Penalties of simony

181. Definition. Simony, named from Simon Magus,² is defined as: the studious will of buying or selling, for a temporal price, something spiritual or annexed to something spiritual.³

a. It is said: studious, that is, deliberate will; because for the essence of simony it is not required that the pact be actually completed by mutual consent, but it suffices that it be begun, because there is present the interior will of one party of making an agreement or of obligating another. Of buying or selling signifies any onerous pact by which a spiritual thing is exchanged for a temporal thing. For a temporal price signifies not only money, but any temporal good or advantage which is exchanged with a spiritual thing. Something spiritual or annexed to something spiritual signifies the matter about which simony turns, which can be either a spiritual thing or a temporal thing annexed to something spiritual.

b. He does not commit simony of itself who gives a spiritual thing for a spiritual thing, or a thing annexed to a spiritual thing for a thing annexed to a spiritual thing; therefore it is not simony to give a Mass for a rosary, a chalice for a ciborium, nor to exchange mutually spiritual things of diverse orders: the application of an indulgence or a dispensation for a sacred relic, because a spiritual thing is not given for a temporal thing. Likewise he does not commit simony of itself who serves a bishop in a spiritual matter, for example as preacher or confessor, with the intention that he may receive a benefice: for a spiritual thing is exchanged for a spiritual thing.

Note. This definition applies only to simony of divine law, not likewise to simony of ecclesiastical law. Simony taken universally can be defined as: a contract concerning something spiritual or annexed to something spiritual, forbidden by law from a regard for religion.

¹ Laymann, l. 4, tract. 10, c. 8; Reuter, pr. II, n. 452-503; Lacroix, l. 3, pr. 1, n. 56-246; Castropalao, tract. 17, disp. 3; A. Leinz, Die Simonie, Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Canonists treat simony diffusely throughout.

² Acts 8:18 ff.

³ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 1.

182. Division of simony. Three things necessarily concur for simony: matter, pact, and price; wherefore simony is divided in three ways.

1. By reason of matter, into simony of divine (natural) law and of ecclesiastical law. a. Simony of divine law is committed when for a temporal thing a spiritual thing or a thing annexed to a spiritual thing is given; and this simony indeed is evil in itself and therefore prohibited by natural-divine law. b. Simony of ecclesiastical law is committed when a spiritual thing or a thing annexed to a spiritual thing is given for another spiritual thing or thing annexed to a spiritual thing, or when a temporal thing is given for another temporal thing, but each against the prohibition of the Church. But this simony is not evil in itself, but is evil only because it is prohibited by the Church.

It is simony of divine law if money is given for the sacraments, for the sacrifice of the Mass, etc.; it is simony of ecclesiastical law if ecclesiastical benefices are exchanged, or if money is given for blessed oil without the license of the Church. But when the prohibition of the Church has been removed, the exchange or buying and selling of these things is no longer simoniacal.

2. By reason of the pact, simony is divided into mental, conventional, real, and confidential. This division tends especially to this, that the penalties established by law against simony may be explained.

a. Mental simony is committed when a temporal thing is given or offered with the intention of obligating another to give a spiritual thing, or conversely, without any pact externally manifested.

Therefore for mental simony the mere internal proposal of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing does not suffice, but it is required that something actually be offered or given with the merely internal will of obligating another to return a spiritual thing, as if a cleric serves a bishop with the intention that a benefice be conferred on him as wages, or if a patron gives a benefice to someone in order to compensate him for services received, yet with no agreement outwardly made. The mere internal proposal of committing simony without any external execution would be purely mental or intentional simony, which the law, as pertaining to the merely internal forum, does not attend to.

b. Conventional simony is made by a pact or agreement of giving or receiving a spiritual thing for a temporal thing, but with the agreement not yet fulfilled from each side. And if the agreement has been fulfilled from neither side by delivery of the thing promised, it is called pure conventional simony; but if it has been fulfilled from either side by at least partial delivery of the thing promised, it is called mixed.

c. Real simony is had when the agreement has been completed from each side by delivery of the thing promised, or at least has begun to be fulfilled, as if, when the spiritual thing has been given, the temporal thing has been received at least in part.

Titius sells Sempronius a benefice for five hundred crowns, but neither the benefice nor the price has thus far been handed over - pure conventional simony. Titius has conferred the sold benefice, but Sempronius has thus far paid nothing of the price - mixed conventional simony. Titius has conferred the sold benefice and Sempronius has already paid either the whole price or at least part of it - real simony.

Concerning confidential simony it will be said below.

3. By reason of the price, it is divided into simony with a gift from the hand, from the tongue, and from service: for the temporal price in law is customarily called a gift.¹ A threefold diverse gift is distinguished: a. a gift from the hand, by which money or any external good which can be appraised by a temporal price is designated, as remission of debt, lending of money, etc.; b. a gift from the tongue, by which any patronage which is exhibited by the tongue or by speaking is designated, as praise, recommendation, intercession, defense, etc., made before another from agreement for a spiritual thing; c. a gift from service, by which any temporal service is designated, as service as a servant, administration of affairs, etc., from a pact of obtaining something spiritual.

