188. Preliminary notions. a. An ecclesiastical benefice, which is defined as the right of receiving fruits from ecclesiastical goods, is properly annexed consequently to something spiritual; but it is considered together with the office as a spiritual thing, because it is inseparably joined with a spiritual office and is given only on account of the spiritual office, from which it springs forth as from its root.

b. From law it must be recalled that an ecclesiastical benefice is acquired in three ways: a. by election, when a cleric is elected by a chapter, which election must be confirmed by a bishop or by the pope; b. by presentation or nomination, when a cleric is offered by a patron to the superior, by whom he is then instituted as beneficiary; c. by collation or provision, when a benefice is freely given by the superior alone.

By presentation the right to obtain the benefice is acquired. Through installation in the benefice possession of it is taken.

c. Regular prelacies (generalates, provincialates, priorates, guardianates, etc., except nevertheless some abbacies and priorates which because of the goods annexed to them are true benefices) in the matter of simony, and especially in order to incurring penalties, are not comprehended under the name of benefice: for an ecclesiastical benefice in odious matters must be taken in the strict sense; but regular prelacies are rather offices than true benefices. Likewise parishes which have not been canonically erected and therefore are conferred in a revocable manner are by no means benefices properly so called.

Hence if someone gives a temporal thing for election to an office in religion, for example a priorate, he commits simony of divine law; nevertheless simony of ecclesiastical law is not committed if two agree concerning giving suffrage mutually to each other in order to obtain a regular office.

Note. The Church has prohibited every onerous pact especially in beneficiary matter, because, on account of the right of receiving temporal fruits, the danger was present that benefices would be treated as temporal things, and that for money the unworthy would be promoted while the worthy were left aside.

189. Assertions. 1. He commits simony who gives or receives something for obtaining in any way some ecclesiastical benefice.

a. He commits simony who gives something to electors for obtaining a vote, to a patron or collator for obtaining presentation, nomination, or confirmation; who gives or receives something for admission into possession of a benefice.

b. It is not simony by prayers to induce a bishop to give a benefice to someone, even if it is given because of the prayers; nor is it simony if someone by prayers obtains from another that he induce the bishop to confer a benefice, neither for him who asks or induces another to ask, nor for him who confers, nor for him who receives the benefice: for prayers do not have the nature of a price, but are ordered only to moving another to do something in favor of another, and no pact intervenes. But it is simony if the bishop says: I will confer the benefice on you if this person asks me, because in this case the prayers have the nature of a temporal price for which the spiritual thing is given.¹

c. It is not simony if a bishop confers a benefice on someone because of consanguinity or friendship or another temporal cause of this kind, both because no pact intervenes and because the other returns no temporal price, nor does the one conferring have the intention, as is supposed, of obligating him to return anything: for the temporal thing (consanguinity) is only the motive cause of conferring the spiritual thing; but it belongs to the nature of simony that the spiritual thing be given for the temporal thing in compensation for it.

d. It is not simony if a bishop gives a benefice to someone with the intention that he may be able to pay debts which he contracted with the bishop himself, because the bishop does not intend to receive an emolument beyond that which is already owed to him, nor does he impose a new obligation for paying the debt; wherefore he confers the benefice entirely gratuitously, unless he enters into a pact concerning the paying of the debt.

e. It is not simony if a bishop confers a benefice on a cleric in recognition of his merits, because the benefice is not given as wages owed, nor does any pact intervene.

2. He commits simony who by a temporal price, whether immediately or mediately, yet directly, prepares for himself the way to obtaining a benefice.

a. He who gives or receives something for procuring intercession for himself with the bishop or patron, so that he may obtain a benefice, commits simony, because by the offering of money he prepares for himself the way to obtaining a benefice. The same must be said if someone gives money to a mediate intercessor, unless the money is given solely for expenses, labor, loss of profit, etc.² This buying of intercession in order to obtain a benefice is simony of ecclesiastical law if the price is given independently of the efficacy of the intercession, and is simony of divine law if it is given only for efficacious intercession: for together with the intercession the benefice is also bought, which is a spiritual thing.³

b. He commits simony who gives money to a competitor so that he may cease to compete for the benefice: for by the money he prepares for himself the way to obtaining the benefice, since that abstention is not appraisable by a price except because of the spiritual thing which can be obtained through it.⁴

c. He commits simony who wagers with the collator of a benefice, for example for one hundred gold coins, that he will confer the vacant benefice not on himself but on another, if this is done so that the collator, for the sake of winning the money by the wager, may confer the benefice on the one wagering.

