Irreligiousness

Irreligiousness.—We now proceed to the four sins that offend religion by defect, namely, temptation of God and perjury, which show disrespect to God Himself, and sacrilege and simony, which show disrespect to holy things (see 2273). Perjury has been treated above (see 2249), and hence we shall consider now only the other three forms of irreligiousness.

Irreligiosity is a special irreverence which is inflicted on God, either immediately in himself, or mediately in persons or sacred things. Its principal species are tempting God, sacrilege, simony, blasphemy, and perjury. Concerning the last two it will be said in the 2nd precept.

574. Irreligiosity, or impiety, is a special irreverence which is inflicted upon God, either immediately in himself, or mediately in sacred persons or things. - It is inflicted upon God immediately through tempting God, through blasphemy, through perjury and perfidy in promises; but mediately through sacrilege and simony.

Moreover, of these various species of irreligiosity three pertain to the second precept of the Decalogue, insofar as it is negative: namely blasphemy, perjury, and perfidy in promises; but the other three, by which due subjection to God, or fidelity, is denied, pertain to this first precept.

Therefore there must be treated: 1. of tempting God; 2. of sacrilege; 3. of simony.

575. DEFINITION. Tempting God is a word or deed directed to taking experiment concerning God through an extraordinary effect rashly expected from him.

We say: 1. Through an effect expected, because temptation requires that, by desire and intention, divine help be at least tacitly implored. 2. Rashly, that is, without just cause; for if a grave cause is added, namely necessity, or pious utility, or divine inspiration, humbly to ask such an effect will not be to tempt God, but rather to honor him by an act of confidence (III, 29 and 31).

DIVISION. Tempting God, by reason of the perfection of the act, but not by reason of species, is twofold: 1. Formal (or explicit), when someone, expressly doubting concerning some perfection of God, wishes to try it: for example if someone from

from a tower casts himself down headlong, that he may test whether God is merciful and powerful, by preserving him immune from injury. 2. Interpretative (or implicit), when someone, even if he does not expressly intend to tempt God, nevertheless asks or does that which of its own nature seems to be referred to this: as if someone commits himself to a danger from which either in no way, or scarcely, he can be rescued unless miraculously; or if he omits natural means, hoping for the effect from God alone (III, 29, 32; cf. H. Ap., IV, 38).

576. PRINCIPLES. I. Formal tempting of God is a mortal sin from its whole genus. For it includes doubt concerning the divine perfections, which redounds to grave contempt of God; indeed it has the malice of heresy, if the doubt is positive; or at least it deals with God too curiously, as with a juggler: which is a great irreverence toward God (III, 29, 1).

II. Interpretative tempting of God is a mortal sin from its genus. The reason is that he who thus tempts God also denies him, of itself, reverence and due subjection. Yet it can happen that the disorder in one expecting the help of God without a just cause is not grave. This is established from those words (Ecclus., 18, 23): Before prayer prepare thy soul: and be not as a man that tempteth God. For thus one praying is considered to wish to test whether God also can and will assist one praying badly: which nevertheless the Doctors commonly judge to be only venial, on account of lightness of matter.

Many authors also teach this, that if someone, in a light matter and without danger of grave harm, should tempt God from mere curiosity of seeing some supernatural work, he likewise would sin only venially (cf. III, 30; ed. G., I, p. 389).

577. From these things you will resolve: 1. He sins gravely who absolutely asks from God, or offers, a miracle for the conversion of heretics, since the testimonies of our faith suffice. But otherwise, if he asks under the condition if it shall please God, on account of grave utility, for his own or others' salvation, or for fulfilling the divine will.

2. Likewise he sins who without just cause offers himself to martyrdom, to danger of death or mutilation. Otherwise, in a case of necessity, for example if otherwise the faith or the salvation of many would be endangered, or for avoiding blasphemies; and in a case of utility, for exalting the faith or promoting the glory of God.

3. He sins only lightly who, in a light illness, the remedies having been rejected, hopes for health from God; because there is not grave disorder there. Indeed, he is excused from every fault, if he hopes that he will be freed from a light illness of this sort without remedies, naturally, with God assisting (H. Ap., IV, n. 38).

4. A priest sins venially who, outside a case of necessity, wishes to preach without preparation, trusting in the help of God (III, 32); but he does not sin who, trusting in good fortune, subjects himself to an examination; because he expects nothing from God.

578. DEFINITION. Sacrilege (a violation of the sacred), taken broadly, is called any sin against religion; taken strictly, it is the violation of a sacred thing.

Violation, that is, violence brought upon, or unworthy treatment, which can be committed not only by action, but also by omission of the reverence due to sacred things; of a thing, in the broad sense, under which also person and place come; sacred, that is, dedicated to God, and considered as such (III, 33 and 48).

Therefore, to discern whether some action is sacrilegious or not, there must be weighed: 1. from what head the thing is sacred and specially worthy of reverence, whether from divine institution or from ecclesiastical law; 2. whether the action specially wounds this sanctity of the thing; for otherwise it will not be sacrilege. Thus, for example, a religious is consecrated to God by the vow of chastity as to cleanness of the flesh, and therefore if he fornicates, he is sacrilegious; but otherwise, if he becomes drunk, if he is proud, if he lies, etc., because he is not considered consecrated for avoiding these things.

DIVISION. Sacrilege, by reason of the thing violated, is threefold: personal, by which a sacred person is violated; local, by which a sacred place is violated; real, by which a sacred thing, distinct from persons and places, is violated. By reason of manner, it is direct or indirect according as the violation of the sacred thing either is intended or is only advertently committed.

579. PRINCIPLES. I. Sacrilege is a sin, now from its genus, now from its whole genus mortal. For irreverence toward sacred persons, sacred places, or sacred things redounds upon God. If sacrilege is direct, smallness of matter is never given in it. If it is only indirect, it is grave or light according to the measure of the irreverence which is committed (III, 33). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 3, a. 1, end.

580. II. Sacrilege differs in species according as it is personal, local, or real. The reason is that formally diverse is the sanctity which is wounded in the person, in the place, and in the sacred thing. For sanctity is in sacred persons formally, as in a subject; in a sacred place it is as in what contains holy persons, and in which worship is to be exhibited to God; but in sacred things, insofar as they cause or signify sanctity, or are ordered to holy things in another way (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 16).

Let it be noted. 1. The three aforesaid species of sacrilege, more probably, are not subaltern species, as some say, but lowest species; therefore other circumstances are only aggravating, as St. Alphonsus more probably judges with St. Thomas, against Suarez, Busenbaum, and others. Hence, for example, "if someone violates a nun by beating her, or by lying with her, he commits one sacrilege formally" (III, 34). Wherefore it suffices, in either case, to say in confession: I committed sacrilege against a sacred person; and then to confess separately the sin against justice, or against chastity (III, 224).

2. In sacrilege, the guilt of violation is graver in the measure that the consecration is more intimate; and therefore personal sacrilege is graver than real and local sacrilege, just as, among real sacrileges, unworthy communion is the graver sin.

3. TIME is not the object of sacrilege: for example, he is not sacrilegious who sins on a feast day, as is commonly taught. Except, unless notable irreverence is brought upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. (III, 46 and 273).

581. Personal sacrilege is an act by which a sacred person is violated. Moreover, persons are called sacred who are dedicated to God, whether through sacred ordination or through religious profession.

