§ III. On Simony

288. • DEFINITION. Simony, so called from Simon Magus, is the deliberate will of selling or buying for a temporal price something spiritual, or something attached to the spiritual. It is called a deliberate will, that is, a will with deliberation ¹.

¹ Simony is defined as a deliberate will, not only because, no otherwise than other sins, it requires deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that a pact be completed by mutual consent or in fact, but the internal or one-sided simoniacal affection suffices, namely the will of making a pact or of obliging.

A temporal price is distinguished in Canon Law ² as of three kinds: 1. munus a manu, or recompense of any temporal thing whatsoever estimable by price ³; 2. munus a lingua, or patronage, under whose name come praises, recommendations, prayers, etc., to be interposed by agreement in favor of one conferring a spiritual thing ⁴; 3. munus ab obsequio, or any service whatever, or offices rendered to another, e.g., household service or any similar office.

² Thus St. Gregory, related in Can. Sunt nonnulli Caus. 1. q. 1: One thing is a gift from service, another a gift from the hand, another a gift from the tongue. A gift from service is subjection unduly expended. A gift from the hand is money. A gift from the tongue is favor.

But munus here, as is clear, is not taken for a liberal gift, but for a price, or debt, which induces a necessary burden and obligation.

³ To this is referred not only remission of a debt, which is openly clear from Cap. Veniens 10. De Testibus et attestationibus, but also delay of payment, or anticipated payment, and a loan; yet when certain persons wish to give an account of these, they entangle themselves and the whole matter not a little.

And indeed St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 57) was compelled by his own right mind to say that exacting a loan for a spiritual thing is simoniacal, and therefore to put after it the opinion which condemns as depraved only a pact of lending in the future, but not of lending in the present; which opinion the Salmanticenses wrongly ascribe to St. Thomas (De Simon. Cap. 1. n. 35); for the Holy Doctor (2. 2. q. 78. art. 4. ad 2) does not speak of an imposed obligation of lending, but of the benevolence to be sought, by which someone is inclined of his own accord to lend in return.

Besides, St. Alphonsus (l. c.) gives no reason except that Simony is to hand over anything temporal for a spiritual thing. But the difficulty remains in what way a loan, which ought to be gratuitous, can be called something temporal in that sense, so that it is equated to a price. For, as St. Thomas says (2. 2. q. 100. art. 5), for Simony there is required a price or something estimable by price, which is absent from the gratuitousness of a loan.

Therefore Laymann (Lib. 4. Tr. 10. Cap. VIII. § 3. n. 25), in order to reconcile the gratuitousness of a loan with the Simony of one exacting a loan, has recourse to a broader sense of price, so that it comprehends every other temporal advantage which is given by agreement for a spiritual thing. But you would rightly call these things contradictory. For a temporal advantage which is not estimable by price is a chimera. See St. Thomas 2. 2. q. 100. art. 5 and 4. Dist. 25. q. 5. art. 3.

In order to solve the same knot the Salmanticenses (l. c. n. 36) reply that such purity is not necessary in a loan as is required in spiritual things. But this is nothing. For the purity which is required is precisely this, that it ward off compensation which is estimable by price.

Therefore the true reason why it is simoniacal to exact a loan for a spiritual thing must be sought from this, that the use of one's own money granted to others is in itself really something estimable by price; and this not only the common sense of men, but also very many doctors, admit (see Lugo De Iust. et Iur. Disp. 25. n. 18. 24) with St. Thomas (3. Dist. 37. q. 1. art. 6. ob. 2. coll. 4. Dist. 25. q. 3. art. 3). Nor, however, does it follow from this that a price can lawfully be exacted for a loan. For a loan, by the opinion of all, is reckoned among gratuitous contracts, no otherwise than a loan for use and a donation. Therefore whoever lends money voluntarily, from liberality, renounces compensation which he could lawfully exact, just as he who lends for use or donates a horse voluntarily renounces the compensation or price which he otherwise could receive for the use of the horse or for the horse itself. But he who exacts a loan by agreement for a spiritual thing does not receive something liberally offered, but imposes a burden in itself estimable by price. Therefore this is deservedly judged simoniacal.

** With sixteen columns (Pag. 222-229) the VV. detain the reader concerning this Note. But the sum of them is reduced to these heads: 1. That the Salmanticenses rightly cite St. Thomas; 2. That Laymann does not speak of a reciprocal loan; 3. That St. Alphonsus did not bring forward the reasons for his opinion because he judged the reasons cited by the Salmanticenses altogether convincing; 4. That the reason for the doctrine cited in the Note is true, but that the new reasons for the same are not true.

Resp. To 1. The Salmanticenses wished to prove that it is not simoniacal to give spiritual things for a loan; and to confirm this they said that from St. Thomas it is not usury to lend with an agreement that the other lend in return. - But this is false. For the VV. themselves bring forward two places from St. Thomas in which St. Thomas denies that it is lawful to exact something by debt of justice, although he grants that something can be received if it is given from affection of friendship, or from affection of benevolence. But what is given by agreement is given from debt of justice. Therefore the Salmanticenses wrongfully fasten that absurd opinion upon St. Thomas. - After the texts of St. Thomas have been brought forward, the VV. add (Pag. 224): Therefore here the Angelic Doctor teaches in clear and express words that it is lawful for one lending one thing at the same time to receive another loan. - Resp. It is lawful to receive from affection of benevolence and friendship, as St. Thomas has it, Granted; it is lawful to exact and receive what is given by agreement, as the Salmanticenses contend, Denied.

Resp. To 2. It is neither said in the Note, nor was there need to inquire, whether Laymann there treats or does not treat of a reciprocal loan. Therefore those things do nothing to the point.

Resp. To 3. That St. Alphonsus brought forward no reason for his most correct opinion because he held the reasons of the Salmanticenses to be altogether convincing is a mere conjecture of the VV., which otherwise would not contribute very much to the honor and glory of the Holy Doctor. And since the VV. admit (Pag. 228) that the reason of the doctrine brought forward in the Note is true, by that very fact, when they say that the reasons of the Salmanticenses are altogether convincing, they speak contradictory things.

Resp. To 4. The Author of the Notes pursues novelties neither elsewhere nor in this place, nor has he brought forward other new reasons here; but, other less suitable reasons having been put aside, he sought the true reason of the doctrine from the certain principles of St. Thomas and of other Doctors.

⁴ This simony, therefore, is committed when through the conferral of a spiritual thing the conferrer, by some express or tacit agreement, intends to oblige another to pour forth prayers for him, or to some other office of this kind.

From this Suarez (De Simonia Cap. 40) shows that certain persons have extended this munus a lingua beyond what is fair, when they contended that it is simoniacal even for someone to give something spiritual, moved by the prayers either of the one to whom the spiritual thing is granted, or of another; which opinion, as Suarez (ibid. n. 5) notes, certain persons wrongly attributed to St. Thomas. Yet certain persons rightly make an exception if the conferrer exacts these prayers as a condition, especially if he exacts them from a prince-person, whose humble service in these things he seeks. Yet this would rather have to be called munus ab obsequio than munus a lingua.

Thus, therefore, Suarez, rightly distinguishing case from case (l. c. n. 3): I say, therefore, 1. To ask some Prelate, and the same applies to others, to confer a benefice on someone without another promise or agreement, is never sufficient for simony, nor do those prayers have the notion of a price, nor will the Prelate who confers the benefice principally because of them commit simony, although otherwise he can sin. This is now the common and received opinion.

And below (ibid. n. 9): It is gathered from what has been said that it is not simony to induce by prayers a powerful man or a familiar of the Pope or of a Bishop, so that from him he may obtain a benefice for me.

But he then explains the crime of Simony thus (ibid. n. 12): I say secondly: if through the conferral of a benefice or another spiritual thing the conferrer intends to oblige another to pour forth prayers for him, then he properly receives a munus a lingua; whence if he receives under an express or tacit agreement, he commits simony; and the same holds as often as prayers and intercessions have preceded under an agreement or promise of a benefice, if they should be made. This assertion is common.

And he gives the reason, because prayers of this kind are something temporal and estimable by price, and they are made for the favor and gain of him who gives the spiritual thing because of them.... But for this notion of price to intervene, it is necessary that a promise or agreement interpose; for if such prayers precede without obligation, and the conferral of a benefice follows from gratitude alone, or conversely if a spiritual gift precedes and intercession for the giver follows from gratitude alone, it is not simony.