3. Simony is committed through any mutually onerous pact concerning benefices entered into without license of the superior, whether concerning a spiritual or a temporal thing.

a. Therefore it is simony: a. to give a benefice to someone with the pact that he undergo a new burden, even a spiritual one, for example of explaining the catechism, assisting the dying, etc.; b. to exchange benefices without license; c. a pact concerning resigning a benefice.

b. If a bishop in the collation of a benefice obligates another to pour forth prayers for him, he does not commit simony of divine law, because a spiritual thing is exchanged with a spiritual thing; but he commits simony of ecclesiastical law, which prohibits every agreement in the matter of benefices as simoniacal.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 63.

² Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 439.

³ Lehmkuhl, I, n. 389.

⁴ St. Alphonsus, n. 103.

190. On confidential simony. Confidential simony, which has place only in ecclesiastical benefices, consists in this, that someone procures an ecclesiastical benefice for another in any way (by electing, presenting, conferring, resigning, etc.) under a certain confidence, that is, with the obligation that he resign it to himself or to a third person, or pay him from it a pension or part of the fruits. This simony can be mental, conventional, or real. Confidential simony can happen in four ways:

a. With reservation of access, when someone procures a benefice for another by this pact, that he himself or a third person, who here and now because of some impediment (for example, defect of age) is not yet capable of it, when the impediment ceases, may have access to the benefice, because the one for whom the benefice is procured resigns it.

b. With reservation of entrance, when someone yields a benefice conferred on himself, before possession has begun, to another by this pact, that after the death of this other or the laying down of the benefice, he himself, the one yielding, can enter into possession of it.

c. With reservation of return, when someone resigns to another a benefice which he already possesses by this pact, that he himself, the one resigning, at a determinate time may receive the benefice or return into possession of it.

d. With reservation of a part, when someone procures a benefice for another by this pact, that he pay to himself or to a third person part of the benefice or of the fruits.

191. On restitution of a price accepted simoniacally. The obligation of restitution in this matter can arise both from natural law and from ecclesiastical law. The law of nature obligates to restoring the thing accepted simoniacally only when, besides religion, commutative justice also has been injured; but ecclesiastical law sometimes obligates, as a penalty for the delict, to restoring the thing accepted simoniacally, even if only the virtue of religion and not commutative justice has been injured.

1. If simony was committed with injury of commutative justice, the price accepted simoniacally must be restored before the sentence of the judge: for from injury of commutative justice there arises by natural law an obligation of restoring. But commutative justice is injured: a. if a merely spiritual thing, having no temporal price, is handed over for a price; b. if for a price there is conferred what by office (from justice), and therefore gratuitously, ought to be furnished.

Hence he who accepted a price for a blessing, for the concession of a dispensation, for the consecration of a church, etc., must restore, because these things are merely spiritual. Likewise a parish priest who has accepted something for explaining catechism must restore; likewise a bishop who confers a benefice for a price, because each ought to do this from justice and therefore gratuitously.

2. If simony was committed without injury of commutative justice, the price accepted simoniacally does not have to be restored, unless restitution is imposed by the Church as a penalty for the crime, and then after the sentence of the judge. But restitution is imposed when simony has been committed: a. in beneficiary matter; b. in entrance into religion.

Therefore he who against the laws of the Church sold a blessed rosary enriched with indulgences, or sacred oil, is not bound to restore the price, unless this exceeds the material value of the thing sold, because he did not sin against justice, but only against religion, and the Church in this case does not impose restitution of the price. But he who resigns a benefice to another for money indeed does not injure commutative justice, because the fruits of a benefice are appraisable by a price; yet from the statute of law he must restore the money.

192. On returning the spiritual thing accepted simoniacally. a. If the temporal price has either been restored or has not yet been handed over, the spiritual thing, where it exists and can be restored, must be returned, unless the one handing it over yields his right: for dominion over the spiritual thing was transferred under the condition of receiving the temporal price; therefore, when the condition fails, the transfer of dominion fails, wherefore no title for retaining the spiritual thing is present.

b. But if the temporal price has been handed over and has not been restored, the spiritual thing, even if it is of such a kind that it can be restored, does not have to be restored unless restitution is enjoined as a penalty for the crime: for dominion over the spiritual thing has been validly transferred.