Personal sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. by striking a cleric or religious, or by any violence which is brought upon them, against the privilege of the canon (cf. n. 1329); 2. by dragging a cleric, or a religious person, before a secular tribunal, against the privilege of the forum (n. 1321); 3. by imposing a servile burden, for example military service or a tax, upon a cleric, against the current privilege of personal immunity (n. 201); 4. by the lustful violation of a person consecrated to God by the vow of chastity (cf. n. 787). Consequently, it is not sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. But otherwise, if sacred persons are put in mockery, as often happens in carnival revels (de Privil., 18-24; Kon., n. 347).

Questions. - QUES. 1. Whether the violation of any vow whatsoever is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. The Salmanticenses affirm, because through any vow whatsoever a person is dedicated to God in order to fulfill the vow. But Suarez and others deny, saying that it is only a sin of perfidy, or against fidelity due to God (III, 47; Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 2).

Note. Many authors call the violation of vows, in general, sacrilege. This is said less rightly if we take the notion of sacrilege strictly.

QUES. 2. Whether the violation of the vow of chastity is sacrilege?

Resp. 1. In the affirmative, if it is a question of a vow emitted conjointly with sacred order or with religious profession in some Congregation; for through such a vow, which the Church recognizes, the person certainly and publicly becomes sacred to God. This holds also for vows which are emitted for a time before definitive profession.

2. If it is a question of a vow emitted privately, some deny, because no one becomes sacred to God unless the Church intervenes; others, perhaps more probably, affirm, because through such a vow also the body is dedicated to God and contracts a peculiar sanctity. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 378.

Note. 1. According to the opinion of all, the violation of a vow is a circumstance to be declared in confession, because there is in it a peculiar sin of infidelity (III, 47).

2. If someone is at once a priest and a religious and violates the vow of chastity, he commits only one sacrilege, because the twofold obligation is imposed upon him from the same formal motive. Cf. n. 627, 787, 2160, 2199, where useful things which pertain to this matter are added.

3. He who sacrilegiously violates the vow of chastity does not commit a twofold sin against religion: one of sacrilege, the other of perfidy; because the malice of perfidy, or infidelity, is absorbed by sacrilege (Vind. Alph., I, p. 228).

582. NOTIONS. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place.

Sacred places, in the strict sense, are those which, by the authority of the Bishop through consecration or solemn blessing, have been deputed for public divine worship. Such places practically are: 1. a church and public oratory, from the interior roof even to the pavement; 2. a public cemetery (III, 38, 460).

As regards semi-public oratories, there is a question whether they are sacred places in the strict sense (Noldin, II, 178).

Sacred places, in the broader sense, insofar as the right of asylum belongs to them, are those which are deputed to divine worship by ecclesiastical authority, as cemeteries, even if polluted, churches not yet consecrated or blessed, the sacristy, the tower, the atrium, the contiguous enclosure of the church; likewise religious places, that is, monasteries, the Bishop's palace, the parochial house, hospices erected by authority of the Church. But otherwise concerning private oratories (III, 460).

Local sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. By all sins by which a church or cemetery is polluted by canon law, even if they remain hidden and the church does not need reconciliation; namely voluntary homicide, injurious and copious shedding of human blood, voluntary and illicit emission of human seed, and the burial of an excommunicate to be avoided, or of an infidel¹ (cf. n. 1629).

2. By all sins which are done against the sanctity of a sacred place strictly so called, such as: external acts gravely base (III, 459, 461), spoliation, theft, brawls, stabling of horses, and things similar to these, already prohibited by natural law itself.

3. By profane acts which are prohibited by the law of immunity, such as walks in a sacred place strictly so called, markets, meals, shouting, the noise of secular judgments; unless a just cause excuses, as, for example, if another suitable place is lacking. But some moderate walking in a church, or private eating, even without necessity, does not seem to be a grave sin, if scandal, shouting, and contempt are absent. Likewise the sale of candles or images in a cemetery or at the doors of the temple.²

4. By violation of the right of asylum, that is, if persons fleeing to that place and enjoying legitimate refuge are drawn out violently or fraudulently, for example by preventing others from bringing food, from a sacred place, even taken broadly, or interdicted or polluted (III, 36, 38; de Privil., n. 25, 28). Cf. n. 201.

From these things it seems that a place less strictly sacred is violated only in the manner indicated under 4.

"Through merely internal acts the sanctity of a place is not violated; and therefore he does not commit sacrilege who in a church has the will of killing a man outside it. Otherwise, if someone outside the church proposes to kill in the church" (III, 43). Nor is theft committed in the sacristy, in cloisters, in an oratory of a private house, local sacrilege.

It is asked. Whether the theft of a profane thing in a CHURCH is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. Lugo and others probably deny, unless the thing has been loaned to the church or received into custody. Many others more probably affirm, because it is said absolutely in canon law (Can. Quisquis, caus. 17, q. 4): "Sacrilege is committed by taking away a sacred thing from a sacred place, or a non-sacred thing from a sacred place, or a sacred thing from a non-sacred place" (III, 39). Cf. n. 903. - In practice, because the thing is doubtful, accusation of that circumstance is not to be urged.

583. NOTION. Real sacrilege is an act by which a sacred thing is violated: which here is understood as distinct from sacred persons and sacred places (III, 40).

Real sacrilege can also be done by mere omission, and indeed gravely, for example if those things which pertain to sacrifice, such as corporals and similar things, are very unclean. Yet rarely will there be grave sin through this negligence (III, 48).

There are, however, four kinds of sacred things, and hence four degrees of real sacrilege within the same species (2.2, q. 99, a. 3).

The first and highest place is held by the SACRAMENTS.

To the first degree of sacrilege therefore pertains every injury and every abuse of the sacraments, when namely they are knowingly made invalidly, administered unworthily, received, or otherwise treated unworthily, as if sacred oil were employed as profane. And since among all the sacraments the Eucharist is the chief, therefore among real sacrileges the gravest of all is that by which this sacrament is violated, for example if the sacred host is trampled underfoot. We say among real sacrileges, because it is not to be counted among personal ones. For although Christ the Lord is really present, nevertheless he does not exhibit himself after the manner of a person, or in the form of an animate thing, but after the manner of food and drink (Sylv., 2.2, q. 99, a. 3; Lessius, c. 45, de Irrelig., d. 3, n. 16).

The second place is held by SACRED VESSELS, for the ministry and use of the sacraments, under which corporals also are comprehended.

Consequently, it is sacrilege to use a consecrated chalice for drinking, as Belshazzar did with the vessels of Solomon's temple. Sacred vessels include crosses, sacred images, relics of Christ and of the Saints, sacred buildings and altars; for according to the use of the Church, they are esteemed as instruments of divine worship. To this also pertains blessed water, blessed oil. Likewise the sacred names of Christ and of the saints, the Most Holy Gospels, and all Sacred Scripture, hymns, ecclesiastical ceremonies, etc.; so that their unworthy treatments are sacrilegious, more or less, according as the things are more or less sacred, and according as the treatment is more or less unworthy. Thus, for example, it would be grave to abuse Sacred Scripture for dishonorable jokes, lies, heresies, or other sins; but venial to use the same sometimes for a joke, even an honorable one, if some irreverence is contained there (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 32; Lehmk., I, 524).

The third place is held by all things which pertain to the adornment of altars and ministers, and are accustomed to be consecrated, or at least blessed with a constitutive blessing. Cf. n. 535.

If they are violated unworthily, for example if you use priestly vestments for profane uses, or for playful displays, violation of this sort is sacrilegious. Likewise, to touch with the bare hand, which nevertheless is permitted to all tonsured persons from the Decree of the S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1906, chalices, patens, altar stones anointed with chrism, unless a reasonable cause is present, as for regulars and nuns who are sacristans (Jaugey, de Relig., n. 476; Gen., I, 282, 3).