Therefore simony is committed on account of a gift from the hand if someone gives another a benefice so that he may remit a debt to him; on account of a gift from the tongue, if someone gives another a benefice so that he may recommend him to a prince; on account of a gift from service, if someone gives another a benefice so that he may instruct the children of the one conferring the benefice.

¹ c. Sunt nonnulli 114, c. 1, q. 1.

183. Moral and specific malice. 1. Simony of divine law is a sin against religion, grave from its whole genus, which does not admit smallness of matter. Its malice consists in this, that the spiritual and sacred thing is judged to be valued no more highly than a temporal and profane thing, by which reason not only is the spiritual thing treated unworthily, but at the same time injury is inflicted upon God, the author of spiritual things. Therefore there is the precept of Christ concerning supernatural goods: Freely you have received, freely give,¹ and the words of reprobation of St. Peter to Simon Magus: Thy money be with thee unto perdition, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be possessed by money.² That this simony does not admit smallness of matter is clear: for a spiritual thing, however small, is by that very fact despised with the greatest injury to God, that it is equated with a temporal thing.

From these things it is clear that simony is a sin against religion, which is reduced to real sacrilege, although it is specifically distinct from it. Yet because its treatment is lengthy and filled with many difficulties, for the sake of clarity it is customarily set forth apart from sacrilege.

2. Simony of ecclesiastical law is a sin grave from its genus, which admits smallness of matter. This simony is evil because it is prohibited gravely by the Church from a motive of religion, namely for removing the danger of simony and therefore for guarding against irreverence toward sacred things. It admits smallness of matter, because the prohibitions of the Church, unless something else prevents, are accommodated to the matter, so that they are grave in grave matter and light in light matter.

3. Simony of divine law and of ecclesiastical law are sins of the same species, since even simony of ecclesiastical law is a sin against religion and therefore has the nature of true simony: for if the Church, from a motive of some virtue, commands or prohibits anything, by that very fact the thing commanded or prohibited becomes the matter of that virtue or vice on account of which the thing is commanded or prohibited; therefore even simony of ecclesiastical law is a sin against religion.

¹ Matt. 10:8.

² Acts 8:20.

184. Matter of simony of divine law is either something spiritual or something temporal annexed to something spiritual; therefore a twofold matter of simony is distinguished: the one is constituted by things spiritual in themselves, the other by things spiritual through connection.

a. Spiritual is understood as everything which either from itself or from the institution of God or of the Church is ordered to the salvation of the soul, whether as to substance it is a spiritual or a sensible thing.

This spiritual thing is of three genera: a. formally spiritual, which in itself and as to its substance is spiritual, such as sanctifying grace, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, supernatural virtues, graces gratuitously given, etc.; b. causally spiritual, which causes something spiritual, such as the sacraments, sacramentals, prayers both public and private, sermons, etc.; c. effectively spiritual, which is caused by something spiritual, such as acts of the power of order or jurisdiction: consecration, absolution, blessing, dispensation, excommunication, conferral of a benefice, etc.

b. Annexed to a spiritual thing is said of something temporal in itself, which nevertheless either by God or by the Church is annexed to something spiritual (a thing, right, or office).

A temporal thing can be annexed to a spiritual thing in three ways: a. antecedently, if a temporal thing preexists, to which a spiritual thing is then added, as are all things consecrated and blessed (sacred vessels, a temple, blessed oil), a plot of land or building to which the right of patronage adheres; b. consequently, if a temporal thing supposes a spiritual thing as the cause on account of which it is given, such as ecclesiastical benefices (the right of receiving temporal fruits), which are given on account of an office; c. concomitantly, if a temporal thing exists at the same time with a spiritual thing, as bodily labor to be undertaken in sacred functions. But labor annexed to a spiritual work is either intrinsic, when it is joined with the work of itself and necessarily, as the labor necessary in celebrating Mass, in carrying Viaticum, in preaching the word of God; or extrinsic, when it is joined to the work only accidentally, as the trouble which someone must undergo in celebrating with chant, in a distant place, at a determinate hour.

185. When it is simony to buy or sell a temporal thing annexed to something spiritual. 1. To buy or sell temporal things consequently annexed to something spiritual, according to the most common opinion, is simony of divine law: for the temporal thing which follows from the spiritual thing as from its root is so conjoined with the spiritual thing that in moral estimation it constitutes one thing with it, and therefore one can in no way be bought or sold without the other by private authority.

Therefore it is not licit to sell the right to the revenues of a benefice, which is founded in the spiritual right to pastoral offices as in its root and cannot be separated from it. Likewise it is not licit to buy or sell the right of living from the goods of a monastery, which is necessarily joined with religious profession, which is spiritual.