Hence he who simoniacally procured for himself relics of the saints or the right of patronage is not bound to give these up, because after the price has been handed over he has acquired dominion over them, and the Church does not enjoin restitution. But he who simoniacally acquired a benefice must both give up the benefice and restore the fruits received, because the Church, as a penalty for the delict, prevents both him who receives the benefice and him who receives the price from acquiring dominion.

193. To whom the price must be restored. If the obligation of restoring arises from injury of commutative justice, the thing must be restored to him who gave it, except in the case of a benefice; but if the obligation of restoring arises from ecclesiastical law alone, restitution must be made according to the disposition of law. But law disposes these things:

a. If the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, restitution must be made to him who gave the price: for he has suffered the loss.

b. If the thing has already been handed over from each side, in the matter of benefices the price accepted, even if justice has been injured, must be restored to the church in which the benefice is situated; in other matters it must be restored to the poor.

194. Particular questions concerning simony.

1. To give another a temporal thing so that he may perform a spiritual thing for his own advantage, for example to give gifts to an adolescent so that he may frequent the sacraments, to give a dowry to a girl so that she may enter a monastery, is not simony; for these have the nature of a donation, although conditional, which imposes on the recipient no obligation of performing the spiritual thing, but intends only to incline his will toward the thing useful to him.

Whether it is simony or not to give these gifts with this intention, that the other is truly obligated to receive the sacraments or to enter religion, is disputed. Those who affirm simony bring as a reason that an exchange intervenes, since the giver acquires the right of demanding that the other perform the spiritual thing, and the recipient contracts the obligation of performing the same thing. Those who deny simony give as a reason that not every pact in this matter constitutes simony of divine law, but only a pact by which a spiritual thing is bought or sold for a temporal thing which is given as a price.¹

2. To give money to an impious man detaining sacred relics or other sacred things in order to redeem them is not simony, because the price is not given for the sacred thing, but so that it may be rescued from the danger of profanation.

Nevertheless, it is prohibited that the faithful voluntarily buy sacred relics which impious men expose for sale; rather the ordinary must be warned, who will take care that they be recovered opportunely.²

3. If of two persons playing, one exposes for the outcome of the game a spiritual thing (a rosary, the hearing of Mass), but the other a temporal thing, simony is not committed, because properly there is not made an equating between the spiritual and the temporal, but one, in place of a temporal thing, offers the execution of a spiritual thing, which the other accepts. Yet a mode of playing of this kind must be dissuaded because of scandal.

In like manner the priest does not sin who offers to a creditor one hundred Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he may remit a debt of one hundred florins.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 59; Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 437; Lessius, De iust., l. 2, c. 35, n. 66 s.

² S. C. Indulg., Dec. 21, 1878.

195. Whether it is simony to give something so that another may omit a spiritual thing depends on the action which he omits because of the money.

a. If the omission of the spiritual act involves at the same time the exercise of spiritual power, it is simony. This sometimes has place if an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is omitted, for example if he is not absolved who has already confessed or who is bound by a censure: for in this case not to absolve is to retain; therefore a temporal thing is given for the exercise of spiritual power.

b. If the omission of the spiritual act does not involve the exercise of power, but is a mere free omission of an action, even though spiritual, it is not simony, as if someone accepts money so that he may omit to pray, to celebrate, to ordain someone, to give alms, to hear confession, etc.: for free cessation from a work, which is merely the use of free choice, is appraisable by a price. Yet from another reason sin can be committed by acting thus.

c. If an act owed from justice is omitted, as if a parish priest did not hear the confession of his subject or did not proclaim a marriage, Suarez with others excuses from simony, because the omission does not involve an act of spiritual power, but is a mere free non-use of power, which in this case, in which the act is owed from office, certainly is a sin.¹

¹ Suarez, l. 4, c. 22, n. 9 ff.; Lacroix, l. 3, pr. 1, n. 175 ff.