Finally the fourth place is held by ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHTS and GOODS, that is, goods, whether movable or immovable, which are deputed for the sustenance of the ministers of the Church, for the fabric of churches, and for the sustenance of the poor.

To this belong deposits in a church, pious legacies already possessed by the Church, etc. He who unjustly usurps these, suppresses, detains, occupies, defrauds, or destroys them, commits a qualified injustice which everywhere in canon law is called sacrilege (III, 40 and 42).

It is asked. Whether the wounding of any goods whatsoever belonging to clerics is sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively; but only the wounding of goods which clerics possess not in their own name, but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose; because these alone are sacred, as is commonly taught (III, 42).

Note. The penalties enacted against sacrilegious persons are recounted in the treatise on Censures; see n. 1319, 1320, 1321, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1329, 1332, 1342, 1347, 1348, etc.

Simony pertains to real sacrilege, as Suarez proves (de Relig., l. 3, c. 1). This matter is treated extensively in canon law. Here we shall treat briefly: 1. of the nature and gravity of simony; 2. of the causes on account of which it ceases; 3. of the more frequent cases of simony; 4. of the penalties established against simoniacs and of the obligation of restoring what has been received.

584. DEFINITION. Simony is the studied will of buying or selling, for a temporal price, something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual. Thus St. Thomas (2.2, q. 100, a. 1).

It is said: studied, that is, a deliberate will by which at least a pact is begun; of buying or selling, by which the nature of the contract in force is signified, but it is enough if it is virtually such; for a temporal price, that is, for any temporal good; something spiritual - this indicates the matter about which the pact turns.

DIVISION. Simony, by reason of matter, is divided into two parts: 1. One is of divine law, which is prohibited by natural law, on account of its intrinsic malice; and it is the very sale or purchase of a spiritual thing as such. 2. Another is only of ecclesiastical law, which is therefore evil because it is forbidden by canon law; and it is any bargaining, giving, and accepting prohibited by the Church, insofar as it smells of a simoniacal stain or has danger of simony.

Each simony is threefold: a) mental, if it is done merely internally, or if something is offered externally with a simoniacal intention, but without a pact externally manifested; as can happen if a servant serves a Bishop; b) conventional, if an external pact, at least implicit, has intervened, but has been put into execution by neither part; c) real, if the pact has been completed in effect, at least inchoatively, by both parts. But if the pact has been put into execution by one part only, simony is still called conventional, but mixed, insofar as it participates in real simony (III, 49, 67, 106 end).

In the matter of benefices, d) confidential simony is given, namely when someone procures or resigns a benefice to another, under a certain confidence, that is, with a pact at least implicit, that he yield it in the future to himself or to another, or pay from it a pension or part of the fruits without legitimate authority. This simony, as is evident, is a particular case of conventional or real simony (III, 85, 90).

585. PRINCIPLES. I. To constitute simony three things are necessarily required: unsaleable matter, a temporal price, a will of exchanging one for the other.

1. The MATTER about which this sacrilegious contract turns is a spiritual thing or a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing.

a) A spiritual thing, by which name is understood a supernatural thing ordered to salvation; whether it is formally such, as grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; or causally, producing grace, as are the sacraments, preaching, prayers, and sacramentals; or effectively spiritual, that is, an effect and use of supernatural power, as consecration, absolution, dispensation, blessing, excommunication, election, presentation, confirmation, collation of a benefice, and other acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. b) A temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing, and ordered to it by its nature or by the institution of the Church: whether antecedently, as churches, sacred vessels, which preexist consecration, or the right of patronage with respect to a benefice; or concomitantly, as time and labor, which are intrinsically and inseparably annexed to sacred functions; or consequently, as the right of perceiving the revenues of a church, which presupposes a spiritual office as its cause and root (III, 49).

Note. Ecclesiastical patrimonies, pious legacies, lay patrimonies, lay chaplaincies, and pensions are not matter of simony. Nevertheless ecclesiastical pensions and ecclesiastical prestimonies, vicariates and coadjutorships, likewise manual benefices, or removable benefices introduced by the Church, even if they do not assume the nature of a benefice, are matter of simony: because they are annexed to a clerical office and demand a spiritual ministry. But he who sells or buys such things does not incur the penalties of simony; because the penalties are enacted for true benefices (III, 112). Cf. n. 1325, 1335 ff.

2. The PRICE, or that which has the character of a price, in buying something spiritual, is named in canon law a gift from the hand, a gift from service, a gift from the tongue:

a) A gift from the hand, by which is understood money and whatever temporal thing is estimable by price, for example remission of a debt, concession of a right, a loan, or its promise, even a pension to be paid to some third person. b) A gift from service, that is, everything which pertains to servitude, such as serving as a servant, teaching, etc., for the end of obtaining something spiritual. c) A gift from the tongue, or patronage, under which name come praises, favors, intercession even mediate, prayers, and similar things estimable by price (III, 56-66).

3. The WILL of exchanging one for the other truly constitutes simony, whether this will is externally manifested or not; whether it is manifested by one's own and the other part, or by one's own only (III, 51, 53).

From these things conclude: 1. It is simony to give or accept a temporal thing, whether formally or virtually, whether by explicit or implicit pact, for the spiritual thing itself, and in exchange for it, namely from the primary motive of having one for the other, or for a price or just compensation. "In this matter, ANY PACT WHATEVER, anything onerous whatever, is simoniacal, even if it does not bind rigorously from justice."

2. He cannot be excused from mental simony who serves a Bishop gratis, with the intention of obliging him, even if only from gratitude and not from justice, to repay him with a benefice (III, 51, 53).

3. A fortiori, he would be simoniacal who should draw into a pact an antidoral obligation, or an obligation of donation from gratitude; for such a pact introduces at least an obligation of fidelity, which, since it is estimable by some price, certainly renders the pact simoniacal (III, 53 and 764; l. El. qq. ref., n. 18).

But it is not simony: 1. If something spiritual is given for something spiritual, for example a relic for a relic, a Mass for a rosary, or if someone serves a Bishop in spiritual things, as in hearing confessions, for obtaining a benefice. 2. If some honorable motive intervenes, for example alms, stipend, by force of which the temporal and, in turn, the spiritual are bestowed; since the one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impelling cause (III, 55). Thus, for example, "those who give money to the poor, so that they may pray for them, do not buy prayer, but entice the souls of the poor to praying" (4. D. 25, q. 3, a. 2, ad 2). 3. If someone sells sacred vessels for the value of the material.

586. II. Simony is a most grave sin among the sins opposed to religion. It is evident: 1. From the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus (Acts Ap., 8, 20): Thy money be with thee unto perdition: because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be possessed with money. 2. From the sacred canons, where simony is called an execrable vice, a piacular crime, a pest, etc. 3. From reason: the malice of this sin chiefly consists in the irreverence which is committed when a sacred or spiritual thing is despised as profane. Often also injustice is added, on account of defect of title in receiving the temporal thing; and innumerable other evils are added from the election of unworthy ministers, etc. (III, 49).

587. III. Simony of divine law does not admit smallness of matter; but simony of ecclesiastical law admits it. The reason for the first is that however small the spiritual thing may be which is sold or bought, a grave injury is brought upon God from the exchange. But as regards the second, there is nothing except the prohibition of the Church, in which indeed smallness of matter can exist (III, 50).

Note. Simony of divine law and of ecclesiastical law are sins of the same species. For the Church commands and prohibits these pacts concerning spiritual things from the motive of the virtue of religion.