2. To buy or sell temporal things concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to something spiritual, according to the most common and true opinion, is simony of divine law: for the temporal thing which is concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to the spiritual thing is not appraisable by a price for the faithful from itself and independently of the spiritual thing; wherefore if it were sold, the spiritual thing itself would be judged to be sold.

Therefore it is not licit to receive something as a price for the labor and fatigue which are joined with the spiritual work of celebrating, preaching, consecrating a church, etc. The external work which is performed in celebration, administration of a sacrament, etc., is indeed distinct from the spiritual thing, but of itself in this case it has no value. For in order that something be appraisable by a price, that which is laborious to one person ought to be useful to another; but the external work of celebration or administration of a sacrament furnishes no utility to the faithful: for that which they value and seek, and which brings utility to them, is the spiritual thing alone.¹

3. It is licit to buy or sell temporal things concomitantly and extrinsically annexed to something spiritual: for what is concomitantly and extrinsically annexed can be separated from the sacred thing and therefore appraised by a price and sold independently of the sacred thing.

Therefore it is licit to give and receive money if a priest about to celebrate Mass must undergo the inconvenience of a long journey, or the fatigue of chant, or must remain fasting until noon. It is licit to receive something for sacred relics if to deprive oneself of them involves great inconvenience by reason of special affection.

4. It is licit to buy and sell temporal things antecedently annexed to something spiritual, provided the price is not increased because of the spiritual thing, nor the exchange prohibited by the Church. For the thing antecedently annexed to something spiritual on the one hand retains, after blessing or consecration, its physical value; but on the other hand the connection of the material thing with the spiritual blessing or consecration is not so great that by the intention of buyers and sellers one cannot be separated from the other. But if the price is increased because of the spiritual thing, simony of divine law is committed; and if the prohibition of the Church stands in the way of the sale, simony of ecclesiastical law is committed.

Therefore of itself it is licit to buy and sell blessed wax, sacred relics enclosed in precious cases, sacred vessels, sacred vestments, blessed medals and rosaries: for temporal things (wax, the case, etc.) have their own value, for which a price is licitly paid; but many things of this kind, as will be said below, cannot be bought and sold without simony because of the prohibition of the Church.

Note. Sacred relics, if we wish to speak properly, are themselves material things, to which a spiritual character is added, and therefore things antecedently annexed to something spiritual. But since relics, insofar as they are material, are of no value, they are customarily considered as spiritual things, and only the cases in which the relics are enclosed are held as material things appraisable by a price.

¹ Cf. Zeitschrift fur kath. Th., XXXIII (1909), p. 480 ff.

186. Simony of ecclesiastical law is committed especially in these ways:

1. To give or receive anything, even small, even spontaneously offered, on the occasion of an examination for parochial care, whether before or after the examination.¹ It is said on the occasion of the examination: for if something is given for the examination itself, namely for a positive mark, simony of divine law is committed.

2. To receive anything, even spontaneously offered, for the conferral of orders, even of first tonsure, for dimissorial letters, testimonial letters, or letters of formatae of the order conferred.² Nevertheless it is permitted that bishops receive a candle from those to be ordained, and the emoluments for dimissorial letters (so that orders can be conferred by another bishop) and for testimonial letters or formatae of the order conferred, determined by the sacred congregation by order of Innocent XI (the Innocentian tax).³

3. To sell and buy temporal offices canonically instituted, which are ordered to the administration of the temporal things of the Church (of sacristan, cantor, steward, procurator, defender of the church): for these are prohibited to be bought, whether by clerics or by laymen.⁴

But the right of burial in a determinate place can be sold: for by this pact ecclesiastical burial is not judged to be sold, nor the sacred place of burial, but the right of burying another in that place, which indeed is appraisable by a price, and its sale is not prohibited by the Church. Wherefore the practice has long prevailed in the Church that rights of this kind are sold everywhere.

4. To sell a part of a consecrated cemetery, the sale of which, as a thing antecedently annexed to something spiritual, would of itself be licit.

5. To sell blessed oil or sacred chrism even according to physical value, which likewise could be sold licitly of itself as annexed antecedently to something spiritual; nevertheless those churches are excepted in which, against the common law, a custom has prevailed of receiving something for compensating the expenses made for acquiring the material.⁵

6. To receive something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of confraternities, under penalty of nullity of the act if anything is received for them.⁶

7. To commit to another, to be celebrated, a Mass which someone has undertaken to celebrate for a stipend, while part of the stipend has been retained by mutual pact.