196. Whether it is licit to sell the right of patronage. In the right of patronage two things must be distinguished: the right to honors and subventions which are owed to patrons, and the right of presenting to a benefice; the former is temporal, the latter spiritual. If the right to honors, etc., is sold, which is consequently annexed to something spiritual, the sin of simony is committed; likewise if the right of presenting is sold, or if the thing to which the right of presenting is affixed is sold at a higher price because of this right, simony is committed. But it is not simony to sell at a just price the thing to which the right of presenting is annexed, which right with the purchased thing is transferred gratuitously to the buyer, just as it is also transferred to another by inheritance and can be transferred by donation. But a transfer of this kind, if it is made by a layman without the license of the bishop, is illicit, yet it is not simoniacal.

197. Whether it is licit to receive something for the instruction of others in sacred doctrine. Attention must be given to the good which others take from the instruction.

a. If the instruction is immediately ordered to the spiritual utility alone of others, as a homily, catechesis, spiritual instruction, etc., it is not licit to demand anything except by reason of sustenance, as for sacred functions.

b. If the instruction is not ordered solely to the spiritual good, but at the same time to the temporal good of others, for example to cultivating the mind, to honor, to delight, etc., it is licit to receive something for it. Therefore those can demand and receive something who teach theology, who give doctrinal counsels or solve doubts and difficulties even in a moral matter, although by accident their counsels also conduce to the tranquility of conscience of the hearers.

198. Whether it is licit to receive something for sacred functions. a. It is simony to receive something for any sacred functions, for example for the administration of sacraments, a sermon, ecclesiastical burial, as the price of the spiritual work: for the spiritual thing is sold for a temporal price. But it is licit to demand and receive something for sacred functions by way of stipend for suitable sustenance: for those who expend their work for the spiritual utility of others can by divine and human law demand temporal sustenance from them, just as those who expend their labor for the temporal utility of others can do.¹

Christ willed that the ministers of the altar be sustained from the offerings of the faithful; for this reason Christ Himself, sending the apostles to preach the Gospel, says: the workman is worthy of his food.² But St. Paul demonstrates diffusely the right of the apostles of demanding suitable sustenance and the obligation of the faithful of supplying it to them, appealing to the precept of the Lord.³

b. From these things it is now deduced: a. that a stipend for suitable sustenance is owed to sacred ministers from justice; b. that therefore even those who do not need it can demand and receive it: for it does not have the nature of alms, which are given to the needy, but of a stipend owed; c. that a pact can licitly be entered into concerning the stipend and its measure, if it has not been determined by ecclesiastical law or custom: for that which is owed from justice can be brought into a pact.

a. Whether a stipend can be demanded and received not only by the title of sustenance, but also by the title of wages, as a price for the labor necessarily undergone in sacred functions, for example in celebrating, in preaching, is disputed. For while authors commonly deny this (n. 185), some think that labor, although internal to sacred functions and inseparable from them, nevertheless remains a physical action and therefore appraisable by a price, so that it can be bought and sold without simony of divine law. Laymann tries to reconcile both opinions by an apt distinction: for if labor undertaken in spiritual ministries is considered in order to the spiritual work according to its proper and specific nature, nothing can be received for it; but if it is considered in order to the worker according to the generic nature of work and service furnished for the sake of another, it is licit to receive wages for it.⁴

b. Several affirm that to demand for Mass or for other sacred functions a stipend greater than is just, or to receive a stipend against the usage and law of the Church, is simony, because the excess is judged to be demanded for the spiritual thing, since another title of demanding more is lacking.⁵ But, excluding the depraved intention of receiving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, it cannot be affirmed that simony is committed in this case: for to demand more for owed sustenance than can licitly be demanded will be a vice of avarice and injustice, but, when that depraved will is excluded, simony is not committed.

c. He who demands a stipend for an office owed from justice, as if a parish priest demands something for a sermon or for the administration of the sacraments, likewise does not commit simony, if the simoniacal mind is excluded, but sins only against justice. But where the custom is in force that something be received even for ministry owed from office, for example for the administration of baptism, it can be retained; yet three things must be guarded against: a. lest in demanding those stipends an appearance of avarice appear; b. lest more be demanded than has been determined by law or custom; c. lest the sacred ministries be denied to those not paying.

d. Where a stipend can be demanded for a sacred function, it is also licit to perform the sacred function from the intention of receiving the stipend; indeed it would not be simony to perform sacred things principally because of the stipend, so that they would not be done unless a stipend were given: for the sacred thing is not sold for the stipend, but in performing the sacred act, not the honor of God, but primarily one's own utility is intended, which is not simoniacal.