588. Although it is never licit to give or accept something temporal as a price for something spiritual, nevertheless it can happen that, on the occasion of a spiritual thing which is furnished, something temporal is licitly received from an extrinsic title, namely one which removes every simony. TITLES or CAUSES of this sort can be numbered as six, namely:

1. PURE LIBERALITY, or GRATITUDE. For if someone, after something spiritual has been conceded, from a grateful soul furnishes something temporal, without any preceding pact, expecting nothing in the future, he does not give the temporal thing for acquiring the spiritual.

Hence gifts furnished by the faithful on the occasion of baptism, first communion, and marriage are without simoniacal stain; likewise, a gift for a benefice already obtained, etc. Nor is it simony to confer a benefice on someone on account of carnal affection, provided no temporal gain is intended (III, 52).

2. HONORABLE SUSTENANCE OF THE WORKER, or stipend. For ministers of the Church are not held to serve as soldiers at their own expense; and therefore they have a right of receiving from the faithful that from which they may live suitably, even if they are rich.

From this title, a beneficiary receives the revenues of his benefice; a parish priest receives stole fees on the occasion of marriage and funerals; a priest receives stipends for celebrating Masses and for the sacred sermons which he has to the people. Indeed, from simony he is more probably to be excused who fulfills a spiritual office principally on account of temporal emoluments: provided he has these not as a price and the sole end of the sacred action, but as a stipend for his own sustenance; although he is not easily to be excused from venial fault, since it is a certain disorder to direct spiritual things to temporal things (III, 55, q. 6; H. Ap., IV, 45).

3. REMUNERATION OF UNDUE LABOR. This corresponds to the sayings of the virtue of justice.

Indeed, nothing can be accepted for labor intrinsic to a sacred function, even if it is great: for example, for the burden of carrying the last sacraments to the sick who are far distant; for this inheres in the pastoral office. See below n. 589, 4. But for extrinsic labor which is not owed, it is licit to accept or stipulate a price: for example, for a Mass to be celebrated at such an hour, for a longer Office, for a sung Mass of bination, where an excess of the diocesan stipend is given and labor of this sort is added (S. C. C., June 17, 1905, and Mar. 24, 1906). Likewise he who has suffered harm in obtaining a benefice for someone, by making journeys, neglecting his own affairs, can demand compensation (H. Ap., IV, 45).

4. REDEMPTION OF UNJUST VEXATION. This also is consonant with the principles of justice. Yet one must proceed circumspectly.

St. Alphonsus, with the Angelic Doctor, puts two rules here: a) If you have a right in the thing, or an acquired and certain right, you can well redeem vexation by giving something temporal, but not something spiritual. Thus a parish priest canonically instituted and vexed by the civil magistrate can free himself with money. Thus also a member of the faithful can, for a grave cause, give money to a priest unwilling without it to administer the sacraments (Exam. ord., n. 21). b) If you have a right to the thing, for example to acquiring a benefice, you can always redeem vexation from those able to harm, but not to benefit, namely that they abstain from harming you, whether by threats or calumnies against justice, or even by gifts and prayers against charity. But, regularly speaking, you cannot redeem vexation, even unjust, which proceeds from those able at once to harm and to benefit, for example from an elector who can deny or give a vote; the reason is that money in fact would always incline the mind of the elector toward you. Except, if the elector by frauds and violence were laboring to corrupt the other electors so that they also deny their vote to you; for then, as is sufficiently probable, you could give money with an express protestation that nothing is asked from him except that he desist from vexation. Likewise, with money you can impede the election of an unworthy person: for the Church has a right that an inept minister not be given to her; but you cannot buy votes, nor impede another from competing who can compete by right (III, 98-104; H. Ap., IV, 49).

5. DISPOSITION OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF. For the Pontiff can directly remove simony of ecclesiastical law, by mitigating or even abrogating the law.

But he can remove simony of divine law indirectly, by assigning an extrinsic title: for example, the title of sustenance for the burdens of the Supreme Pontificate, as in dispensations from matrimonial impediments; or the title of compensation, as in vows which are commuted into alms; or the title of penalty, as is done in dispensations both from irregularities and from impediments of matrimony contracted because of crime (III, 95, 96; H. Ap., IV, 46).

6. CUSTOM NOT REPROBATED; for this also abrogates or mitigates the law of the Church.

Thus, for example, in certain cathedral churches, a use has prevailed against the common law, that something is received in the distribution of sacred chrism, for compensating expenses made for procuring the matter. Likewise, for completed acts of ordinations, something is granted to notaries from use (III, 110, end; A. S. S., 13, p. 180).

589. I. Against DIVINE LAW: 1. It is simony to give or accept something temporal as price or compensation, for any sacred offices, for example for sacraments or sacramentals, for sacred relics, for preaching or catechism, for applying an indulgence, for dispensation of a vow, oath, matrimonial impediment; likewise for collation, election, presentation, confirmation to an ecclesiastical benefice, for collation of orders, ecclesiastical burial, dispensation ... For thus a temporal thing is exchanged with a spiritual thing (III, 55, 93-96). For teaching Theology or Sacred Scripture it is licit to receive money, because doctrine is ordered primarily to the temporal good of the students (III, 94).

2. It is simony to give or accept the temporal thing principally, even if not solely, for obtaining or procuring something spiritual. For the motive which is added, however honorable it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the prior motive on account of which the temporal thing is chiefly given (III, 51). - It is licit, speaking of itself, to give something temporal primarily for capturing benevolence, secondarily for obtaining something spiritual from benevolence. But in practice, whenever the temporal thing is given with the sole view of the spiritual thing, an intention at least virtually simoniacal is easily to be presumed. Except, unless the contrary is established, or something else is gathered from cir-

cumstances, for example from the smallness of the gift, or from the piety or wealth of the giver (III, 51, 62; H. Ap., IV, 44). Likewise, to give something to a mediator, not as a price that he intercede, but on account of labor or harm to be undergone, is not illicit of itself; nevertheless it is dangerous (III, 64, 65).

3. It is simony to sell more dearly a temporal thing antecedently annexed to a spiritual thing: for example, a consecrated chalice, a blessed rosary, a farm to which the right of patronage inheres, etc. It is said more dearly, because these can licitly be bought or sold by reason of intrinsic value, unless this is prohibited by the Church (III, 71; H. Ap., IV, 47; Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 207).

4. It is simony to sell a thing concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to a spiritual thing: for example, the labor intrinsically necessary for celebrating Mass.¹

5. It is simony, according to the more common and more probable opinion, to sell a thing consequently annexed to a spiritual thing, for example the right of perceiving ecclesiastical revenues. The reason is that this thing cannot be acquired except by reason of a spiritual office; therefore neither can it be sold unless the spiritual thing necessarily presupposed to it is sold (III, 70).

Hence it is unlawful at entrance into Religion to buy or sell the right of living from the goods of a sufficiently wealthy monastery; for this right is necessarily joined with religious profession, which is spiritual (l. El. qq. Ref., 58). Cf. n. 591, 2.

Yet it is licit, on the occasion of entrance into Religion, to give or accept on account of other titles, for example of gratuitous gift or alms. Likewise for food during the time of novitiate, even if the monastery is rich; for the sustenance of a religious, if the monastery is poor, or if one to be received is sick, old, dull of mind (III, 91, 92). But it has been granted to monasteries of nuns that they can always accept a dowry, by reason of the dangers to which they are generally liable. Indeed, if it is a question of choir nuns in a regular Order, there exist several decisions of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, by force of which it is not licit to admit them without pontifical dispensation, unless they bring a sufficient and legitimate dowry (Anal. jur. pont., ser. 4, col. 1525).

