely completed on only one side, when the benefice has already been handed over or accepted with a confidential pact. For if the other has also received, or has begun to receive, what was promised to him by pact, not only confidential but also real simony is had. L. 106.

As to the faculty of dispensing from incapacity for obtaining a simoniacally conferred benefice, these things are to be observed: If the benefice is simple, even of a canonry or dignity, to which care of souls is not attached, and it was accepted through simony ignorantly, namely when simony was committed by another, the beneficiary being ignorant, then the Bishop can dispense even in that vacancy, provided that the beneficiary spontaneously renounces. C. Si alicuius 54, de Elect. Indeed the same faculty is to be attributed to the Bishop when the benefice indeed is double, but the conferral of the same has not been declared void by sentence. For, with a sentence of this sort intervening, recourse would have to be made to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation at least for that turn. It is said for that turn, because if the same benefice is first conferred on another and happens again to become vacant, it certainly can be conferred upon him who had been ignorant of the simony committed by another in his provision. Cf. Reiffenst., l. 5, t. 3, n. 337. If knowingly someone has accepted a benefice simoniacally, whether simple or with cure, even if he spontaneously renounces, the Bishop cannot dispense with him for having the same benefice, neither for that turn nor for another. L. 111, 117, 118; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6; Ithur., Cas. 34, n. 32.

There is also excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatsoever, of whatever dignity they may be." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. In addition, on account of completed confidential simony, that is, when the benefice has been given and accepted in confidence, even if the pact has not yet been fulfilled by the other party, there is had: nullity of the resignation or conferral made in confidence; incapacity for the same benefice; reservation of the same benefice to the Apostolic See. But the fruits badly received from these benefices are applied to the Apostolic Camera. L. 89, 90, 111, 117; Schmalz., n. 273; Giraldi, t. 2, p. 572. By the Constitution In sublimi of Benedict XIV, 29 Aug. 1741, resignations of benefices with reservation of pension and a pact of canceling it are prohibited and annulled, with the penalty of deprivation of the benefice, incapacity for obtaining others, and restitution of money; and cancellations and extinctions of pensions obtained within six months from the possession of the benefice having been taken are invalidated.

Likewise there is excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into religion." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. But it is very probable that this penalty is not incurred in simple entrance, but in profession, which even if made simoniacally is certainly valid. "Likewise infamy of law and consequently irregularity are incurred on both sides." L. 108. All simoniacal elections to the Generalate, Rectorate, and any spiritual office in religion are more truly void. L. 112; Extr. Comm. Sane 1, de Simonia.

Excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff is also present against those making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces by conceding or publishing them; and likewise against those collecting alms for Masses and seeking profit from them by causing them to be celebrated where they are celebrated at a lower price. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. Cf. v. 2, nn. 1194, 1195. In addition, quasi-business on occasion of Masses is prohibited under penalty of excommunication reserved to Bishops for laypersons, and of incapacity and suspension for clerics, according to the norm of the Decree of S. C. C. Ut debita, 11 May 1904. Cf. v. 2, nn. 1206, 1238.

As to simony committed by synodal examiners of parochial benefices, these things are decreed by Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R.: "Let them beware lest they receive anything at all on occasion of this examination, neither before nor after; otherwise both they themselves and others giving incur the vice of simony, from which they cannot be absolved unless the benefices which they in any way, even previously, obtained have been dismissed. And they are rendered incapable of others for the future." Therefore they are deprived, before any sentence, of benefices already obtained. Thus Scavini, ed. 12, Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 143, and St. Alphonsus, n. 112. But others deny, because this penalty has not been received with so great a rigor. D'Annibale, ed. 4, p. 3, n. 118. Cf. here 230; Thesaurus, de Poen. eccl., v. Simonia IV, 1.

Besides these, there are also other penalties, but probably they are not incurred except after the sentence of a judge. When simony is notorious, infamy of law is incurred, and therefore irregularity. Decretal., l. 5, t. 3, de Simon.; Extrav. Comm., l. 5, t. 1; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6; E. M.