And here those things must not be omitted which Schmalzgrueber notes (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 114). For after he has observed that praises, recommendations, and prayers are called munus a lingua, e.g., if someone confers a benefice on another, one influential with a prince, with an agreement that this man interpose... his prayers with the prince... for obtaining a certain favor which he himself desires, he soon adds: Nor does it matter, even if the intercession is ordered to something spiritual, e.g., to obtaining through it an ecclesiastical benefice; because this intercession in itself is something temporal: therefore while a benefice is given for it, now a spiritual thing is given for a temporal thing; consequently simony is committed. Those ought to have kept these things before their eyes who, among the arguments by which they wish to confirm that the guilt of simony exists in buying with money prayers for obtaining a benefice, use also this, that those prayers are something spiritual. But indeed, if they are spiritual, we would have in the proposed case nothing but an exchange of a spiritual thing with another spiritual thing, and therefore not that temporal price which we call munus a lingua, and consequently neither simony; which nevertheless is contrary to the sacred canons and the common opinion of all.

Likewise the temporal thing attached to a spiritual thing is threefold: 1. antecedently, to which the spiritual thing accedes, as the right of patronage inhering in an estate; 2. consequently, that which depends on the spiritual thing, as the right of receiving tithes; 3. concomitantly, as labor in sacred functions. This labor attached to a spiritual thing is either intrinsically or extrinsically attached. It is called intrinsically attached if it is not easily separable from the thing itself; otherwise it is called extrinsically attached. Thus the celebration of Mass is labor intrinsically attached to a spiritual thing; but extraordinary fatigue, such as singing, delay until midday, a long or difficult journey to be undertaken for celebrating, and other similar things, pertain to labor extrinsically attached.

DIVISION. Simony is distinguished as:

1. Mental, if it is done merely internally or without agreement ⁵.

⁵ Mental simony is called not indeed the purpose of entering into a simoniacal agreement with another, but the will by which someone, without any external bargaining, intends to oblige another to render a spiritual thing while he confers a temporal thing on him, or vice versa. Thus, e.g., if someone commends his son to the conferrer of a vacant benefice, and meanwhile, under the appearance of a liberal gift, sends silver vessels to him with that internal intention of moving and obliging him to present his son. And to this entirely pertains proposition 45 from those proscribed by Innocent XI: To give a temporal thing for a spiritual thing is not simony if the temporal thing is not given as a price, but as a motive of conferring or effecting the spiritual thing.

To this also pertains if someone, for a temporal thing accepted, confers a spiritual thing on another as compensation owed from justice, or vice versa, for a spiritual thing accepted, a temporal thing.

2. Conventional, if an agreement indeed intervenes, but has in no way been put into execution ⁶.

⁶ Different partitions of simony occur among different authors. Some divide it in three ways, into mental, conventional, and real; and these indeed distinguish a twofold conventional simony, namely pure, when the agreement has been fulfilled on neither side, and mixed, if it has been fulfilled by only one of the two sides.

But others divide simony in two ways, into mental and conventional; but they distinguish this latter in three ways, namely 1. pure, when neither party has completed the handing over of the thing, 2. mixed, when only one party has handed over, 3. real, when handing over has been made on both sides. And it will indeed be useful to have noted these things for rightly understanding the authors.

But since a convention is the consent of two or more persons to the same resolution, it is clear that the promise of only one of the two parties does not suffice for conventional simony, but it is necessary that the promise have been accepted by the other; otherwise it will be called mental simony rather than conventional.

3. Real, if the agreement is fulfilled on each side ⁷.

⁷ Three things must be noted here: 1. That simony be reckoned real, and that penalties be incurred, it is not necessary that for the spiritual thing already handed over the simoniacal price have been paid in full, but it suffices that it have been handed over incipiently or in part.

2. Although after the spiritual thing has been handed over simony is held as conventional as long as the simoniacal price has not begun to be handed over, nevertheless as to the penalties of law it is drawn back to the time of the past agreement. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 35) and Reiffenstuel (eod. tit. n. 25).

3. Although certain persons thought (see in Suarez De Simon. Cap. 41. n. 7-9) that, as to the effect of incurring penalties, simony must be held as real when the spiritual thing has already been handed over, although the temporal price has not yet been handed over; and this both because of certain texts of law in which a penalty is threatened, although money has only been promised (see Schmalzgrueber Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 217), and because of confidential simony; nevertheless the more common opinion requires some handing over on each side; and Reiffenstuel clearly shows (Lib. 5.

Tit. 3. n. 239-243) that the texts objected are not efficacious for persuading the contrary. But that, once a benefice has been handed over in confidence, penalties are incurred even before the other has fulfilled his promise, this is so singular from the Constitutions of Pius IV and Pius V that not even the mediators of this simony themselves, although otherwise struck with excommunication on account of real simony (C. Cum detestabile 2. De simonia Extrav.), incur the penalty unless the handing over has been completed on both sides, since they are not comprehended in the Constitutions of Pius IV and Pius V.

There is added confidential Simony, which is done by any agreement or confidence in election or presentation to benefices, or in their resignation, etc. ⁸. - St. Lig. n. 49, 56, etc.

⁸ Confidential simony has special laws and penalties from the Constitution Romanum of Pius IV and the Constitution Intolerabilis of Pius V; and its matter is ecclesiastical benefices alone. Therefore if simoniacal agreements are made concerning pensions or any other right which is not properly comprehended under the name of benefice, they must be referred to common simony, but not to confidential simony.

But this special simony consists in this: that he who gives another a benefice in whatever way, that is, either by electing, or presenting, or postulating, or conferring, or giving in Commendam, or instituting, or resigning in favor of another, reserves something by his own authority from an agreement, express or tacit, either concerning the fruits of the benefice or concerning the benefice itself. I have said by an agreement: for the interior intention alone of obliging would induce mental simony, but not confidential simony; for which, nevertheless, according to § 3 of the Constitution of Pius V, the express consent of the one receiving the benefice is not required, but it suffices that, once the giver's reservation is known, he accepts the benefice.

Moreover, reservation concerning the benefice itself is manifold, as is also drawn from the Constitution of Pius V, and is distinguished, namely:

1. Reservation of access, when someone wishes the benefice to come finally to a blood-relative, or even to himself; meanwhile, however, he confers it in some way upon another by this agreement, that at the opportune time this man resign it to the blood-relative or to himself.

2. Reservation of ingress, when someone resigns to another, on this condition, a benefice already conferred upon himself but not yet possessed: that when this man relinquishes it for whatever reason, he himself, the one resigning, has the right of entering upon its possession.

3. Finally, reservation of regress, when someone resigns to another a benefice already possessed by himself by this agreement, that whenever it becomes vacant in any way, it is to return to the one resigning or to another certain person.

But the principal cause of prohibiting these resignations is hinted at also by the Council of Trent (Sess. 25. Cap. 7. De Reform.), namely a certain hateful species of hereditary succession in benefices; whence the Holy Synod also decrees that coadjutorships are to be granted most cautiously.

Simony is also distinguished as of divine, or natural, law, and of ecclesiastical law. The former is had if the thing exchanged simoniacally is spiritual from its own nature, as are indulgences, Sacraments, etc.; but the latter if the thing is spiritual only from the institution of the Church, as are benefices ⁹.

⁹ Others more clearly say: Simony of divine law is present where the dignity of a spiritual thing is disparaged by comparison and exchange with a temporal thing, namely when for a temporal thing there is given a thing per se truly spiritual or attached to the spiritual. But it is of ecclesiastical law when a spiritual thing or a thing attached to this is given for another likewise spiritual thing or a thing attached to this, as in the exchange of benefices without the authority of superiors, or also when a thing per se temporal is given for a temporal price, as if someone buys the office of steward, treasurer, etc. For although the malice of the aforesaid contempt is absent from these exchanges, nevertheless the Church deservedly forbade them from a motive of religion and reverence toward sacred things. Thus the common opinion, which also holds this latter as simony properly so called. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 24-25).

289. Principles. - I. For Simony it is required that a temporal thing be given or accepted, whether formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself, and in exchange for it, so that an equivalence of the spiritual thing with the temporal is made, or an exchange from the primary motive of having one for the other as a price or just compensation. The reason is clear from the very definition of Simony. Hence if some honest motive intervenes, by force of which the temporal and in turn the spiritual is bestowed, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impulsive cause, and therefore Simony would not exist.

I have said 1. formally, that is, that someone directly intends, in place of the temporal thing and on account of its estimation, to accept the spiritual.

I have said 2. virtually, namely that someone through a temporal thing wishes proximately and immediately to obtain a spiritual thing, and no other true and honest motive intervenes. For in this will there is virtually included the intention of exchanging one thing with the other. - Thus Suarez, etc.

II. It is lawful to give for a temporal price something attached to the spiritual antecedently and concomitantly extrinsically, provided the price is not increased on account of the spiritual thing attached. But it is in no way lawful to give for a price something attached to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically, or inseparably, nor something attached consequently.

