Chapter — Koch–Preuss
Chapter IV: Simony
Simony is opposed to sacrifice and vow in so far as man, by offering sacrifice or making a vow, relinquishes a part of his property or a right by dedicating it to the service of God, whereas in committing simony he attempts to use that which belongs to God for his own benefit.1
1 Acts VIII, 18 sqq.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 100, art. 1.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, 282–287.
- Simony may therefore be defined as the serious endeavor to buy or sell for a temporal advantage something which is spiritual, or which is annexed to what is spiritual.2
2 St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 25, art. 1: “A deliberate will to buy or sell something spiritual or annexed to something spiritual.” Cfr. Prop. damn. sub Innocent. XI, n. 45–46 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1195 sq.).
The expression “serious endeavor” (studiosa voluntas) in St. Thomas’ definition, which has been embodied in the new Code of Canon Law, emphasizes the fact that, even though no explicit contract exists between the parties concerned, there may still be simony involved.3
3 Slater, A Manual of Mor. Theol., I, 231.
Simony exists only where a material gain is sought or obtained from a spiritual object or function, contrary to natural or positive law.
To collect the revenues of a spiritual office and to accept juridically determined emoluments or fees for spiritual functions, such as the so-called iura stolae, is in no sense simoniacal, for “the laborer is worthy of his hire,”4 and “they that serve the altar partake with the altar.”5
4 Matt. X, 10; Luke X, 7. Cfr. 1 Tim. V, 18.—O. Link, Messstipendien, Ratisbon 1901; Bishop Alex. McDonald in the Ave Maria, Notre Dame, Ind., New Series, Vol. X (1919), No. 25.
5 1 Cor. IX, 4 sqq.
But the collection of the revenues of a spiritual charge and the acceptance of legitimate fees may become simoniacal if the office was sought mainly because of its emoluments or if the spiritual rights are exercised principally for the sake of the pecuniary revenues attached thereto.
- Simony is called purely mental when no express contract exists between the parties concerned.
It is purely conventional if a contract has been expressly entered into between the parties, but not yet executed by either.
It is partly conventional when the contract has been executed by one of the parties.
It is real when the contract has been executed by both parties.6
6 Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Mor. Theol., I, 233.
Simony is called “of divine law” (iuris divini) when the transaction is against the law of God; “of ecclesiastical law” (iuris ecclesiastici) when it runs counter to the prohibition of the Church, who in her Code forbids certain contractual dealings in spiritual things.7
7 Ibid.; C. I. C., can. 727, 728 sq., 730, 1446, 1465, 2371, 2392.
- Simony is a grave sin in all its species and does not admit of parvitas materiae.
Simony is opposed to justice as well as to religion because by committing it man puts spiritual on a level with material things, conducts himself as though he were in control of divine things, and disobeys the express command of Christ: “Freely have ye received, freely give.”8
As it is damnable in itself, so simony is detrimental in its effects, because it destroys order and discipline and undermines the respect and obedience due to ecclesiastical authority. The grievously sinful character of this crime is indicated in the words which St. Peter spoke to Simon Magus, when the latter promised to give him a sum of money if he would impart to him the power of the Holy Ghost. “Keep thy money to perish with thee,” said the Prince of the Apostles, “because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”9
9 Acts VIII, 20.—Tertullian, Apol., c. 39: “The most approved elders preside, having obtained that honor not by a price but by testimony; for no thing belonging to God has a price. Even if there is a sort of treasury, it is not amassed from an honorary sum as though from a purchased religion.” (Ed. Leopold, P. I, 110).
Not far removed from simony is the practice of bestowing ecclesiastical offices or benefices upon relatives or favorites, without regard to their qualifications and the general fitness of things, even though there be no desire of material gain (nepotism). The same may be said of unbecoming and improper efforts and means employed for the purpose of obtaining an office or a benefice.10