8. To sell, expose as saleable, or exchange for another thing crowns, medals, and other things of this kind which are blessed and enriched with indulgences, and which by the very fact of the sale lose the indulgences.⁷

Nevertheless crowns, crosses, etc., do not lose the indulgences if the buyer of them commits to the seller himself the care of the blessing in his own name, even if he pays the price and the expenses of transmission only when the things already blessed are handed over to him.⁸

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, De reform. Although in other cases the smallness of a gift offered (some flowers, a few fruits, moderate things to eat and drink) plainly excuses from the sin of simony, even of divine law, because these small things are not apt to induce an obligation, nevertheless even these are interdicted to examiners in a concursus: for the decree of the council establishes: that they receive absolutely nothing.

² Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, De reform.

³ S. C. C., Oct. 8, 1678.

⁴ c. Consulere 38, De simonia (V. 3).

⁵ S. C. C., Dec. 20, 1879. Cf. Acta s. sedis, vol. XIII, p. 180 ff.

⁶ Constit. Quaecunque of Clement VIII, Dec. 8, 1604, nn. 11-12.

⁷ Decreta authentica S. C. Indulg., Ratisbon: Pustet, 1893, nn. 78, 82, 344. Cf. Fr. Beringer, Die Ablasse etc., 11th ed., Paderborn: Schoningh, 1900, p. 339 ff.

⁸ S. C. Indulg., July 10, 1896.

187. On a simoniacal pact. Declarations. a. A simoniacal pact is understood as any contract by which someone intends to obligate another to give a spiritual thing for a temporal price, or conversely.

b. A twofold simoniacal pact is distinguished: explicit, which is expressed by distinct words or signs: I give you one hundred for a canonry; and tacit or implicit, which is contained in some fact, from which, namely, when the circumstances have been considered, it appears that the temporal thing which is given and received is not a mere gift, but is conferred to obligate the other, so that he himself may give the spiritual thing.

So that it can be judged whether something is given with a simoniacal or a liberal mind, attention must be given to these three things: to the quality of the giver, to the quantity of the thing, and to the time of the donation. For if the gift is given by a rich and liberal man, or if the thing is of small price (a few things to eat or drink), or if it is given when necessity or opportunity requires it, it is not judged to have been given simoniacally, but liberally. On the contrary, if someone, at the time when the conferral of a benefice is imminent, should give a precious thing to the patron, although before he was not accustomed to give him gifts, he is judged to have given simoniacally.

Assertions. 1. To constitute true simony, some contract of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, begun at least on one side, is essentially required; but any contract suffices, provided it is truly obligatory.

a. Any burden which is imposed on another suffices for committing simony, even if it obligates only from gratitude or from fidelity, not from justice, provided a new obligation is imposed on another which brings it about that his return is no longer gratuitous, but in some way owed. Hence it is simony if someone gratuitously gives a temporal thing on this condition, that the other likewise gratuitously give a spiritual thing.

b. It is licit to give a temporal thing with the hope of receiving something spiritual, or conversely, by way of gratitude, even if this hope is externally manifested, because in this way no pact is had, because no obligation is imposed, and from the other side no right is acquired.

2. Furthermore it is required that the temporal thing be given as a price, or as just compensation, for the spiritual thing; for otherwise the spiritual is not equated with nor exchanged for the temporal, which is required for the formal nature of simony.

Therefore simony is not committed if the temporal thing is given and received not as the price of the spiritual thing, but from another title, unless even this in a determinate case is prohibited by the Church. Several titles of this kind for giving and receiving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing exist, as will appear from the questions to be solved below; but the chief are: liberal gratitude, sustenance of the minister, poverty to be relieved, external labor, vexation to be redeemed, custom. If there is no other title for giving the temporal thing, in the external forum the temporal thing is presumed to be given as a price; in the internal forum it depends on the intention of the giver whether he has committed simony of divine law, or of ecclesiastical law, or none at all.

3. Simony is committed also when a temporal thing is given for a spiritual thing as a motive, that is, for moving another so that he may confer the spiritual thing, provided nevertheless that he acts with that disposition that he would not give the temporal thing if he knew that the other would not return the spiritual thing: for he who gives the temporal thing with this mind virtually gives it as a price.

4. Likewise simony is committed when a temporal thing is given as gratuitous compensation for a spiritual thing, or conversely,¹ in such a way, namely, that besides the natural obligation of gratitude, under the name of "gratuitous compensation," another obligation is imposed, whether of gratitude or fidelity or justice.

5. Finally, simony is committed when principally, although not solely, a temporal thing is given for a spiritual thing or conversely, because even in this case a true exchange of a spiritual thing with a temporal thing is made.

He commits simony who serves a bishop principally for obtaining a benefice as a thing owed for service, even if he attends upon him from other secondary motives also; but he does not commit simony who serves a bishop principally for conciliating his benevolence and secondarily also for obtaining a benefice, provided he does not intend the benefice as a thing owed for service, but as an effect of mere gratitude.²

¹ Therefore this proposition (45) was condemned by Innocent XI: "To give a temporal thing for a spiritual thing is not simony when the temporal thing is not given as a price, but only as a motive for conferring or effecting the spiritual thing; or even when the temporal thing is only a gratuitous compensation for the spiritual thing or conversely."