6. It is simony to give something so that another omits a spiritual thing, "if the omission is of a thing directed by spiritual power, and there is an obligation of placing it, as would be the omission of absolving, dispensing, electing, etc. Thus from c. Nemo presbyterorum, on simony"; but not "if the omission were of some spiritual act depending on liberty, as would be the omission of praying, celebrating, giving alms, provided the one omitting is not bound from justice to furnish it" (H. Ap., IV, 48).

590. II. Against ECCLESIASTICAL LAW simony is committed:

1. By exchanging ecclesiastical benefices, resigning them in favor of another, transacting concerning them, reserving a pension, or bargaining in any way, even for imposing a spiritual burden, without legitimate permission (III, 60, 69-90, where there are many things).

2. By selling or buying temporal offices canonically instituted for sacred things, as the offices of procurator, steward, sacristan, treasurer, etc. (H. Ap., IV, 42).

3. By selling part of a sacred cemetery; and this is simony of divine law, if it is sold as a sacred place. Yet the right of a grave can be bought by reason of the burden of not burying others there (III, 71).

4. By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; but cf. n. 588, 6. Likewise, by selling or exposing as venal blessed rosaries, medals, and other things of this sort blessed with application of indulgences; in which case even the indulgences themselves, from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, are lost (S. C. Ind. et Reliq., July 12, 1847).² Yet the seller can take the care upon himself that the thing be blessed, and afterward accept the price (S. C. Ind., 1896).

5. By accepting something, even spontaneously offered, indeed by title of gratitude, on the occasion of collation of an order, or even of first tonsure, from the Tridentine Council, Sess. 21, c. 1, on Reform. But the S. C. of the Council, Oct. 9, 1678, permitted that Bishops receive a candle from those to be ordained, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests. Indeed, the same Congregation deputed by Innocent XI fixed the emoluments which can be exacted for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc.

6. By giving or accepting something, even trifling, for example some flowers, a few fruits, modest foods, on the occasion of an examination for a parish priest to be elected by competition, whether before or after the examination; for this is wholly forbidden by the Tridentine Council, Sess. 24, c. 18, on Reform, under penalties to be incurred after sentence, to remove every danger of human affection in the examiners. Indeed, if someone should give for the examination itself, namely that it proceed prosperously, he would commit simony of divine law, as is evident.

7. By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of confraternities, against the Bull Quaecumque of Clement VIII, in which there are decreed both invalidity of the act and privation of offices and inability to obtain those and others in the future. This penalty can be remitted by the Roman Pontiff alone, but it seems not to be incurred except by means of a declaratory sentence of the crime.

8. By committing to others the celebration of a Mass owed from a stipend, part being retained from mutual pact (Noldin, II, n. 185, 7).

591. PRINCIPLES. I. Penalties are not incurred, by the fact itself, except through either real or confidential simony. But this happens only in cases which regard the matter of benefices, entrance into Religion, Mass stipends and indulgences, and the simoniacal election of a Pope.

These must be explained in order: 1. IN THE MATTER OF BENEFICES. Real simony is punished: a) by excommunication simply reserved to the Pope, which extends also to accomplices, that is, those by whose cooperation the contract is perfected (cf. n. 1335); b) by nullity of election, presentation, and canonical institution; so that one thus promoted and instituted cannot make the fruits of the benefice his own; c) by perpetual inability for the same benefice; and after at least declaratory sentence, by inability also for obtaining other benefices. Confidential simony, even incomplete, besides the same penalties, which prelates of whatever dignity incur, even Cardinals and Bishops, but not accomplices, n. 1336, is punished for this by privation of pensions and benefices previously obtained; but not except after a declaratory sentence of the crime (III, 111, 112; H. Ap., IV, 53).

Moreover, although the Pontiff confirms, for example, the election of a Bishop, not knowing the vice of simony, and although in the Bull he says that he supplies all defects, nevertheless the confirmation is not valid; because that is understood concerning other defects, but not concerning simony (III, l. c. and 120).

2. IN ENTRANCE INTO RELIGION strictly so called, through profession. Real simony is punished with excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, in those presuming to give or accept. - Those accepting were formerly suspended from capitular offices and every act of jurisdiction. But this penalty seems abrogated from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (cf. n. 1337). But the professed one, whose profession indeed is valid, must after sentence be transferred into a stricter monastery (III, 108; H. Ap., IV, 50).

3. IN MASS STIPENDS AND INDULGENCES. They are struck with the same reserved excommunication: a) Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses and capturing profit from them, by causing them to be celebrated by reason of a lesser stipend. b) All who, whether by conceding, publishing, or ordering publication, make profit from indulgences and other spiritual graces (cf. n. 1338, 1339). To these add the things which we said n. 590, 7, concerning the erection of confraternities.

4. IN THE SIMONIACAL ELECTION OF A POPE; see n. 1312, 3.

Note. Today there is no censure in the simoniacal collation and reception of orders. Except the suspension which a Bishop incurs for three years when he ordains someone without title of benefice or patrimony, with a pact that the one ordained not ask support from him (see n. 1362). Except also privation of hope of ascending to other orders. This penalty is a species of irregularity reserved to the Pope in a special manner, from the Constitution Sanctam of Pius V.

For the rest, against any notorious simony whatsoever, whether from the declaration of a judge or from the spreading abroad of the fact, infamy of law is established, and therefore irregularity (cf. n. 1938).

592. II. The spiritual thing accepted simoniacally, if it is an ecclesiastical benefice, must always be restored; but the temporal price simoniacally accepted must be restored when justice was wounded in the convention. The reason for the first is that the collation of a benefice of this sort is declared void by the law itself and before the sentence of a judge. The reason for the second: because if wounding of justice is absent, restitution is provided for by no other law. Otherwise after the sentence of a judge (III, 114).

Hence: 1. A benefice is to be dismissed by the fact itself, with the fruits unjustly perceived, only those things being retained which correspond to labor. Let restitution be made to the Church; but it is probable that the fruits can also be restored to the poor, or to the successor in the benefice. A composition can also be obtained from the Pope, if a cause underlies it (III, 113, 114).

But if the spiritual thing simoniacally accepted is some other thing than a benefice, nothing is to be restored. The reason is that the other things either cannot be restored, as are the sacraments, or are not to be restored before the sentence of a judge, as sacred relics, since the canons have not established it.

2. If, a temporal price having been accepted, the spiritual thing has not been handed over or furnished, the price must be restored to the one who gave, since he gave from a false title.

3. If delivery has followed on both sides, in this case, according to some, the price must still be returned to the giver, on account of the nullity of the contract; according to others, to the church where the benefice is, as a penalty of both exchanging parties; finally, according to others, it can also be given to the poor. These three opinions are probable, but the second and third are more probable (H. Ap., IV, 53; Conf. dir., IV, 28).

Irreligiosity is special irreverence which is inflicted on God, either immediately in Himself, or mediately in persons or sacred things. Its principal species are tempting God, sacrilege, simony, blasphemy, and perjury. Of the two last there will be discussion in the second precept.

345. • Temptation of God is a word or deed for taking an experiment about God through an extraordinary effect rashly expected from Him. - Thus the common doctrine with St. Thom.³

But it proceeds from a twofold vice, namely either from infidelity, when someone doubting about some perfection of God says or does something with the mind of obtaining from God a manifestation of that perfection, and this is called formal or express; or from mere presumption, when someone, doubting nothing about the perfections of God, without necessity wills to obtain either the manifestation of the divine will or special help of God through wonders, and this is called implicit or interpretative.