The reason for the first is that the things and the labor of the action are truly in themselves estimable by price. Nevertheless, by Canon Law the sale of the balsam which is contained in Chrism is prohibited, although it preexists the consecration; because, since it is of slight price, the Bishop would seem to sell the Sacraments. - St. Lig. n. 72.

Nevertheless, concerning blessed oil or sacred Chrism, Scavini notes: A custom has prevailed in some cathedral Churches, that something is accepted from particular Churches for compensating expenses incurred in procuring the matter.

The reason for the second is that what is intrinsically attached to the spiritual is inseparable from it, whence the thing itself or action would be judged to be sold. Yet even if extrinsic labor is set aside, something can lawfully be accepted for sacred ministry by reason of stipend, or sustenance, as is clear from the practice of the Church. For natural equity demands that honest sustenance be granted to those who devote themselves to the utility of others. Hence Christ, Luke 10:7: The workman is worthy of his wage. - And the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:13: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and those who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel, to live from the Gospel.

For the administration of the Sacraments, however, nothing is to be accepted under this title, even from those giving spontaneously; but if anything is spontaneously offered, it can be accepted as alms. - S. Congr. Conc., February 1, 1593.

The reason for the third is that what is consequent is considered spiritual, or bound to the spiritual. This is also drawn from the special disposition of Canon Law.

III. Simony is a most grave sin ¹⁰; and if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter. But if Simony is of ecclesiastical law, smallness of matter can be found in it according to St. Lig. l. 3. n. 50 ¹¹. - The reason is that any spiritual thing whatsoever, from comparison with a temporal thing, is disparaged with great injury to God Himself. This is also clear from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8:20: May your money be with you unto perdition, because you have thought that the gift of God is possessed by money.

¹⁰ The common doctrine is that simony is reduced to the species of real sacrilege, by which a sacred thing is handled irreverently. For in fact there immediately appears profanation and injurious handling of sacred things, when they are equated to a temporal price, and thus are altogether cast down beneath the dignity by which they surpass every price. See Suarez (De Simon. Cap. 1. n. 7) and Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 12).

¹¹ The reason why lightness of matter can be found in simony of ecclesiastical law is this: that such simony is not forbidden as if a temporal price were given for a spiritual thing, but it is prohibited by the Church for removing every appearance of simony and avarice, and other disadvantages; whence through this injury is not properly done to a sacred thing, but only the precept of the Church is violated; and in this smallness of matter can be found.

Indeed, the smallness of the gift offered can excuse even from simony of divine law, insofar as a thing of light moment, e.g., some little birds, or rare flowers, or first fruits, since it is not apt to induce any obligation, e.g., of presenting to a Canonry, and therefore cannot have the notion of a price, by that very fact removes any suspicion of a contract, whether express or tacit. Pirhing (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 133).

Yet these things do not seem to be valid as to examiners in a competition for a parish. For to these, under the penalties proper to simony, it is forbidden to receive absolutely anything, whether from the candidate, who by giving would incur the same penalties, even if otherwise he was going to receive sufficient votes, or from others. And although some wish to excuse them from penalties on account of lightness of matter, as if someone bestowed moderate food or drink upon an examiner, nevertheless both the words of the decree, "absolutely anything," and the declaration of the S. Congregation stand in the way. See Thesaurus (De Poenis Eccl. V. Simonia, cap. 4).

290. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether it is Simony to give a temporal thing principally indeed on account of a spiritual thing, but not uniquely?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that even thus there is present a comparison of a temporal thing with a spiritual. For the motive which is added, however honest it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the former motive, on account of which the temporal thing is principally given. This is also clear from proposition 45 condemned by Innocent XI. - St. Lig. n. 54.

QUESTION 2. Whether it is Simony to give a temporal thing for conciliating a Superior to oneself with a view to obtaining a benefice?

Resp. No, if the primary intention is of giving the temporal thing gratuitously; because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the Superior. But otherwise if the spiritual thing is intended as a due recompense, and not as an effect of gratitude of soul. - St. Lig. n. 51.

QUESTION 3. Whether it is Simony to perform sacred functions principally on account of a stipend, or to receive something for one's doctrine?

Resp. to the 1st. No, at least more probably, because the stipend is not received as a price of a sacred thing, but as something owed to the person who is occupied for the sake of the neighbor. - St. Lig. n. 55. - Lacroix, n. 62, and others commonly, against some. Therefore if some inordinate affection intervenes, for every fault will be absent if need or another honest cause impels one to seek stipends of this kind, it will be a vice not of Simony, but of avarice.

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, if the instruction tends to the spiritual good of others, because it is a spiritual thing, unless, however, it is accepted under the title of stipend or sustenance. But otherwise if the instruction is merely temporal, e.g., in handing down an explanation of sacred Letters or theology ¹². - St. Lig. n. 94.

¹² St. Thomas: He who has knowledge, and has not received with this an office by which he is obliged to expend the use of knowledge for others, can lawfully accept the price of his doctrine or counsel, not as selling truth or knowledge, but as hiring out his services (2. 2. q. 100. art. 3. ad 3).

291. • QUESTION 4. Whether it is Simony to redeem oneself by money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, e.g., Sacraments, etc.?

Resp. No, at least more probably, because liberation from vexation, which alone is directly intended, is something temporal. - Hence you can give money to your enemy, if he attempts by fraud to impede the electors from favoring you. - St. Lig. n. 101, and others commonly. Indeed Doctors agree in this very thing, even if he wishes to impede by prayers alone ¹³. But you cannot give money to those who can harm or benefit by electing or presenting to a benefice; for to offer money to them lest they harm would be the same as to offer it so that they benefit, namely that they not deny consent. - St. Lig. n. 99. Nor is it lawful for you to give money to your competitor so that he desist from competing for the benefice; because there is no unjust vexation for you to redeem, and you would be preparing a direct way to the benefice for yourself through money, which is simoniacal. - Thus the more common opinion.

¹³ Thus St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 101 and 102). The reason: because if it is lawful to give money so that another cease from vexing me against justice, it will also be lawful to give so that he cease to vex against charity.

QUESTION 5. Whether it is Simony to give or accept something for entrance into Religion?

Resp. 1. It is certain that it is not lawful to give or accept something for entrance alone; because this would be an exchange of a sacred thing, of which sort Religion is, with a temporal thing.

2. It is also certain that it is lawful for a poor monastery to exact 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, weighed down by burdens, collapse.

3. It is likewise certain that it is lawful for a monastery to exact 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 for the monastery to be under so grave a burden for them. The Religion of the Friars Minor, however, by special decree can accept nothing.

4. But it is controverted if there is question of a wealthy monastery. St. Lig. n. 92 denies that it is lawful, unless the one to be received is old or infirm. Yet not a few others affirm, provided money is not exacted for the entrance itself, but is received or requested only by reason of sustenance, or of dowry ¹⁴. Besides, now every doubt vanishes because of the difficulty of the times. For there are found no monasteries founded so opulently that they in no way need outside help for the present and the future. Besides, Nuns can always exact the established dowry ¹⁵, as is clear from many decrees.

¹⁴ Namely, from the indult that nuns can receive a dowry from those entering, even if the monastery is rich, certain persons wished generally to infer the same concerning monasteries of men, so that at least under the title of sustenance something can lawfully be exacted.

But unless there is question of goods spontaneously offered, because every danger and appearance of simony ceases in these, although otherwise even a gratuitous donation can be prohibited for other causes, as happens in a donation bestowed upon examiners of parish priests, the truer and common opinion with St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 100. art. 3. ad 4) denies this, and rests on C. Quoniam 40. De Simonia. The reason is that the revenues of a monastery are ecclesiastical, ordered to supplying gratuitously the sustenance of religious. Therefore by the very fact that someone is received into Religion, he has a right to receive sustenance from the revenues of the monastery. Therefore under the title of sustenance, which a rich monastery is equal to providing, nothing can be exacted. But when the title of sustenance is lacking, it now remains that something seems to be exacted for the entrance itself. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 200-201).

¹⁵ Yet a threefold limitation must be added: 1. that the agreed dowry not be given for the entrance itself; for this would be simoniacal, even if the monastery is poor. - 2. That no one unsuitable be admitted from the sole hope of receiving something temporal from her; for thus the end of the reception, and indeed the principal end intended by those receiving, would be something temporal. But it is simoniacal to give something spiritual on account of an extrinsic temporal end, especially if this is principally intended. - 3. That apart from necessity a dowry not be exacted indiscriminately from all; for thus the poor, often more worthy and suitable, would be utterly excluded from the religious state, while others, perhaps less suitable, as being rich, would be received; which indeed is unreasonable. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 197).