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 51.

The Church has enacted many stringent laws against the crime of simony. Thus by Canon 2392 those who are guilty of the crime of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Holy See. Ipso facto they are for ever deprived of the right of electing, presenting, and nominating if they have any. Besides, they are to be suspended if they are clerics. Simony committed in the conferring or reception of Orders and of other sacraments brings the delinquent under suspicion of heresy, and, moreover, clerics incur suspension reserved to the Holy See (Can. 2371).

Simoniacal election to ecclesiastical benefices is null and void, and the incumbent thus elected obtains no right to the revenues of the benefice, which accordingly he is bound to restore to the Church, to the poor, or to his lawful successor, if he has already received them (Can. 729). if commutative justice has been violated in other simoniacal transactions, restitution must, of course, be made; unless justice has been violated there will be no obligation to make restitution or to rescind the contract, though it was sinful to enter into it. Restitution, then, would have to be made by a priest who exacted more than the accustomed stipend for a Mass, for he has a just title to receive that amount and no more; restitution need not be made when a relic has been sold, even though the transaction was sinful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. excommunication reserved to the Pope;

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

3. suspension from the execution of all pontifical functions;

4. interdict from entrance into the Church;

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. excommunication reserved to the Pope ²¹;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. nullity of resignation or conferral made in confidence;

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

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

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

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

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

1. C. 729 renders void by full right every simoniacal contract, and, in the matter of benefices, offices, dignities, the provision or nomination which follows thence, for example from presentation, even if, without the knowledge of the one provided, simony was committed by a third person, provided it was not done in fraud of the same provided person, for example to impede his otherwise certain promotion, or with him contradicting. "Wherefore," c. 729 thus continues, "1) before any sentence of a judge, a thing simoniacally given and accepted, if it is capable of restitution and the reverence owed to the spiritual thing does not stand in the way, must be restored; and the benefice, office, dignity, resigned; - 2) the one simoniacally provided does not make the fruits his own; but if he has perceived them in good faith, it is permitted to the prudence of the judge or Ordinary to condone the fruits perceived to him wholly or in part." For this reason, he who has promised either stipends for bination Masses, or, on the occasion of sacred administration, anything beyond legitimately admitted offerings, must not stand by his promises. Yet since a celebrated Mass or a sacred administration done cannot be restored, even today it is not established that anything must be restored by him who has wrongly received those remunerations, unless he has at the same time been unjust, as if he has demanded money for an administration which was incumbent upon him to do from justice, for example as pastor.

2. If a patron has attempted to transfer the right of patronage to another simoniacally, from c. 1470, §1, 6°, the right of patronage is extinguished.

3. "Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities: 1) incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See; - 2) by the fact itself they remain deprived forever of the right of electing, presenting, naming, if they have any; - 3) if they are clerics, besides let them be suspended (c. 2392)." - Since the delict is not fully perpetrated unless the effect has followed, the penalty is not contracted unless it has been perfected at least by the handing over of the spiritual thing. The old interpretation agrees (Laymann, L. 4, tr. 10, c. ult., n. 68 and 78).

All, even bishops, are declared suspect of heresy who knowingly promote anyone to sacred orders through simony, or who in the same way have knowingly been promoted, or who have simoniacally ministered or received other sacraments; clerics besides incur suspension reserved to the Apostolic See (c. 2371).

4. Those making gain from indulgences are punished by the fact itself with excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See (c. 2327).

5. Those variously delinquent concerning Mass stipends are said to be punished in c. 2321. Cf. III, 302.

6. Besides the obligation of restitution for taxes unjustly received, those who increase them are said to be punished in c. 2408.

Irreligiosity is opposed to religion by defect, whether it sins by irreverence toward God: temptation of God, blasphemy, perjury, and violation of a vow; or whether it treats sacred persons or things unworthily: sacrilege and simony.

I. - Temptation of God properly consists in a rash demand for divine intervention, although he tempts God more strictly who, as if doubting, wishes to explore the divine perfection or divine good pleasure: these are the two other ratios of conceiving temptation of God. And they distinguish express and tacit temptation; the latter lies hidden in the manner of acting. Moreover it is formal as often as someone with conscious rashness asks that God come to his aid or manifest Himself. He sins mortally of itself who, without a special divine instinct, absolutely wills or promises a miracle; generally only venially who without sufficient cause demands a miracle even conditionally. What is commonly called temptation of God, committed by one who rashly exposes his health, is rather presumption, whose gravity is to be estimated from the importance of the foreseen harm.

II. - Blasphemy 1. is an insult brought against God, whether in heart, or mouth, or deed, or insulting action. The reserved sin of blasphemy is understood of blasphemous speech alone, oral or written.