It is certain that formal or express temptation of God is always a mortal sin against Religion. - But if it is only implicit, often because of ignorance or inadvertence it can be venial, although of itself it is more probably mortal.¹

You will resolve. - 1° Those formerly sinned gravely against Religion who demanded that their innocence be proved by duel, by burning iron, etc., or who without a just cause freely offered themselves to martyrdom, unless they were excused by good faith or divine inspiration. - Nevertheless it is licit to ask from God a miracle under the condition, if it has pleased Him, as often as there is a grave cause for our own or others' salvation, or for fulfilling the divine will, or, as St. Thom.² says, when there underlies a just necessity or pious utility and the other things which ought to concur for this. For then it is not to tempt God, but to request the help of God at an opportune time.

2° Likewise he sins gravely who, without a just cause, exposes himself to danger of death because he expects divine help; but if he acts only rashly, without certainly trusting in divine Providence, he does not sin against Religion, but only against the fifth precept of the Decalogue.

3° He sins only lightly who in a light illness, with remedies rejected, hopes for health from God; because there is not a grave disorder there. Indeed he is excused from all fault if he hopes that he will be freed naturally from such an illness with God's help.³

4° Likewise he sins of himself venially who from negligence approaches unprepared to preaching the word of God, hoping for special help from God.

346. • Sacrilege is the violation or unworthy treatment of sacred things. It is distinguished as threefold: 1° personal; 2° local; 3° real.

Principles. - I. Sacred here is called whatever is deputed to divine worship from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and therefore deserves special reverence. - St. Thomas.¹

Hence 1° Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship through Sacred Tonsure, or through religious vows, or more probably also through any vow of chastity.

2° Sacred places are those which by the authority of the Church are dedicated to worship, as temples and public chapels (not private ones), yet consecrated or blessed; likewise blessed cemeteries. L. IV. 460.

3° Sacred things are those which pertain to divine worship or are proximately referred to it, as Sacraments, consecrated vessels, Relics or images of Saints; likewise those things which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. - St. Thom.²

II. Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its genus, because it is opposed to the most excellent moral virtue, namely Religion, and for the most part regards grave matter. - Yet it can become light by reason of smallness of matter or imperfection of the act.³

III. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing; hence in confession those circumstances must be explained. - St. Alph.⁴ St. Thom.⁵

347. You will resolve. - 1° Personal sacrilege is committed: 1) by inflicting violent hands on a Cleric or Religious; 2) by any sin of luxury perpetrated by or with a person bound by a vow of chastity; 3) by violation of personal immunity. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because his person alone is sacred, but not his reputation.⁶

2° Local sacrilege is committed: 1) by all sins by which a Church is polluted by Law, namely by illicit shedding of human blood or seed, homicide, or burial of an excommunicated person or infidel in the Church; 2) by all sins which are done against the immunity and sanctity of a sacred place, as breaking in, despoiling, theft, quarrels, and similar things; 3) by actions unbecoming the sanctity of the place, as are markets, assemblies, and the din of judgments, unless a grave cause excuses.¹

3° Real sacrilege is committed: 1) by unworthy administration or reception of the Sacraments; 2) by unworthy treatment of sacred Relics, images, etc.; 3) by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, or ornaments; 4) by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the Church; 5) by abuse of Scripture, for example by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6) by neglect of sacred vessels, corporals, etc., in those who ought to care for these things religiously.²

348. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is violation of a person bound by a simple vow of chastity outside Religion sacrilege?

Resp. It is controverted. The more probable opinion of St. Alph.³ affirms, because through any vow of chastity man is truly consecrated to God. For one's own will suffices for consecrating one's own acts to God, while for public consecration public authority is required.⁴ See p. LXXXIX. 7.

Besides, whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates this, certainly commits a twofold sin: namely one against chastity, and the other against Religion. - Lacroix.⁵

Quaer. 2° Are all sins of luxury committed in a Church or cemetery sacrileges?

Resp. 1° Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself. - Thus commonly.⁶

Resp. 2° As to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. This is openly clear from Canon Law. But whether it is also committed through other grave external sins, for example gravely impure touches, is controverted. St. Alph.,⁷ Collet, etc., more probably affirm.

Quaer. 3° Is every theft in a Church sacrilege?

Resp. 1° It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also theft of a non-sacred thing nevertheless committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from Canon Law.¹

Resp. 2° As to things which by chance or by accident are found in the Church, as purses, a watch, etc., it is probably controverted on both sides.

349. • Quaer. 4° Does the injury of any goods whatever belonging to Clerics constitute sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively, but only injury of goods which Clerics possess not in their own name but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose, and of those which pertain to the adornment of the church, because these alone are sacred.² (II) p. 479.

Quaer. 5° To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels?

Resp. If they actually contain the Blessed Sacrament, outside a case of necessity or danger of profanation, it is licit for no one, without grave sin, to touch them, even mediately, except for a priest or deacon; otherwise, for all Clerics without special permission. The same is licit for sacristans, whether regular laymen, or oblates of secular congregations, or nuns; likewise for those who in clerical dress serve churches. For other laymen it is prohibited under venial sin to touch them immediately, unless a reasonable cause excuses.³

But it is licit for all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei, at least from modern custom, Relics of Saints, sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the holy Eucharist, as, for example, corporals, palls, purificators after use and before washing. But the first washing of these must be performed by a cleric in sacred orders, yet probably it can also be performed by a tonsured cleric; but it cannot be done without venial sin by a layman, or even by a nun or pious women living a common life under rule;⁴ but the second and third washing, although more suitably done by a cleric, can nevertheless be done without sin even by a layman. It would also be venial not to throw the water of the washing into the sacrarium.⁵

350. Definition. - Simony, so called from Simon Magus, is the studied will of selling or buying for a temporal price something spiritual, or something annexed to the spiritual. It is said studied will, not only because, no differently from other sins, it demands deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that the pact be completed by mutual consent or in reality; but the interior affection even of one suffices, namely the simoniacal will of making a pact or of obligating.

A temporal price is distinguished in Canon Law¹ as of three kinds: 1° a gift from the hand, or recompense of any temporal thing estimable by price; 2° a gift from the tongue, or patronage, under which name come praises, commendations, prayers, etc., to be interposed from pact in favor of the one conferring the spiritual thing; 3° a gift from service, or any servitude, or offices furnished to another, for example servitude or any similar office.

351. • Likewise, the temporal thing annexed to the spiritual is threefold: 1° antecedently, to which the spiritual thing accedes, as the right of patronage inhering in land; 2° consequently, which depends on the spiritual, as the fruits of a benefice or office; 3° concomitantly, as labor in sacred functions. But labor of this sort is annexed to the spiritual thing either intrinsically or extrinsically. It is called intrinsically annexed if it is not easily separable from the thing itself; otherwise it is called extrinsically annexed. Thus celebration of Mass is labor intrinsically annexed to a spiritual thing; but extraordinary fatigue, as singing, delay until midday, a long or difficult journey to be undertaken for celebrating, and other similar things pertain to labor extrinsically annexed.

Division. Simony is distinguished as:

1° Mental, if it is done merely internally or without pact, as if someone recommends a son to the collator of a vacant parish, and meanwhile under the appearance of a liberal gift sends silver vessels to him with this internal intention, that he move and oblige him to nominate his son.

2° Conventional, if a pact indeed intervenes, but is in no way carried into execution, at least by both parties.

3° Real, if the pact is fulfilled by each party, at least inchoatively.

To this is added confidential Simony, which is done by any pact, or confidence, in election or presentation to benefices, or in resigning them, etc.¹

Simony is also distinguished as of divine or natural law, and of ecclesiastical law. The former is had if the thing simoniacally exchanged is spiritual from its nature, as are indulgences, Sacraments, etc.; but the latter, if something is done against some law which has been made by the Church because of either the danger or the appearance of simony.