292. • QUESTION 6. Whether a Priest commits Simony who wagers a Mass with a layman on the outcome of a game, while the partner sets out a temporal price?

Resp. No per se, because in this way a spiritual thing is not properly equated to 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. For he does not sin who offers to 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 wagers a Mass on the outcome of a game while the other sets out 20 asses. - Thus Voit, n. 506, against others. - Besides, a game of this kind rarely lacks some scandal, and therefore it must always be dissuaded.

QUESTION 7. Whether a Priest commits Simony who for a Mass exacts a stipend above the customary rate or the rate established by the Bishop?

Resp. No, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind; because, since he has another title for exacting remuneration, the comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. He would indeed sin against obedience or justice by exacting more than is fair, but by no means against Religion. Voit, n. 497, however, contradicts this, because, he says, then every just title for exacting the temporal thing is lacking ¹⁶.

¹⁶ Voit is not alone in holding this opinion; for Reiffenstuel also teaches it (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 200), and Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 100) with Friderich (De Simon. Cap. 2. n. 67), and Azor (Part. 3. Lib. 12. Cap. 6. q. 1), and Suarez inclines to it (De Simon. Cap. 47. n. 6), whom therefore the Salmanticenses falsely cite for the opposite (Tract. 19. Cap. 2. n. 23), besides gratuitously attributing this opposite to Dominic Soto and Toletus. Add that others affirm that at least presumed simony is found in this. Thus Bonacina (De Simon. Disp. 1. Q. 6. P. 2. n. 3), Palaus (De Simon. Disp. 3. Punct. 9. n. 2), Filliuccius (Tract. 45. Cap. 10. q. 7. n. 28), and Lessius (Lib. 2. Cap. 35. n. 51).

293. • QUESTION 8. What are the penalties enacted against simoniacs?

Resp. 1. Only confidential Simony and real Simony in the conferral of Orders and benefices, and in entrance into Religion, are subject to ecclesiastical penalties ¹⁷: for the Pontiff Paul II, renewing all penalties previously enacted against simoniacs, speaks only of the aforesaid species of Simony; indeed, according to not a few, the penalties for simoniacal entrance into Religion have gone into desuetude; at least now the case of incurring them is very rare ¹⁸.

¹⁷ ** Except, however, with Fagnanus (In cap. Nobis De Simonia n. 13), even merely conventional simony in the election of the Roman Pontiff. For Julius II, Const. Cum tam divino, January 14, 1505, § 1, established penalties against electors who have committed simony by giving, promising, or receiving monies, goods of any kind, castles, offices or benefices, or promises and obligations, by themselves or by another or others in whatever manner and in whatever way, etc. But you have the penalties listed in § 5 of the same Constitution. But of these and other penalties, thus Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX (Const. Apostolicae Sedis): But the censures, whether of excommunication, or suspension, or interdict, which by Our Constitutions or those of Our Predecessors, or by the sacred canons, besides those which We have listed, have been enacted, and thus far have persisted in their force for the election of the Roman Pontiff..., all these We will and declare to be firm and to remain in their force.

¹⁸ ** In the preceding Edition it was noted that penalties of this kind are rarely incurred, and for more than one reason. And 1. because the Constitution of Urban IV (Extrav. Sane 1. De Simonia), which inflicts the penalties, did not seem to have been received everywhere, and Navarrus, most learned, as Schmalzgrueber says (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 255), in the Apostolic Constitutions, contends that it was not received; and Lessius, Palaus, Silvester, and every other who taught that excommunication is incurred only on account of simony in sacred Orders and Benefices had followed him. - 2. Apart from nuns, who have permission to receive a dowry and to make agreement concerning it, in monasteries of men also, if anything is received, it is almost always received only because it has been spontaneously offered; or, even if it is exacted, the exaction is given an honorable color because of the poverty of monasteries, so that it may seem necessary for the sustenance of the professed; or finally, if the monastery is rich, although the crime of simony is not absent, nevertheless the constitution could seem not to have been received as to penalties, as Schmalzgrueber notes (l. c. n. 256). But since in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, among excommunications latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff, there is listed (n. 10) the one inflicted against those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into Religion, therefore what was customarily said concerning the Constitution of Urban IV not having been received, or at least not having been received as to that penalty, must now be held as obsolete.

Resp. 2. The penalties against simoniacal ordination from the old law were: As regards the one ordaining ¹⁹:

¹⁹ He must be understood not only as one who conferred orders, but also as one who presented for ordination; this office was ordinarily that of the Archdeacon, whose duty it was to examine whether those to be ordained had the title of ordination, whether they were worthy, etc. Also comprehended were both the local Ordinaries who had given dimissorial letters for ordination to be received from some Bishop, and also Regular superiors who had given letters of this kind to their subjects.

Moreover, under the name of Ordination here there seems also to be comprehended the conferral of first tonsure, as is clear from these words of Sixtus V, Const. Sanctum § 6: But if any Prelate or Abbot, all things indeed being observed... which ought to be observed in the conferral of tonsure itself and of orders, shall hereafter have marked with tonsure or promoted suitable and fit persons, yet having received from those upon whom he confers tonsure or order money, a price, or a reward simoniacally; We will that, besides the other censures and penalties previously inflicted and imposed by the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions against those simoniacally ordaining and ordained, from which We in no way intend to derogate, also each and all the things aforesaid should have place in those thus promoting and promoted. From these words perhaps an easy way is paved for solving the question which was debated among the Doctors, whether the penalties enacted against simoniacal ordinations ought to be extended to the simoniacal conferral of first tonsure; authors indeed usually touched upon this in such a way that they said even the denying opinion was probable, led by this reason, that the Council of Trent (Sess. 21. Cap. 1. De Reform.) decrees against this crime only the penalties inflicted by law; but the laws inflict penalties on the simoniacal conferral of Orders, under which name they denied that tonsure comes (see St. Alph. Lib. 3. n. 110). - But indeed in the Constitution of Sixtus we have a twofold kind of penalties: namely 1. penalties and censures inflicted by law; 2. penalties and censures added by Sixtus V himself. Now granted, then, that the special penalties added by Sixtus V are held now to have been abrogated by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis; yet it will deservedly seem rather hard to think that the Council of Trent, and after it Sixtus V, willed indeed, as it seems, to restrain by penalties contained in law, some penalties certainly, even the simoniacal conferral of first tonsure, and nevertheless, while they appeal to the laws, so lapsed in memory that what the schools call the supposition could be denied them. But whatever may be said of this, it ought to have been certain at least that the penalties and censures established in the Constitution of Sixtus on account of simoniacal conferral of tonsure could not have been avoided, so that the one Ordaining (§ 2) existed suspended from the conferral of any orders whatsoever and therefore even of tonsure itself, and from the execution of all Pontifical functions, and interdicted from entrance into the Church. Besides, the uncertain opinions of authors on this matter seem to have to be traced to this, that for a long time in many places this Constitution of Sixtus was unknown.

** The VV. complain (Pag. 241): 1. that in this Note it is reproached to Authors that, appealing to the laws, they lapsed in memory and forgot what Sixtus V established; 2. that (Pag. 243) the uncertain opinions of Authors are attributed to ignorance of the Constitution of Sixtus, while, they say, all the cited Authors often cite Sixtus.

Resp. To 1. I deny the whole. For as is clear to one reading, the

Authors are not there censured as having lapsed in memory, but it is said that it is hard to suppose that the Fathers of Trent and Sixtus V lapsed in memory in this way, etc. Add that in the Note those Authors are said rather to have been ignorant of the Constitution of Sixtus than to have lapsed in memory; which then the VV. themselves criticize.

Resp. To 2. It was to be desired that the VV. would better prove what they say, namely that the cited Authors were so far from being ignorant of the Constitution of Sixtus that they often cite it. For they themselves cite six; but four of these, namely Palaus, Reginaldus, Lacroix, and Viva, do not name the Constitution of Sixtus, and therefore seem to have been ignorant of it. But Billuart and the Salmanticenses indeed cite it, yet they do not seem to have read it; otherwise they would have made some effort to solve the difficulty which arises from it. Besides, that the Constitution of Sixtus was unknown in many places, as is said in the Note, is confirmed by the testimony of Lessius; for the VV. themselves (Pag. 242) report these words of Lessius: Yet I think this Constitution of Sixtus is unknown in very many places.

1. excommunication reserved to the Pope;

2. suspension from the conferral of any Order, even of first Tonsure;

3. suspension from the execution of all pontifical functions;

4. interdict from entrance into the Church;

5. suspension from the administration of the Church ²⁰. - Schmalzgrueber, Lib. 5. tit. 3. n. 257. But since none of these censures is confirmed or renewed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, by that very fact all these must be held as abrogated.