It is distinguished as direct, from a formal intention of dishonoring God, indirect, from the will alone of saying insulting things; they differ in degree, not in species; formal, material; simply insulting, heretical, imprecatory; that by which God is dishonored in Himself or in His saints and in sacred things: this can also attack the proper excellence of the saints; vulgar, which is conceived in customary utterances, and affected, which is conceived in studiously sought expressions.

2. Gravity. Of sins against religion, blasphemy is the gravest of its genus, so that in true blasphemy no excuse is to be drawn from lightness of matter. Direct blasphemy has as its root the appetite of vengeance against God; indirect, too swift anger or impatience. All formally infidel and impious writers are guilty of most grave blasphemy. Common use can add or remove a blasphemous signification from words. In order that there be blasphemy, these words must be said significatively, not merely historically or by way of jest. Those who, from anger against creatures or from custom, utter blasphemous words without attention to God, often seem capable of being excused from grave sin, although they must lay aside that custom. Blasphemies uttered in drunkenness, according as they are uttered mechanically or from a certain anger, will not or will be blameworthy in their cause.

3. Vain usurpation of the name of God is of itself a venial sin, graver or lighter according to the adjuncts.

4. Imprecations against men are often excused from grave sin when a serious will is lacking.

5. Let the confessor a) unteach errors; b) turn vulgar blasphemers away from the custom, by suggesting suitable remedies; c) more gravely rebuke parents or masters who blaspheme with scandal of children or inferiors. Lest sin be committed scandalously before children, formulas similar to blasphemies must also be avoided.

III. - Sacrilege 1. broadly is every sin against the virtue of religion; strictly it is violation of a sacred thing, irreverence which specially conflicts with its sanctity. But a thing or person is not sacred unless by a public institution, whether of God, of Christ, or of the Church, it has been dedicated to divine worship. Moreover, that sacrilege may be had, an action is required which is directly opposed to that sanctity, or contrary to a law which under the same ratio of sanctity prescribes or prohibits certain things. Violations will be estimated as sacrilegious partly from the very nature of the violation, especially when the sanctity is of divine origin; partly from the positive determination of the Church.

Sacrilege is customarily distinguished as personal, real, local, as if these were three ultimate species. Yet what specifically intervenes between local and real sacrilege scarcely appears. But in unworthy treatment of the Eucharist, a twofold sanctity is violated: the absolute sanctity of God, and the relative sanctity of the sacrament.

The sanctity of a person is more partial; the sanctity of a place more extrinsic and of positive law; the sanctity of a thing can be so total that every profane use is sacrilegious. Sacred is the very right of the Church in sacred places or things.

2. Grave of its genus, sacrilege admits slightness of matter. - Every contempt of a sacred quality is sacrilegious; and besides there is committed: a) personal sacrilege by every real injury inflicted on a cleric or religious of either sex, and by lustful pleasure of a cleric in sacred orders, or of a person bound by a public vow of chastity; perhaps also by violation of the privilege of forum; b) local, through actions by which a church, an oratory consecrated or endowed with public blessing, and a blessed cemetery are violated; i.e., through homicide, suicide, injurious killing in a sacred place, grave shedding of blood, impious and sordid uses, burial of an infidel or excommunicated person after condemnatory or declaratory sentence (c. 1172); then through violation of immunity and of the tempered right of asylum, insofar as they subsist; c) real, by unworthy reception, treatment, and administration of the sacraments; by carnal sin committed shortly after communion, or when someone celebrates, carries the Eucharist, or is vested for celebrating sacred rite; by profanation of sacred vessels and instruments which are at least blessed; by unworthy treatment of sacred images and relics; by abuse of Sacred Scripture; by theft of a sacred thing or of a thing committed to the custody of a temple. - Touch, by the bare hand, of the chalice with the paten, and, before washing, of the purificator, pall, corporal used in the sacrifice of the Mass, is prohibited under venial sin to lay persons who do not have custody of them; and the first washing is of itself to be reserved to clerics in sacred orders.

Profane use of sacred furnishings is prohibited; especially of that which is consecrated or blessed by a constitutive blessing, or which is used in public worship; for honest use of the remaining furnishings is easily excused. Moreover, sacred things wholly changed can be used for every use. And today sacred vestments, consumed by use, seem, with their form changed, capable of receiving a civil or profane use.

Scruples are to be removed by the confessor in this matter in such a way that nothing derogates from reverence for sacred things.

IV. - 1. Simony is a real sacrilege of agreements which, concerning a spiritual thing or a temporal thing connected with it, are prohibited in view of religion. It is distinguished as of divine law, when, by tacit or express agreement, a temporal price, money, words, services, is promised or given for a spiritual thing or for a temporal thing which can in no way exist without the spiritual thing (c. 727, §1); and of ecclesiastical law.

Simony of divine law contains the malice of injurious equation of a sacred thing with a temporal thing; of usurpation of perfect dominion of a sacred thing; of neglected gratuitous intention of God's benefit (2, 2, q. 100, art. 1).