352. Principles. - I. For Simony it is required that the temporal thing be given or accepted, either formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself and in exchange for it, so that an equating of the spiritual thing with the temporal thing is made, or a commutation, from the primary motive of having one thing 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 thing is given, and in turn the spiritual, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impelling cause, and therefore it would not be Simony.

I said: 1° formally, that is, that someone directly intends to receive the spiritual in place of the temporal thing and because of its estimation.

I said: 2° virtually, namely that someone wills to obtain the spiritual thing proximately and immediately through the temporal thing, and no other true and honest motive intervenes. For in this will there is virtually included the intention of commuting one thing with the other.

II. It is licit to give for a price the temporal thing annexed to the spiritual antecedently and concomitantly extrinsically, provided the price is not increased because of the spiritual thing annexed. But in no way is it licit to give for a price what is annexed to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically, or inseparably, nor what is annexed consequently.

The first reason is because the thing and the labor of the action are truly estimable in themselves by price. Yet by Canon Law the sale of balsam which is contained in Chrism is prohibited, although it preexists the consecration; because since it is of small price, the Bishop would seem to sell Sacraments.²

Nevertheless, as to blessed Oil or Sacred Chrism, Scavini observes that in some cathedral Churches the use has prevailed that something is accepted from particular Churches for compensating the expenses made in obtaining the matter.

The second reason is because what is intrinsically annexed to the spiritual is inseparable from it; hence the thing itself or the action would be judged to be sold. Yet, even apart from extrinsic labor, something can licitly be accepted for sacred ministry by reason of a stipend or support, as is established from the practice of the Church. For natural equity demands that honest support be granted to those who are vacant for the utility of others. Hence Christ:¹ The laborer is worthy of his hire. And the Apostle:² Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.

The third reason is because that which is consequent is judged spiritual, or bound to the spiritual. It is also derived from a special disposition of Canon Law.

III. Simony is a most grave sin; and if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter. But if the Simony is of ecclesiastical law, there can be smallness of matter in it according to St. Alph.³ - The reason is that any spiritual thing, from comparison with a temporal thing, is treated as vile with great injury against God Himself. This is established also from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus:⁴ Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be possessed with money.

353. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is it Simony to give principally indeed a temporal thing for a spiritual, but not uniquely?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that even thus there is present a comparison of the temporal thing with the spiritual. For the motive which is added, however honest it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the prior motive because of which the temporal thing is principally given. This is established also from propositions 45 and 46 condemned by Innocent XI (p. XVI).

Quaer. 2° Is it Simony to give or procure for a Superior a temporal thing for conciliating him to oneself with a view to obtaining a benefice or office?

Resp. Negatively, 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, not, however, as the effect of gratitude of soul. This intention, unless the opposite either is established or can be gathered from adjuncts, for example from the smallness of the gift, etc., is to be presumed to exist virtually, if another title is lacking, for example of removing an unjust vexation, etc.¹

Quaer. 3° Is it Simony to perform sacred functions principally because of a stipend, or to receive something for sacred doctrine?

Resp. to the first. Negatively, at least more probably, because the stipend is not received as the price of the sacred thing, but as something owed to the person who is occupied for the sake of the neighbor. - Lacroix and others commonly,² against some. Therefore if some inordinate affection intervenes (for there will be no fault if need or another honest cause impels one to seeking stipends of this sort), it will not be the vice of Simony, but of avarice.

Resp. to the second. Affirmatively, if the instruction tends to the spiritual good of others, because it is a spiritual thing, unless nevertheless it is accepted by title of stipend or support. But otherwise if the instruction is merely temporal, for example in handing on an explanation of Sacred Letters or Theology.³

354. • Quaer. 4° Is it Simony to redeem oneself with money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, for example Sacraments, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, 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 tries through fraud to impede the collator from favoring you. - St. Alph.⁴ and others commonly. Indeed Doctors agree in the same, even if he wishes to impede by prayers alone. But you cannot give money to those who can harm or benefit by electing or presenting to a benefice or by conferring it; for to offer money to them lest they harm would be the same as to offer it so that they benefit, that is, so that they not deny consent.⁵

Quaer. 5° Is it Simony to give or accept something for entrance into Religion?

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

2° It is certain also that it is licit for a poor monastery to exact something for the support of the one entering, because then the spiritual thing is not commuted with the temporal; and otherwise equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery fall burdened by expenses.

3° It is likewise certain that it is licit for a monastery to exact something for the support of Novices, because since they do not yet pertain to Religion, and can depart at will, and often in reality do depart, it is not equitable for the monastery to undergo so grave a burden for them. Yet the Religion of Friars Minor can receive nothing from a special decree.

4° But if there is question of a wealthy monastery, it is controverted. St. Alph.¹ denies, unless the one to be received is old or infirm. Besides, now all doubt vanishes because of the difficulty of the times. For no monasteries are found so wealthily founded that they need no alien help at all for the present and the future. Besides, as is established from several decrees, Nuns always can exact the established dowry, and for choir nuns they ought to [n. 1188. II. 3)].

355. • Quaer. 6° Does a priest commit Simony who promises a Mass to a layman for the outcome of a game, while the companion puts up a temporal price?

Resp. Negatively of itself, because by this reason a spiritual thing is not properly equated with a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which would otherwise 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; therefore by parity neither does he sin who promises a Mass for the outcome of a game, while the other puts up $1. - Thus Voit² against others. - Besides, a game of this sort rarely lacks some scandal, and therefore must always be dissuaded from.

Quaer. 7° Does a priest commit Simony who for Mass exacts a stipend above the usual tax or one established by the Bishop?

Resp. Negatively, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind; because, since he has another title of exacting remuneration, comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. He would indeed sin against obedience or justice by exacting more than is equitable, but not at all against Religion. - Yet Voit¹ contradicts, with others, because (he says) then every just title of exacting the temporal thing is lacking.

356. • Quaer. 8° What about so-called stole fees?

Resp. 1° By common law it has been established: a) that their payment not be a condition without which sacred functions are not performed, and therefore that it not be exacted before those functions; b) that after the sacred functions to which they are annexed by diocesan law or laudable custom, they can be exacted, and indeed from justice,² except from the poor; c) that those who maliciously strive to alter laudable custom are restrained by the Bishop, not by the priest.³ - But a custom cannot be called laudable when it is forbidden by the Holy See or by the Ordinary (cf. Conc. Pl. Balt. II, p. 290, Doc. VI), or has proceeded from the exaction of priests.

Resp. 2° According to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, it belongs to Bishops "in ... diocesan synod, or otherwise, as it shall have seemed to them in the Lord, with the counsel of priests also employed, to establish a just" manner "by which among priests dwelling together ... the alms which the faithful spontaneously confer on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism or Matrimony are distributed, with consideration not neglected of the stronger right and the graver burdens of the pastor."¹

Moreover, in various dioceses it has been established that stole fees which proceed from functions exercised in another's parish or for the sake of another's parishioner are remitted to the proper pastor. Yet this must not be understood of offerings altogether voluntary, or of those to which the faithful are obliged neither by diocesan law nor by custom; nor even of that part of the owed offering which exceeds the tax established by law or custom; for as to that part it is altogether voluntary.