²⁰ ** The excommunication against those simoniacally ordaining was already reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in Extrav. Cum detestabile 2. de Simonia. But Sixtus V, Const. Sanctum, January 5, 1588, as to it expressly derogated from the disposition of Trent, Cap. Liceat Sess. XXIV. Cap. 6. De Reform., when the crime was occult; and the same had to be said about absolution from other censures, from which therefore the Bishop, whether the cases were occult or public, could not absolve.

Moreover, the fact that St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 117) attributed that Constitution of Sixtus V to St. Pius V, adding that it had not been received as to this, is entirely due to the confusion introduced by the Salmanticenses, where they write (De Simon. Cap. 4. n. 34) that from excommunication incurred on account of simony in Order, Benefice, and Religion..., if they are not public, the Bishop can absolve. Nor, they say, does the Bull of Pius V revoking this and other faculties of Religious stand against this, because as to this part it has not been received. And they cite Lessius, Sa, Suarez, and Palaus. - But not Pius V, but Sixtus V, as has been said, had taken this faculty away from bishops, yet not as to all those censures, but only as to the simoniacal conferral of the Most Holy Orders. It is false besides that Sa and Suarez favored this error; indeed Suarez teaches the opposite (De Simon. Cap. 61. n. 6). Finally Lessius (Lib. 2. Cap. 35. n. 134) says only that the Constitution of Sixtus, not indeed of Pius V, is unknown in many places, and therefore there it has not been received by usage.

Nor should it have stood in the way that the Constitution of Sixtus V was reduced to the terms of common law by Clement VIII (Const. Romanum, February 28, 1595). For this must be understood as to the other things contained there; for the penalties and censures against simoniacal ordination enacted by Sixtus V had also been confirmed by Clement VIII, as the Doctors commonly note. Thus Clement (Const. cit. § 2): We restrict and reduce the aforesaid letters of Sixtus V to the terms of the Holy Canons..., and to the disposition of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and also We moderate and abolish the censures and penalties in the same letters of Sixtus against whomsoever, EXCEPT THOSE INFLICTED AGAINST THOSE SIMONIACALLY ORDAINING AND ORDAINED, WHICH WE WILL TO REMAIN IN THEIR FORCE.

** Here the VV. heap up through fifteen columns (Pag. 230-237) texts from Authors, so that they may exempt from any mark those words of St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 117): But Lessius and the Salmanticenses say that the Bull to the contrary of St. Pius V has not been received by usage in this matter. - Resp. St. Alphonsus took these things not from Lessius, but from the Salmanticenses. For 1. otherwise he would have written Sixtus V, and not St. Pius V. Besides, the opinion of the Salmanticenses and of Lessius is not the same. They universally affirm that the Bull of St. Pius, that is, Sixtus, V, as to this part has not been received. But Lessius more narrowly: that it is unknown IN VERY MANY PLACES, and therefore has not been received by usage. Therefore even among the writers cited by the VV., Billuart, for example, says circumspectly that it has not been received everywhere. And Pichler: Except simony in the conferral of Orders, WHERE the Constitution of Sixtus V HAS BEEN RECEIVED. And Collet: But where the Bull of Sixtus V has not been received as to this. Antoine with Lessius: That it has not been received by usage in very many places. Holzmann: Where the Constitution of Sixtus V has been received. But St. Alphonsus writes without limitation, with the Salmanticenses, who, against the rules of law, extend the privilege or exemption of custom to places in which the custom does not exist, that the Bull has not been received. Therefore the Holy Doctor derived those opinions from the Salmanticenses. Besides, these things now pertain merely to history; and therefore there is no profit in dwelling on them.

2. From the old law as regards the one ordained:

1. excommunication reserved to the Pope ²¹;

²¹ It was reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, even if the crime was occult, as was said above.

2. suspension from the execution at least of the Order simoniacally received ²²;

²² ** The question was debated among the Doctors whether this suspension had to be restricted to the order badly received, or whether it had to be extended also to other orders previously received. This controversy now, since that censure has already been removed, no longer has place.

3. likewise suspension from the hope of ascending to higher Orders ²³;

²³ ** Since suspension from the hope of ascending to higher Orders is not properly a censure, but rather an irregularity, therefore this seems to remain in its force. For by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis all censures indeed were removed, except those which the Supreme Pontiff declared and established there to be in force; but as to other penalties which do not properly come under the name of censure, nothing was decreed or renewed in that Constitution. If, however, the crime is occult, will even the Bishop be able to dispense from this irregularity from cap. Liceat? It seems it must be denied; for, as is contained in the preceding Note, Sixtus V, as to the penalties inflicted on this crime, derogated from the faculty given to Bishops by the Council of Trent of dispensing in irregularities on account of an occult crime. Unless, as an exception, the Constitution has not been received by usage somewhere.

And 4. if suspensions of this kind were violated, there was added privation of offices and benefices as regards a secular Cleric, but privation of both active and passive voice as regards a regular Cleric.

But by force of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, censures of this kind no longer have place ²⁴.

²⁴ Although it is certain and manifest that by force of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis all censures have ceased which had been enacted by Sixtus V and confirmed by Clement VIII against simoniacal Ordinations; nevertheless doubt can deservedly arise whether, for another reason, some censures enacted against this crime still remain in force. The reason for doubting can be from this, that in the aforesaid Constitution of Pius IX it is decreed that those censures should remain firm in their force which the Holy Synod of Trent inflicted. Moreover, the Synod of Trent (sess. 21. Cap. 1. de reform.) established that those guilty of simony in the conferral of any orders whatsoever, even clerical tonsure... incur ipso facto the penalties inflicted by law; but undoubtedly censures inflicted by law upon that crime are found.

But if the form of the words of the Constitution is examined, these seem altogether to refer to censures which the Holy Synod established by itself. For thus concerning the censure of excommunication: Besides those thus far listed, those also whom the sacrosanct Council of Trent excommunicated, whether with absolution reserved to the Supreme Pontiff or to Ordinaries, or without any reservation, We likewise declare to be thus excommunicated. And again: Finally, all others whom the sacrosanct Council of Trent decreed to be suspended or interdicted by law itself, We will and declare that they are subject in like manner to suspension or interdict. But it would be said less properly that the Holy Synod excommunicated, and indeed by declaring whether it reserved absolution or not to the Roman Pontiff or to Ordinaries, and likewise decreed that certain persons were suspended or interdicted, when it was merely threatening or confirming in general penalties inflicted by law.

Furthermore, as Peter Avanzini rightly argues (Append. ad Comment. de Constit. Apost. Sedis Pag. 156), this is sufficiently derived from the purpose of the Constitution, which was that the most grave disadvantages might be met which arose from the great number of censures that had been ordered and promulgated through the individual ages, of which certain ones, with times and customs changed, had fallen away from the end and causes on account of which they had been imposed, or from their former usefulness and opportuneness; for which reason, not infrequently, whether in those who have the care of souls or in the faithful themselves, doubts, anxieties, and distresses arose. Hence the Supreme Pontiff says: We, wishing to meet disadvantages of this kind, ordered a full review of the same to be made and proposed to Us, so that, after diligent consideration had been applied, We might establish which of them it was fitting to preserve and retain, and which it was fitting to moderate or abrogate. Therefore, that review having been made... We decree that from whatever censures... only those which We insert in this very Constitution should thereafter have force. Therefore the purpose, for removing the aforesaid disadvantages, was that a certain number and list of censures be established. But that purpose would fail, nor would the aforesaid disadvantages cease, if censures comprehended through general words, renewed or confirmed by the Synod of Trent, are understood.

Resp. 3. The penalties on account of real simony in benefice matter ²⁵ are:

²⁵ These things must be taken of benefices properly so called, of which sort pensions, or temporary vicariates, etc., are not; hence he who sells a spiritual pension indeed commits simony, but does not incur the penalties set beneath. But benefices are understood not only as secular, e.g., bishoprics, canonries, deaneries, parishes, etc., but also as regular, of which sort generally are the prelatures of Regulars which do not consist in a bare commission revocable at will, but in an ordinary office, such as generalate, provincialate, abbacy, provostship, priorship, rectorship, guardianship, etc.

1. excommunication reserved to the Pope; this penalty indeed is incurred not only by the one conferring and the one receiving the benefice, but also by those by whose mediation and cooperation the simoniacal contract is completed. For in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, among excommunications latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff, there is had (n. 8) also the one inflicted against those guilty of real simony in any Benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices ²⁶.