By ecclesiastical prohibition the sin of simony is extended to certain exchanges of things of the same genus, if this is prohibited by the Church because of danger of irreverence toward spiritual things. Yet they refer simony of divine law and simony of ecclesiastical law to the same genus, since the prohibition is commanded by the same motive of religion, while they acknowledge in each a special ratio of real sacrilege.

An agreement supposes a true obligation of the promissory party; nor is the mode or condition of a spiritual thing or work, appended to a liberal promise or donation of a temporal thing, simoniacal, at least if the spiritual work does not yield to the utility of the donor. - A spiritual thing can be such formally, gifts of the Holy Spirit; causally, sacraments, preaching, prayers; or effectively, or by way of effect of power, consecration, blessing. But communication of knowledge, even sacred, is not spiritual. A temporal thing which cannot exist without the spiritual thing is a benefice, or a right to ecclesiastical revenues.

Labor extrinsic joined with a spiritual action can be sold or hired; concerning intrinsic labor, or concerning the work to be spent in making a spiritual thing, for example in celebrating Mass, it is doubted whether it can be sold or hired; and when there is question of inseparable labor, it is commonly denied that it can be sold or hired without simony of divine law.

2. Concerning the stipends of Mass and of sacred functions. The long-standing use of the Church already proves it lawful that the faithful, with a stipend paid formally or virtually, acquire a right to the spiritual fruit of Masses and sacred functions, provided the stipend is offered and accepted under title of sustenance. How, without any simony, a priest who has received a stipend should be bound by commutative justice itself to apply the Mass to the intention of the giver: this they try to explain by various opinions. Which explanation is to be preferred is declared in the treatise itself. In our opinion, setting aside the intervention of the Church, or for functions for which reception of a stipend is not permitted, simony of divine law would be committed. It is also established from the use of the Church that stole fees can be honestly received by sacred ministers.

3. The stipend of Masses is defined by the local Ordinary, or, in the absence of a decree, by the custom of the diocese, even for exempt religious, so that no one can exact more; indeed, if the Ordinary has prohibited it, neither can he be content with less.

The local Ordinary, by counsel of the cathedral chapter, also composes the list of funeral taxes, beyond which nothing can be exacted; a bishop or quasi-bishop, in synod or after hearing the chapter, but not a Capitular Vicar nor, without special mandate, a Vicar General, also defines the stipend which a poor church can exact, for the expenses of celebration, from priests celebrating there for their own advantage (c. 1303). The other taxes must be approved by the Apostolic See (c. 1507).

The provincial Council or meeting of bishops defines the taxes for judicial expenses. The Holy See itself is accustomed to define what can be sought by Ordinaries for the execution of its rescripts.

4. He is not simoniacal who by money entices another to acts of piety or of another virtue to be exercised, or who sells a sacred thing for the value of the matter, or who removes an unjust vexation by money given, or who redeems relics lest they perish or be profaned, with the Ordinary nevertheless admonished, if opportunity is given.

5. The monies which are given to the poor so that they may pour forth prayers for certain intentions are to be explained by the intention of liberality. Cf. 2, 2, q. 100, art. 3 ad 2.

6. Simony at least of ecclesiastical law is committed by forbidden exchanges of benefices or by other similar acts.

7. A simoniacal contract is, from c. 729, null by full right, just as provision or nomination simoniacally obtained, even for another, unless the price was given in fraud of the provided person or with him contradicting. And the delict is punished by the Code.

565. Omitting antiquated and abolished statutes, according to the present discipline the following matters seem to be noted:

1. No ecclesiastical penalty is incurred from mental simony, since, as an internal act, it is not judged by the Church.

2. The first penalty of real and conventional simony is the nullity of the simoniacal pact.⁹⁴¹

For simony is either of divine law, and then the simoniacal pact is null and void because a spiritual thing has been sold which is unsalable by the will of God; or it is simony of ecclesiastical law, and then the thing sold is unsalable by the will of the Church. Therefore, in every case of simony, both the spiritual thing and the temporal price must be restored, unless impossibility, remission, or the express or presumed permission of the Church excuses. Concerning this the Angelic Doctor teaches:⁹⁴² "No one can lawfully retain that which he has acquired against the will of the owner. ... But the Lord, whose dispensers and ministers the prelates of churches are, ordained that spiritual things be given freely, according to that saying: Freely have you received, freely give.⁹⁴³ And therefore he who obtains any spiritual things whatever through the intervention of a gift cannot lawfully retain them."

"Before any sentence of a judge, a thing simoniacally given and accepted, if it is capable of restitution and the reverence due to the spiritual thing does not stand in the way, must be restored."⁹⁴⁴ Therefore the opinion of many authors teaching that restitution of the spiritual thing is not to be made except after the sentence of a judge must now be abandoned. Spiritual things not capable of restitution are, for example, sacred orders simoniacally received, the consecration of a church or of altars, etc.