¹ Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:7-14.

² Matt. 10:10.

³ 1 Cor. 9:4-14.

⁴ Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, n. 42.

⁵ Cf. Gury-Ballerini, ad n. 292.

199. Whether it is licit to receive something for entrance into religion. a. It is clear that the religious state is a spiritual thing: for it is ordered to the salvation of the soul; therefore it is not licit for a monastery to receive anything as if a price for the admission itself to the novitiate or to religious profession: for a spiritual thing would be sold.

b. It is licit for a poor monastery, both of men and of women, to demand something from those entering for sustenance, because thus the spiritual is not exchanged with the temporal; moreover equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery collapse.

c. It is licit for a monastery, both wealthy and poor, to demand something for sustenance during the time of novitiate,¹ unless it has been prohibited by a special decree (as for the Friars Minor), both because novices do not yet pertain to the religion, and because they can depart at will and often in fact do depart.

d. If the monastery is wealthy, as regards nuns indeed the Church indiscriminately permits that some dowry be received, because experience establishes that monasteries of nuns, even wealthy ones, are more frequently liable to misfortunes. Yet they must beware lest unsuitable persons be received because of the dowry, which would be simoniacal.

e. It is not licit for a wealthy monastery of men to demand anything for the sustenance of the religious themselves. Whether it is always simony, and whether it is simony of divine or ecclesiastical law, if a rich monastery on the occasion of profession demands something for sustenance, is disputed.² It does not seem that simony of divine law is committed if the money is demanded not for entrance, but by reason of sustenance.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 25, c. 16, De regular.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 92; Lehmkuhl, II, n. 958.

200. Whether it is licit to give something for redeeming unjust vexation, namely lest someone be impeded in obtaining a spiritual thing, for example a benefice or another spiritual good. If it is given for removing the unjust vexation itself, it is not simony: for the removal of vexation or liberation from injury is something temporal and appraisable by a price; but if it is given for procuring or confirming for oneself some right to a spiritual thing, it is simony: for by this reason a way is directly prepared for obtaining the spiritual thing, which is simoniacal.

a. It is said: unjust vexation: for to remove a just vexation by money, for example an accusation concerning a crime which renders one unfit for a benefice, is simony: for he who tries to redeem a just vexation has no right to the spiritual thing; therefore by removing the vexation he is judged to buy the right to the spiritual thing, which is simoniacal.

b. Therefore it is licit to give money to a priest who without it would not wish to administer the sacraments, provided there is a grave reason for receiving the sacraments, for example for fulfilling the paschal precept, because without a grave cause it is not licit to permit the sin of another.¹

Note. So that in the matter of benefices it can be discerned whether he who redeems an unjust vexation commits simony, this must be noted. Unjust vexation either turns about a right already acquired to a spiritual thing, or about a right to be acquired; if this latter, the unjust vexation proceeds either from him who can confer the right, or from him who can only harm, but can in no way confer the right. Therefore:

a. To remove by money an unjust vexation which turns about a right already acquired to a spiritual thing is not simony, because a temporal thing is given for a temporal thing, namely for the removal itself of the vexation.

b. To remove by money an unjust vexation which turns about a right to be acquired is not simony if the one unjustly vexing can only harm, for example by defaming before the bishop, because the money is given only for removing the injury.

c. To remove by money an unjust vexation which turns about a right to be acquired is simony if the one unjustly vexing can not only harm but also assist, as if he is an elector or patron, because the one removing the vexation in this case directly, although mediately, prepares for himself the way to obtaining the spiritual thing: for he gives money so that he may be elected or presented.

Several other questions, as well as the penalties laid upon simoniacs, since they are intimately connected with beneficiary matter, can be consulted among the canonists.

Book Second. On the Second Precept of the Decalogue

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

Ex. 20:7.

The second precept of the Decalogue, insofar as it is affirmative, commands that honor be exhibited to the name of God; and insofar as it is negative, prohibits every irreverence toward the most holy name of God. Now the divine name is honored: a. by reverent pronunciation; it is dishonored by vain assumption; b. it is honored by invocation and praise; it is dishonored by blasphemy; c. it is honored by vow; it is dishonored by violation of a vow; d. it is honored by oath; it is dishonored by perjury and illicit adjuration.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 103.