Is the spiritual thing acquired simoniacally to be restored? - R. Affirmative as to benefices; thus the common and certain opinion of the doctors. The reason is that the laws, as a penalty of the delict, stand in the way so that the receiver cannot acquire ownership either of the price or of the benefice received. And since acquisition of the benefice is void, by that very fact ownership of the fruits cannot be acquired either; and therefore these too are to be restored, if they were received in bad faith. But these are to be restored to the church to which the benefice pertains. C. 11, de Simonia, provided that those who committed the simony receive no advantage from this. But it is probable that they can be "spent in alms" for the poor. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 32, a. 7, or returned to the successor in the benefice, or "converted to pious uses," S. Th. 2. 2, q. 62, a. 5 ad 2. A composition can also be made with the Pontiff concerning the said fruits. Received in bad faith; because someone does not seem bound also to restore fruits received in good faith, except insofar as he had become richer, and therefore only those extant. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6 ad 3. And whether the discussion is of a simoniac in good faith or even of a simoniac in bad faith, it is also very probable that fruits received in view of the stole are not to be restored, because those fruits are not given as revenues of the benefice, but as a stipend of office.

R. Negative as to the rest, although a judge can impose restitution as a penalty of the crime. Thus the common opinion with Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 284. The reason is not only because certain things cannot be restored, for example, sacred order; but also because in order that the transfer of a spiritual thing, for example, of holy relics, be valid, by divine law nothing more is required than power in one person of transferring ownership of the thing, and in the other of receiving it. But unless from elsewhere there is a defect in one or the other, this power is present in both as to the spiritual thing. Therefore. But if the transfer is valid by divine law, it will also be valid by human law, since by this, scarcely anything except simoniacal provisions of benefices are decreed void. L. 113, 116.

Is the price accepted simoniacally for a spiritual thing to be restored? - If only the crime of simony intervened, but no injury of justice, there is no obligation of restoring the simoniacal price before the condemnatory sentence of a judge, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred with the spiritual thing to another. Schmalz., l. 9, t. 3, n. 286. Understand this with the exception of benefice matter, in which what is given and accepted must be restored before every sentence of a judge in the forum of conscience, not indeed by natural law, but only by ecclesiastical law from C. De hoc 11, h. t. The reason is that the laws impede the one accepting both the benefice and the price, so that he cannot acquire ownership of the thing received, and this as a penalty of so grave a delict. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 283. But where the simoniacal pact is also repugnant to commutative justice, the price is to be restored before every sentence of a judge. The reason is that from injury to commutative justice, the obligation of restoring arises by the very law of nature. L. 114, 115.

You will resolve: Therefore he is bound to restore the price who accepts a price for a merely spiritual thing which brings no temporal advantage, since for a thing which is not estimable by price there is no price; and therefore a price is accepted for it against justice. He who accepts a price for a spiritual thing, even if this brings a temporal advantage, which nevertheless someone, for example a pastor, is bound from office and justice to furnish. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 3. A Bishop or Prelate who sells benefices or ecclesiastical offices, the conferral of which pertains to him by force of his office; since from his office he ought to dispense them gratis, and therefore, by accepting a price, he sins against justice. Schmalz., l. c., nn. 293, 295.

To whom is the simoniacal price to be restored? - If the price has been given, but the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, the common opinion teaches that the price is to be restored to him who gave it, unless the judge has decreed otherwise. The reason is that the laws establish penalties only against real simony.

But if handing over has followed on both sides, the benefice cause must be distinguished from the rest. For in this the simoniacal price, from C. De hoc 11, de Simonia, is to be restored to the church in which the benefice is situated; or, if the superior so decrees, it can be distributed to the poor or to another church. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6 ad 4. Yet there are not lacking those who think that restitution must be made to him who was injured, that is, to him who gave. D'Annibale, ed. 4, p. 3, n. 116.

But as to the price accepted for another spiritual thing, since we find nothing clearly decreed by Law, it remains that it be restored to him who paid it. The reason is that per se, and unless law or a superior establishes otherwise, where unjust acceptance intervenes, restitution is to be made to him who was injured. But in the case, he who gave the price was injured. Therefore, if he who paid the simoniacal price gratuitously remits what was paid, he who accepted it licitly retains the same until, as a penalty of the crime, he is ordered by a judge to spend it for the church or the poor. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 297, 301; Struggl 32; L. 115; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 32, a. 7 c.; q. 62, a. 5 ad 2.