²⁶ ** If the crime is occult, the Bishop can absolve from this excommunication from Cap. Liceat. For thus expressly in the cited Constitution Apostolicae Sedis: Nevertheless We will that the faculty of absolving granted to Bishops by the Synod of Trent, sess. XXIV. cap. 6. de reform., remain firm in whatsoever censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our Constitution, excepting only those which We have declared to be reserved in a special manner to the same Apostolic See. But the excommunication against those guilty of real simony in any Benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices, does not pertain to those reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner. Therefore.

Before the aforesaid Constitution of Pius IX, by force of a special Privilege the Mendicants also could absolve from an excommunication of this kind, yet with the limitation added by Clement VIII, namely outside Italy, and within the City, by which name the Doctors understand also the district of the City. But whether, after privileges of this kind and all faculties of absolving from papal cases were revoked, suppressed, and abolished in the Constitution mentioned, the Apostolic See, which through that Constitution certainly did not take away from itself the faculty of granting privileges anew, granted anything to certain persons, must be asked of the same mendicants.

2. nullity of election or presentation to a benefice or to any Dignity ²⁷;

²⁷ Some things must be noted here. And 1. One guilty of Simony is not defended by the rule concerning triennial possession, because he is expressly excepted where it is said: without simoniacal entry. Nor does it help one presented or elected simoniacally that the confirmation or institution lacked this vice; for if simony was committed in the prior act, all following acts are void. But otherwise if one legitimately elected or presented obtains confirmation or institution simoniacally; for then this alone, in which the vice was committed, is voided. Therefore if by dispensation the incapacity contracted through this later act is removed, there would not be need of a new election. Reiffenstuel (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 265).

2. The act is null even if, in an election which is made by many by right of a community or college, only one, while the greater part elects rightly, casts his vote simoniacally. But otherwise if presentation is made by many as individuals, so that there are as many presentations as patrons; for the simoniacal conferral of one does not infect the legitimate conferral of another. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 266).

3. The provision is void, even if the one promoted himself did not commit the simony, but another did, while he himself was ignorant; except if this man did it in fraud, namely so that he might render the elected or presented person incapable of the benefice. Schmalzgrueber (l. c.).

4. A fortiori, however, the provision is void if the one provided, after he knew that money was to be given by another, not in fraud but in his favor, did not contradict it; or indeed contradicted, but nevertheless, not being ignorant that the other had not desisted from the simoniacal work, accepted the benefice, or even before the benefice was obtained refunded to the payer the money simoniacally paid by another for him. Thus from Cap. Sicut 33. De Simonia.

5. Yet the provision will be valid if the one promoted, after the simoniacal plan of another has become known, expressly contradicted it, although afterward, notwithstanding this contradiction, with himself ignorant, the benefice is in fact obtained through money. But if, after the benefice has been obtained, the matter having become known, he refunds to the simoniacal payer the money paid without his knowledge before the benefice was obtained, he indeed stains himself with simony, unless, as many say, he does this merely from friendship, and lest the other suffer harm because of him; nevertheless he does not seem to incur ipso facto the penalty of voiding; hence he will be able to retain the benefice until the sentence of privation has been pronounced. The reason: because that maxim, ratification is drawn back and is equated to mandate, must be understood of those things which depend on the consent of the one ratifying, but not of those things which before this consent have already been fully and absolutely completed. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 266).

6. To privation of the benefice there is added the obligation of restoring the fruits acquired from it. This indeed holds both if the simony was perpetrated by the beneficiary, and if by another while the beneficiary himself knew and did not contradict, or indeed contradicted but nevertheless accepted the benefice with knowledge of the simony intervening notwithstanding his protestation. The reason is that since he has neither good faith nor a title in which the right of receiving the fruits is rooted, he does not make them his own, and therefore he is bound to restore them. And this must be understood not only as regards extant fruits, but also as regards those consumed; indeed also as regards those which could have been received by a legitimate possessor, as is commonly handed down concerning a possessor in bad faith. Nevertheless, he is not bound to restore stole fees, and the fruits of other parochial functions; for these are not received as revenues of the benefice, but as stipends of the office. See St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 111).

7. But if the simony was committed by another while the beneficiary was ignorant, he gains the fruits as long as he remains in good faith, no otherwise than any possessor in good faith. Yet since the conferral is invalid of itself, unless the simony was committed by another in fraud, as was said above, when ignorance ceases the fruits which are extant must be restored. For the possessor did not obtain ownership of these except only revocably. Schmalzgrueber (l. c.).

8. But if this man for three years has persisted with the same good faith in peaceful possession of the benefice, he is defended, as Schmalzgrueber says (ibid. n. 267), by the rule concerning triennial possession, so that when that three years has elapsed he is bound to restore neither the fruits nor the benefice. And this doctrine indeed did not please some. But, Rigantius says (ad Reg. 36. Cancell. n. 232), the contrary opinion is the more received in practice, namely that the exception of this rule applies to one provided with a benefice who is ignorant of simony committed by a third party. On this matter the same Rigantius brings forward both the support of many and very weighty Doctors and several decisions of the Sacred Roman Rota; and one may see others, both Theologians and Canonists, in Schmalzgrueber (l. c.) and Reiffenstuel (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 278), who moreover dissolve the little reasons objected both by the Gallican Cabassutius and by the more-than-Gallican Van Espen in his proscribed work.

3. perpetual incapacity, or, according to the opinion of certain persons, incapacity for obtaining the same benefice at least on that occasion ²⁸;

²⁸ Schmalzgrueber also thought (l. c. n. 268) that the incapacity could be restricted to obtaining the benefice on that occasion. But, as Reiffenstuel says (l. c. n. 266), although in Cap. penult. De Electione it seems that one obtaining a benefice simoniacally is incapable of obtaining it only on that occasion, as the gloss also holds..., nevertheless after the aforesaid Constitution of Pius V, beginning Cum primum, April 1, 1566, because of its words, the matter is beyond controversy, that he is perpetually incapable of obtaining the same benefice, unless the Pope dispenses.

But the words of Pius V (Const. cit. § 8) are these: He who shall have obtained a benefice or ecclesiastical office simoniacally, shall similarly be deprived of those by law itself, and shall be bound to restitution of all the fruits which he has received, and shall be PERPETUALLY incapable OF OBTAINING THEM and any other benefices.

4. incapacity for other benefices after the judge's sentence, at least declaratory ²⁹.

²⁹ Concerning this matter Suarez (De Simon. Lib. 4. Cap. 58. n. 16): Where it is not clearly certain that the Constitution of Pius V has been received in the former rigorous sense, I think that in practice the opinion of Navarrus can be observed with a safe conscience, and that dispensation for other benefices is not necessary when the delict has not been brought to the contentious forum and declared in it. To which opinion, besides others, Pirhing (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 170) and Reiffenstuel (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 267) give support.

But as regards the faculty of dispensing from the incapacity of obtaining a benefice simoniacally conferred, these things must be retained:

1. If the benefice is simple, namely one which has no jurisdiction, administration, care of souls, or special preeminence attached, concerning which see Schmalzgrueber Lib. 3. Tit. 5. n. 30-32, but at most obliges to mere assistance in choir or to service of the altar; and if simony intervened while the beneficiary was ignorant; the Bishop can dispense so that this man may retain the benefice, or better, so that he may be able to acquire it anew, provided he first resigns it. This is the common and certain doctrine from Cap. Si alicuius 59. De Electione. Nor does what Vallensis adds (in Schmalzgrueber h. tit. n. 268) seem to be admitted, that there is not even need of the Bishop's dispensation; this opinion deservedly seems to have had no other follower.

2. Indeed the same faculty must be attributed to the Bishop when the benefice is indeed double, but its conferral has not been declared void by sentence. For, once a sentence of this kind occurs, recourse would have to be had to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation at least on that occasion. It is said on that occasion; because if the same benefice is first conferred on another, and it happens to become vacant again, it certainly will be able to be conferred on him who had been ignorant of the simony committed by another in his provision. See Reiffenstuel (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 337).

3. But when either the beneficiary himself, or another while he was not ignorant, committed the simony, it is certain among all that the Bishop cannot dispense with the beneficiary so that he may be able to acquire that benefice either then or on another occasion. And this has place even if the crime is occult, as is clear, other things omitted, from the declaration of the S. Congregation, which Palaus reports thus from Farinaccius (De Simon. punct. 28. n. 3): A Bishop, although he can absolve secretly from simony, nevertheless cannot rehabilitate a simoniac to obtain benefices in the future, nor to retain those which he retains through occult simony. Reiffenstuel (l. c. n. 340).

Resp. 4. The penalties on account of completed confidential Simony, that is, when a benefice has been given and accepted in confidence, even if the agreement has not yet been fulfilled by the other party ³⁰, are:

³⁰ As regards mediators, however, as was said above, simony is not considered completed, and therefore the penalties do not have place, unless the handing over on each side has at least been begun.