10 F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 338.
“There are some,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “who betake themselves to this state of life [the priesthood] in order to procure a livelihood; so that, like worldlings generally in some kind of sordid occupation, they seem to look to nothing in the priesthood but gain. For although the natural and divine law command that, according to the saying of the Apostle, he who serves the altar should live by the altar; yet, to approach the altar for gain and lucre is sacrilege of the worst kind.”11
“As he who serves the altar should live by the altar,” says Bishop Linsenmann, “the hope of procuring a livelihood in an ecclesiastical office is not in itself simony, any more than the exchange of a poor benefice for a rich one, because it is essential to ecclesiastical administration that every priest should have an income corresponding to his station in life and his social position.... But the Church owes it to herself to prevent even the semblance of commercialism in the appointment of her ministers. The prosperity of a society depends largely upon the honesty and integrity of its officials. An ecclesiastical superior who would knowingly and willingly permit his subjects to degrade themselves by employing improper and ignoble means in seeking office, would be guilty of immoral conduct.”12
12 Linsenmann, op. cit., p. 339.
From what we have said it is evident that simony is a sin against religion and may in the last analysis be reduced to “real” sacrilege.13
13 Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 197.
There is a subspecies of simony that occurs only in connection with ecclesiastical benefices. It is called confidential and consists in this that a man in some way (by election, presentation, bestowal, resignation, etc.) procures an ecclesiastical benefice for another sub certa confidentia, i. e., with the obligation on the latter’s part to resign the benefice in favor of the grantor or of a third person, or to pay him a pension or part of the income from the revenues. This form of simony, too, may be mental, conventional or real, and it may be committed in different ways.14
14 Ibid., p. 207.
- THE DUTY OF RESTITUTION.—An obligation of making restitution of the money or valuables received from a simoniacal transaction may arise from the natural law, from ecclesiastical law, or from both. The natural law demands restitution only if commutative justice has been violated; the ecclesiastical law obliges to restitution if religion alone has been violated. If the simoniacal transaction entailed a violation of commutative justice, the restitution must be made before judicial sentence has been rendered; if there was no violation of justice, restitution need be made only when it is imposed as a penalty and upon conviction by an ecclesiastical judge.
Commutative justice is violated, (a) if a purely spiritual thing which has no material value is given in lieu of a temporal gift; (b) if a charge is made for something which one’s office obliges one (ex iustitia) to bestow gratis. Hence restitution must be made if one has accepted money for a blessing or a dispensation, for the consecration of a church, etc., or if a pastor has taken pay for catechetical instruction, or a bishop for the bestowal of a benefice.
The ecclesiastical law imposes restitution for simoniacal acts committed, (a) in connection with a benefice, and (b) in connection with entrance upon the religious state.
It follows from what we have said that one who would sell a blessed rosary or holy oils would not be bound to make restitution, unless, of course, the amount received (propter spirituale adnexum) exceeded the material value of the object.15
15 Ibid., p. 208.
If the price agreed upon in a simoniacal transaction has not yet been paid, or if restitution of the same has been made, the spiritual thing bargained for must, if possible, be restored to its original owner, unless the latter relinquishes his right. If the price has been paid, but restitution has not yet been made, the spiritual object under consideration, even though it be susceptible of being restored to its original owner, need not be restored unless restitution is enjoined as a penalty for the crime. Hence one who has simoniacally acquired a sacred relic or the ius patronatus to a benefice, is not bound to restore the same, because the title of ownership has passed over to him and the Church does not require restitution. But if one has simoniacally obtained a benefice, he must return the same and make restitution of the revenues he has derived therefrom, because the Church has rendered such acquisition invalid under pain of restitution.
If the duty of restitution arises from a violation of commutative justice, the object acquired by simoniacal means must be restored to the person who sold it, unless it be an ecclesiastical benefice. If, on the other hand, the duty of making restitution is based solely upon ecclesiastical law, restitution must be made according to the terms of the latter, which are briefly as follows: a) If the spiritual thing that formed the object of the simoniacal transaction has not yet been delivered, restitution must be made to him who paid the price, for he is the one who suffered the loss. b) If the object has changed hands, in case of an ecclesiastical benefice, the purchase price must be restored to the Church with which the benefice is connected, even though no violation of justice was involved; if the object is not a benefice, restitution must be made in favor of the poor.16
16 Ibid., p. 209.
READINGS.—St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 25, art. 1.—IDEM, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 100.—Suarez, De Religione, l. IV.—A. Leinz, Die Simonie, Freiburg 1902.—P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., l. IV, tr. 10, c. 8.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 231 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 194 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, pp. 525 sqq.—La Croix, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 57.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 270 sqq.—J. d’Annibale, Summula Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 90 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 297 sqq.—N. A. Weber, art. “Simony” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 1 sq.—IDEM, A History of Simony in the Christian Church, Baltimore 1909.