Resp. 3° As regards specifically the administration of Sacraments, on the occasion of:

a) Confirmation, if it is joined with a pastoral visitation, as is customary, "let it be ... in the choice of those who are visited whether they prefer to pay that which was previously customarily paid by them, a certain sum of money having been fixed, or rather ... to furnish provisions" to the Bishop.¹

b) Eucharist, nothing is customarily accepted.

c) Penance, confessors "should not apply pecuniary penances to themselves ... nor should they ask or accept anything from penitents as a reward of their ministry."² "Even things offered spontaneously," the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore³ warns, "under whatever name, let them refuse; nor let them allow even the Mass alms itself to be offered in this sacred tribunal."

d) Extreme Unction, nothing is accepted. "But if a priest has made a long journey for visiting them, nothing forbids that the necessary expenses of the journey be given to him; but let it be absent that they be exacted from the poor."⁴

e) Orders, "let Bishops and other collators of orders, or their ministers, accept nothing ... even spontaneously offered, under whatever pretext."⁵ Yet a Bishop conferring Orders in place of another or outside the cathedral in favor of some convent or college will be able to accept expenses of the journey.

f) Baptism and Matrimony. It is certain: 1) that nothing can be exacted where there is not diocesan law or laudable custom. But this cannot be called laudable if it had proceeded not from the piety of the faithful, but from the exaction of priests, as Canonists explain.

2. "Those things which, from the zeal of piety after baptism or matrimony has been conferred, are spontaneously offered by the faithful under the name of alms" a priest, if he wishes, can accept.⁶

Resp. 4° Around burial it has been established:

I. By common law: 1° a) For ground to be deputed to burial (for the word burial comes also in this sense), not yet blessed, something can be exacted or accepted; b) but not for ground already blessed, c) unless either custom is present, or something is offered liberally, or something is sought by reason of the location or more honorable place.

The first part of the response is clear from the fact that ground of this sort is something profane, and therefore can be sold and bought without any stain of simony; the second from L. III, Decr. T. XXVIII, c. 13; the third from the fact that the custom is not called depraved in the cited law, except in the case in which "the digging of a grave is not first permitted for the deceased before a certain price is paid to the Church for the ground in which they are to be buried"; - that a free offering is prohibited by no law; - and that location or a more honorable place is something profane, estimable by price.

2° For the act and office of burial, things spontaneously offered, as is clear of itself, can be accepted, and, where custom is in force, something can also be exacted by title of support.

3° For the burial of the poor, whether as to place or act, nothing can be exacted by pastors.¹

II. By our law, or by the statutes of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,² the price paid for a place of burial is to be employed for preserving, restoring, and adorning cemeteries, and, if anything remains, for promoting works of charity or religion by the judgment of the Ordinary. "But we strictly forbid," say the Fathers, "that ever, under whatever pretext, without permission of the Ordinary, ecclesiastical men dare to make their own the monies which are derived from cemeteries; but if they shall have attempted this, let them be punished with most severe penalties."

"Where there is custom," says De Angelis,³ "it is admitted ... that for a common place in a cemetery a tax be paid, which is called of burial; and the reason for paying this tax is a partial reintegration of the sum expended for the building of the cemetery, and of the expenses which are made for the preservation and custody of the same place; just as here at Rome there is also such a tax, and it is noted in the said Statutes of the Clergy, chap. 6" (the Statutes of the Roman Clergy are denoted). "But for the poor, burial ought to be gratuitous; and what is rightly reprehended in these exactions is the vexatious mode by which they are made, so that permission for burial is not given unless the sum of money has been paid; ... concerning which last case, as Doctors observe, the disposition of Chap. 13, h. t."⁴ is to be understood. See this above under 1°.

357. You will resolve. - 1° He does not commit Simony who exchanges Relics with Relics;¹ 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 proper authority, is prohibited by the Church.

2° He does not commit Simony who sells blessed wax, rosaries, crosses, or medals to which indulgences are annexed, 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 annexed; but otherwise if, because of the sacred thing itself, these were sold for a greater price. It must be observed besides that by several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it has been forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale.¹

3° He does not commit Simony who pays money to a heretical prince, lest he be impeded from entrance to the Church or from frequenting religious assemblies of Catholics; or to a malevolent man, lest he be unjustly defamed by him and barred 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 impeding injury, which is something temporal.

4° Those are not to be accused of Simony who serve gratuitously or for an inadequate wage, so that by this occasion they may demonstrate their probity or dexterity with hope of sometimes obtaining some benefice; because they do not expect that spiritual thing as the price of their labors. - Elbel.²

5° Nor are those culpable of Simony who from gratitude furnish a temporal thing for a spiritual thing received, and vice versa. Thus a Chaplain would not sin who more gladly furnished services to a Bishop from whom he obtained a benefice, nor a Bishop who conferred a benefice on a Cleric in recognition of services; because these are not furnished as a price. Besides, it is honorable and laudable to show oneself grateful for an accepted service. Yet one must carefully beware lest disguised Simony lie hidden under the title of gratitude; but this would happen where there intervened an implicit pact of giving a benefice for temporal service, or vice versa.³

6° But it would be Simony to perform sacred ministries precisely because of the price to be received as such, for example to accept money for absolution from sins, from censures, or for dispensation in a vow, oath, irregularity, and matrimonial impediments. 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. Yet money is licitly accepted on occasion of dispensations, especially when another just cause is not present, by title namely of commutation or alms, or of support of the burdens of the Pontificate, for coming to the aid of the necessities of the Church, for example of Temples, Missions, etc., or for other pious uses, for example for relieving the poor, for endowing hospitals, for the expenses of tribunals by which dispensations are granted, etc. For a suitable stipend must be assigned to the various officials or ministers employed for expediting causes.

358. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must the spiritual thing acquired simoniacally be restored?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, as to benefices; thus the common and certain opinion of Doctors. The reason is that laws, as a punishment for the delict, stand in the way, so that the one receiving can acquire dominion of neither the price nor the benefice. And since the acquisition of the benefice is invalid, by that very fact dominion of the fruits cannot be acquired; and therefore these also must be restored.

Resp. 2° Negatively, as to the rest, although the judge can enjoin restitution as a penalty of the crime. Thus the common opinion with Schmalzgrueber.¹ The reason is not only because certain things cannot be restored, for example Sacred Order, but also because for the transfer of a spiritual thing to be valid by divine law, for example of most holy Relics, nothing more is required than the power of transferring in the one and of receiving dominion of the thing in the other; but, unless there is some defect from elsewhere in either, this power is present in both as to 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 simoniacal provisions alone of benefices, almost only, are decreed invalid.

Quaer. 2° Must the price accepted simoniacally for a spiritual thing 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 a condemnatory sentence of a judge, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred with the spiritual thing to another. Thus Suarez, Lessius, Laymann, Reiffenstuel apud Schmalzgr.¹

Resp. 2° But where the simoniacal pact is also opposed 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.

Quaer. 3° To whom must the simoniacal price be restored?

Resp. 1° If the price has been 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 shall have decreed otherwise. The reason is that laws establish vindicatory penalties only against real simony.

Resp. 2° But if the handing over has followed on both sides, before sentence it can probably be restored either to the giver, or to the church, or to the poor.²

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.¹

By this precept there is prohibited any irreverence toward God, whether by the vain usurpation of His Most Holy Name, or by blasphemy, or by an oath or vow either illicit or violated.

790. Irreligiosity posits something contrary to religion and is opposed to it by defect. To reverence toward God Himself are immediately opposed the tempting of God, blasphemy, and perjury; to the reverence due to sacred things and mediately to divine worship, sacrilege and simony are opposed.

Concerning blasphemy it has already been spoken in the treatise on Faith, because at the same time it is opposed to the confession of faith; concerning the four others it now remains to speak.

Irreligiosity is a special irreverence which is inflicted on God, either immediately in himself or mediately in sacred persons or things. Its chief species are: tempting God, sacrilege, simony, blasphemy, and perjury. Concerning the last two there will be discussion in the 2nd precept; but now concerning tempting God, sacrilege, and simony.