1. papal excommunication; for the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis establishes an excommunication reserved to the Pontiff (n. 9) against those guilty of confidential simony in any Benefices whatsoever, of whatever dignity they may be: by which words even major Prelates, not excluding Cardinals, are comprehended ³¹;

³¹ As regards these penalties some confusion had crept in among most authors. For since two Constitutions were had concerning this matter, one of Pius IV, beginning Romanum Pontificem, October 16, 1564, the other of Pius V, beginning Intolerabilis, June 1, 1569, some knew only the first, others only the second; but few, mentioning each, defined the matter exactly from each, as Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 270).

Pius IV therefore punished major Prelates, namely Cardinals and also Bishops, Patriarchs, Bishops, and Archbishops, with interdict from entrance into the church, but punished the rest with excommunication latae sententiae. Namely, to Cardinals, he says, in the cited Constitution § 4, and to other Prelates of this kind, in virtue of holy obedience and under penalty of interdict from entrance into the church, but to the rest under penalty of major excommunication latae sententiae, to be incurred ipso facto by those acting contrary, from which they cannot be absolved except by Us or by the Roman Pontiff existing at the time, except those situated at the point of death, We more strictly forbid. But Pius V (Const. cit. § 8) enacted against all those guilty of this crime the penalty of excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the Roman Pontiff; and on November 14 of the same year, 1569, he declared, which declaration is placed beneath the same Constitution in the Roman Bullarium, that all Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church are comprehended in the aforesaid Constitution and letters and in each of their parts, even as to privations and each and all censures and penalties contained in them.

And from these things the sense of the words of St. Alphonsus must be drawn (Lib. 3. n. 89): Through this simony... the penalties incurred are: 1. interdict from entrance into church; 2. papal excommunication ipso facto; 3. nullity of conferral, etc., namely that all, as many as commit this crime, incurred papal excommunication ipso facto; but the major Prelates were also struck with interdict from entrance into church; for neither did the words of Pius V allow the major Prelates to be exempt from the penalty of excommunication, nor did they remove the penalty decreed against them by Pius IV. But now by force of the new Constitution of Pius IX, the penalty of excommunication indeed remains, comprehending the same persons as the Constitution of Pius V; however, the penalty of interdict from entrance into the Church, which Pius IV had established against major Prelates, has been removed.

2. nullity of resignation or conferral made in confidence;

3. incapacity for obtaining the same benefice, and other benefices;

4. privation of benefices and pensions which had previously been legitimately obtained, yet after the judge's sentence ³²;

³² St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 111. q. 3) proves, with the common opinion of the Doctors, that the judge's sentence, at least declaratory of the crime, is required, from the principle that it is too rigid for the guilty man to execute penalties on himself and deprive himself of goods possessed. He himself, however, doubts whether this holds as regards examiners of parochial benefices; since in Sess. 24. Cap. 18 of the Council of Trent it is proclaimed that these cannot be absolved unless the benefices have been dismissed. Nevertheless others judge that this penalty has not been received with such great rigor. See Thesaurus, De Poenis Eccl. V. Simonia Cap. 4. n. 1.

5. reservation of the same benefice to the Apostolic See ³³. - See Schmalzgrueber, ibid. n. 270.

³³ Nevertheless it must be inspected whether concordats have intervened with the Apostolic See. For if in the concordats it is established that outside papal months, by no reservation or disposition not contained in the concordats themselves, free conferral is interdicted to Ordinaries, then not even by force of confidential simony is this reservation judged to have place. Thus, e.g., Sixtus V (Const. Pastoralis officii, August 13, 1587), as regards the kingdom of France, permitted benefices vacant by reason of confidence to the free conferral of Ordinaries, provided that the collators themselves had not been participants in or consenting to the crime. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 273).

294. You will resolve. - 1. He does not commit Simony who exchanges Relics with Relics; because thus the spiritual is not given for the temporal. The same must be said of other sacred things, if you except benefices, whose exchange, lest it be done by one's own authority, has been prohibited by the Church.

2. He does not commit Simony who sells blessed wax, rosaries or medals to which indulgences are attached ³⁴, or sacred Relics enclosed in precious cases, or other similar things; because these are not sold by reason of the sacred thing, but by reason of the price of the temporal thing attached; but otherwise if, on account of the sacred thing itself, these were sold at a higher price.

³⁴ Yet by several decrees of the S. Congregation of Indulgences it has been forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale.

3. He does not commit Simony who pays money to a heretical prince, lest he be impeded from entrance into the Church or from frequenting religious assemblies of Catholics; or to a malicious man, lest he be unjustly defamed by him and kept away from a benefice to which he has or can have a right. The reason is that in this way the temporal thing is not given for a spiritual right, but for removing or preventing an injury, which is something temporal ³⁵.

³⁵ Not any condition joined to the conferral of a spiritual thing induces simony, but only that which brings a new burden or a new obligation of justice by way of exchange. Therefore it is not simony if I give a spiritual thing in order to obtain a temporal thing which is owed to me by title of justice, but is denied through injustice alone; and likewise if by the conferral of a spiritual thing I wish to avert an evil to be unjustly inflicted on me, e.g., lest a debtor unjustly delay payment, or lest I lose a credit, lest someone unjustly harm my life or reputation, etc.

4. They are not to be accused of Simony who serve gratuitously or for an inadequate wage, so that on this occasion they may demonstrate their probity or skill with the hope of sometime obtaining some benefice; because they do not expect that spiritual thing as the price of their labors. - Elbel, n. 618.

295. • 5. Nor are they culpable of Simony who from gratitude furnish a temporal thing on account of a spiritual thing accepted, and vice versa ³⁶. Thus the Chaplain would not sin who would more willingly render services to the Bishop from whom he obtained a benefice, nor the Bishop who would confer a benefice on a Cleric in recognition of services; because these are not furnished as a price; besides, it is honorable and praiseworthy to show oneself grateful for service received. Yet one must carefully beware lest disguised Simony lie hidden under the title of gratitude; but this would happen where an implicit agreement intervened of giving a benefice for temporal service, or vice versa.

³⁶ Refer other cases to this. For it is not simony, although one may sin for other causes, to confer a benefice on account of blood-relationship, or friendship, or in order to relieve the need of another, even if in this way someone intends to exempt himself from the burden of sustaining either a blood-relative or another by alms. For upon the one receiving the spiritual thing there is by no means imposed the burden of returning something temporal by agreement.

Say the same with St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 59), if you give a temporal thing to someone so that he may perform something spiritual for his own advantage, e.g., if you promise gifts to a young man so that he may frequent the sacraments, or a dowry to a girl if she enters a monastery. For no exchange intervenes when the spiritual and the temporal together fall to one person. Nor does it stand in the way, contrary to what the Salmanticenses thought (De Simon. Cap. 1. n. 41. in St. Alph. l. c.), that per accidens this perhaps redounds to some utility of the giver also. For he does not here receive the spiritual thing, and therefore there is present no irreverence of estimating a spiritual thing by a temporal price.

** There are two things which the VV. reprehend in this Note, concerning which they then discuss through ten columns (Pag. 244-249). And 1. The things contained in the Note, they say (Pag. 245), are rather confused; and therefore before the rest (?) it must be better distinguished. Resp. In the Note there is reported the doctrine which St. Alphonsus also approves. Indeed, the Holy Doctor afterward, citing the Salmanticenses and some Authors from those cited by the Salmanticenses, proposes another case in which the same Salmanticenses with the Authors previously cited find the stain of Simony. But this second case was not brought forward in the Note, because it did not serve the matter and purpose of the Note. Is there in this the confusion which the VV. criticize? For that the objected confusion is found elsewhere, the VV. nowhere afterward say.

2. To that which is said at the end of the Note: Nor does it stand in the way, contrary to what the Salmanticenses thought, etc., the VV. reply (Pag. 248): If perhaps per accidens this if it should happen, certainly simony is not committed. But no one ever affirmed this, perhaps denied it? The hypothesis of the Salmanticenses and of the rest is that the one giving or promising intends and seeks not the spiritual utility of another, but his own temporal utility. - Resp. St. Alphonsus, after the Salmanticenses, has it thus (Lib. 3. n. 59): It is otherwise, namely simony would be present, ... if the condition were of furnishing something for the utility of the giver, for instance if that person's entrance into religion should redound to the advantage of the giver. Thus the Salmanticenses, ibid. n. 41. I ask: does a context of this kind exclude the hypothesis of utility which perhaps per accidens redounds to the giver? Certainly not. Elsewhere the VV. concede that no simony is present in this case. Therefore they must also concede this, that by the opinion of the Salmanticenses, being too vague and general, even hypotheses which ought not to be condemned are condemned.

6. But it would be Simony to perform sacred ministries precisely on account of receiving a price as such, e.g., to accept money for absolution from sins, from censures, or for dispensation in a vow, oath, irregularity, and impediments of marriage; the reason is that it is a spiritual act both by reason of the principle or spiritual power, and by reason of the end or salvation of souls. Nevertheless money is lawfully accepted on the occasion of dispensations ³⁷, especially when another just cause is not present, namely under the title of commutation or alms, or of sustaining the burdens of the Pontificate, for assisting the necessities of the Church, e.g., of Churches, Missions, etc., or for other pious uses, e.g., for relieving the poor, endowing hospitals, expenses of tribunals by which dispensations are granted, etc.; for a suitable stipend is to be assigned to the various officials or ministers employed for expediting causes. - Besides, the Holy See itself establishes in the Briefs what is to be assigned for various dispensations. - See Cases, n. 285 and following.

³⁷ ** So also St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 96), whose arguments, however, taken from the Salmanticenses, are less suitable. For he cites Cap. Iacobus 44 de Simonia; but in this the only thing forbidden is that canons receive a meal from a new canon. He cites Trent, Sess. 24. Cap. Dicunt 6; but this merely establishes that Bishops absolve from censures gratuitously and dispense in occult irregularities. The Salmanticenses add (Tr. 19. Cap. 2. n. 37) Can. Ex multis 9. Caus. 1. q. 3; but in it nothing to the point occurs, but there is discussion of the conferral of benefices.

Questions. QUESTION 1. Whether a spiritual thing simoniacally acquired must be restored?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively as regards 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, whether of the price or of the benefice, cannot acquire ownership of what was accepted. And since the acquisition of the benefice is void, by that very fact ownership of the fruits also cannot be acquired, and therefore these also must be restored ³⁸.

³⁸ Certain persons judged that pensions are comprehended by the same law as benefices, and not only those which are called simply spiritual and are given to a cleric on account of spiritual ministry, but also mixed ones, which according to the style of the Roman Curia can neither be sold nor even redeemed without apostolic dispensation. But since the laws, as Schmalzgrueber observes (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 285), speak only of benefices, they are not, since the matter is penal and therefore odious, to be extended to another thing.

Resp. 2. Negatively as regards the remaining things, although the judge can impose restitution as punishment for the crime. Thus the common opinion with Schmalzgrueber, Lib. 5. tit. 3. n. 284. The reason is not only that certain things cannot be restored, e.g., sacred order, but also because for the transfer of a spiritual thing, e.g., of Most Holy Relics, to be valid, by divine law nothing more is required than power in one to transfer and in the other to receive ownership of the thing; but, unless from some other source there is a defect in one of the two, this power is present in each as regards a spiritual thing. Therefore. But if the transfer is valid by divine law, it will also be valid by human law, since by this law hardly anything except simoniacal provisions of benefices alone are decreed void.

QUESTION 2. Whether the price simoniacally accepted for a spiritual thing must be restored?

Resp. 1. 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 the judge ³⁹, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred to another with the spiritual thing. Thus Suarez, Lessius, Laymann, Reiffenstuel in Schmalzgrueber, Lib. 5. tit. 3. num. 286 ⁴⁰.

³⁹ Understand this with the exception of benefice matter, in which what was given and accepted must be restored in the forum of conscience before every sentence of the judge, not indeed by natural law, but only by ecclesiastical law from Cap. De hoc 11. h. tit. The reason is that the laws prevent both the one accepting the benefice and the one accepting the price from being able to acquire ownership of what has been accepted, and this as punishment for so grave a delict (Schmalzgrueber Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 283).

As regards other matters, Cap. Pactiones fin. De Pactis, where Gregory IX declares any simoniacal agreement whatever to be void, does not stand against the doctrine of the Author. For that disposition must be restricted to benefice matter; or it can also be said that Gregory's words are to be taken of the obligation of fulfilling the simoniacal agreement, which certainly is none; from which, however, it does not follow that the price must be restored; that is, just as the Doctors are accustomed to speak of a contract of a shameful thing, and of the price accepted after the shameful deed.

⁴⁰ For this reason he is indeed guilty of simony, but will not be bound to restore the price before the judge's sentence, whoever, against ecclesiastical laws, 1. sells a temporal office of the Church, e.g., of steward, custodian, etc.; 2. sells, at a price not exceeding the value of the matter, sacred oil, chrism, and other things of this kind; 3. receives money for the admission of someone into Religion; 4. against a special prohibition, yet under the title of stipend for sustenance, accepts money for a spiritual function; 5. whoever accepts a stipend otherwise not forbidden by law as the price of a spiritual function, e.g., of a sacrifice, etc. 6. For the same reason, as Schmalzgrueber says, even he who sells his benefice to another, transferring not indeed ownership of it, but the advantage of the benefice matter to another, is not bound to restitution of the price, natural law alone being considered; and although he commits simony in this, he nevertheless does not sin against justice. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 287-291).

Resp. 2. But where the simoniacal agreement is repugnant also to commutative justice, the price must be restored before every sentence of a judge. Thus the Common opinion. The reason is that from the injury of commutative justice the obligation of restoring arises by the very law of nature ⁴¹. QUESTION 3. To whom must the simoniacal price be restored?

⁴¹ Therefore he is bound to restore the price: 1. who accepts a price for a merely spiritual thing which brings no temporal advantage; since of a thing which is not estimable by price there is no price, and therefore a price is accepted for it against justice; 2. who accepts a price for a spiritual thing, even if it brings temporal advantage, which nevertheless someone, e.g., a parish priest, is bound by office and justice to furnish; 3. a Bishop or Prelate who sells benefices or ecclesiastical offices, whose conferral pertains to him by force of his office; since by his office he must dispense them gratuitously, and therefore by accepting a price he sins against justice. See Schmalzgrueber (l. c. n. 293-295).

Resp. 1. If the price was given, but the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, the common opinion teaches that the price must be restored to him who gave it, unless the judge decrees otherwise. The reason is that the laws establish penalties only against real simony.

Resp. 2. But if the handing over has followed on each side, the benefice cause must be distinguished from the rest. For in this the simoniacal price, from Cap. De hoc 11. De Simonia, must be restored to the Church in which the benefice is situated, or, if the superior wishes, it can be distributed to the poor, as St. Thomas notes, 2. 2. q. 100. art. 6. ad 3 ⁴².

⁴² Yet Reiffenstuel (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 296), with several other Theologians and Canonists, rightly warns that before a sentence which commands the price to be restored to the Church or the poor, it can be returned to the one who gave it. Nor does the cited C. De hoc stand against this; for, as Schmalzgrueber notes (h. t. n. 304), this one thing is inferred from it, that the money accepted cannot be retained without grave peril of salvation.

But as regards 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 when law or the superior does not establish something else, where an unjust acceptance has intervened, restitution must be made to him who was injured. But in the case, the one injured was the one who gave the price. Therefore, etc. Hence, if the one who paid the simoniacal price gratuitously remits what was paid, he who accepted it lawfully retains the same until, as punishment for the crime, he is ordered by the judge to pay it out to the Church or to the poor. See Schmalzgrueber, Lib. 5. tit. 3. n. 297, who then in n. 298-301 vindicates this doctrine from objections ⁴³.

⁴³ From these things it is clear that the Salmanticenses (in St. Alphonsus, Lib. 3. n. 115) disputed less neatly concerning these things when, with no distinction made among causes plainly diverse, they say generally that three opinions are present concerning this matter, and that they are probable, of which one holds that the price is to be restored to him who paid, another to the Church, and the third to the poor. Moreover, Lessius, who stands for the third, is seen in the same St. Alphonsus alleged for the first, and Suarez, who certainly fights for the first, cited for the second.

** The VV. take it ill that the Note says that St. Alphonsus, in alleging the Salmanticenses as saying that there are three opinions, and these probable, does not distinguish between causes plainly diverse; and they add that Gury should rather be blamed on this point, who in Q. 2 did not notice that a distinction must be made between the other matters of simony and beneficiary matter.

Resp. The VV. rightly and deservedly note this about Gury. Accordingly the omission has been provided for here. Let the VV. themselves see whether some gloss should also provide for the obscurity which is brought into the text of the holy Doctor from this, that he proposes the question of simony generally concerning a spiritual thing, but the opinions which he then brings forward refer to a certain special matter: and yet, as if the opinions referred to the same subject of the question, he concludes that all these opinions are probable. In this inconstancy of the subject of the question they will find the reason why authors seem to be alleged by the holy Doctor beside the point.