A spiritual thing could not be returned because of the reverence due to it if, for example, someone had bought relics of saints from a Jewish dealer in old goods.

Not only the spiritual thing, but also the price accepted for it must be restored, and that before the sentence of a judge. For the law does not distinguish between a thing simoniacally given and accepted.

Since a simoniacal contract lacks all force, a spiritual thing simoniacally accepted must be returned to the legitimate owner, if that is possible according to what has been said above; likewise the simoniacal price must be returned to the legitimate owner. The revenues received from an ecclesiastical benefice or office obtained simoniacally must likewise be restored; nevertheless, an ecclesiastical judge or Ordinary can remit in whole or in part such revenues received in good faith.⁹⁴⁵

3. Before any sentence of a judge, a benefice, office, or dignity must be relinquished if it was obtained simoniacally and therefore invalidly.⁹⁴⁶ Hence, for example, if someone were to agree with an elector: You elect me as superior of this house, and then afterward I shall give you such and such temporal favors; and by this agreement he were actually elected as superior, the election would be simoniacal and null, and the one elected would have to relinquish the office. Similarly, if someone by furnishing a gift (from the hand, tongue, or service) were to obtain presentation from a patron, this presentation would be void, as also perhaps a subsequent institution.⁹⁴⁷

⁹⁴¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 729.

⁹⁴² S. theol. 2, 2, q. 100, a. 6.

⁹⁴³ Matt. 10:8.

⁹⁴⁴ Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 729.

⁹⁴⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 729.

⁹⁴⁶ Ib.

⁹⁴⁷ Ib. c. 1465, § 2.

566. 4. Those who perpetrate the delict of simony in any offices, benefices, or dignities whatsoever: a) incur an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See; b) by the fact itself remain perpetually deprived of the right of electing, presenting, or nominating, if they possess any such right; c) if they are clerics, they are moreover to be suspended.⁹⁴⁸

5. All, even those raised to episcopal dignity, who knowingly promoted others or were promoted through simony to orders, or who administered or received other sacraments, are suspected of heresy; clerics, moreover, incur a suspension reserved to the Apostolic See.⁹⁴⁹

6. Those making gain from indulgences are punished by the fact itself with an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.⁹⁵⁰

Those who offend against the statutes concerning Mass stipends or ecclesiastical rates incur penalties ferendae sententiae.⁹⁵¹

⁹⁴⁸ Ib. c. 2392.

⁹⁴⁹ Ib. c. 2371.

⁹⁵⁰ Ib. c. 2327.

⁹⁵¹ Ib. cc. 2324 and 2408.

567. Practical admonition. Almost nothing is accustomed to cause so much scandal to the faithful as the clergy's accursed hunger for gold. Therefore let all clerics, since even at the very threshold of the clerical state they professed, "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup," avoid even the appearance of avarice and cupidity. Especially let any receipt of money be far removed from the sacrament of penance. Excellent in this matter is the statute of the Third Council of Baltimore, art. 289: "Let confessors not apply pecuniary penances to themselves, nor ask or accept anything from penitents as a reward for their ministry. Let them refuse even things spontaneously offered under any name whatever; nor let them permit even a Mass alms itself to be offered in this tribunal."

But if in some place there prevails a custom of offering and exacting something for the administration of the sacraments of baptism and matrimony, nevertheless let the priest not refuse the administration of these sacraments if perhaps someone refuses to make offerings of this kind. Moreover, let pastors admonish the faithful that offerings made at burials and rates imposed in certain matrimonial dispensations serve for the suitable and by no means superfluous support of the ministers of the Church; furthermore, that the rates for matrimonial dispensations were introduced as, so to speak, salutary penances to deter the faithful from seeking dispensations of this kind, which are regarded as wounds of ecclesiastical law.

815. Penalties of simoniacs. - A. By ecclesiastical law every simoniacal contract is null. Hence can. 729: "With the penalties established in law against simoniacs remaining firm, the simoniacal contract itself and, if simony is committed concerning benefices, offices, dignities, the subsequent provision lack all force, although the simony was committed by a third person, even without the knowledge of the one provided, provided this is not done in fraud of the same one provided (for example, to impede his provision otherwise certain) or with him opposing. Therefore:

1. Before any sentence of a judge, the thing simoniacally given and accepted, if it is capable of restitution and the reverence due to the spiritual thing does not stand in the way, must be restored, and the benefice, office, dignity dismissed;

2. The one simoniacally provided does not make the fruits his own; but if he has received them in good faith, it is permitted to the prudence of the judge or Ordinary to remit the fruits received, in whole or in part, to the same person" (cf. can. 185, 1465 § 2 and 1470, 6°).

"No one," says St. Thomas, a. 6, "can licitly retain that which he has acquired against the will of the owner; for example, if some steward from the goods of his lord were to give something to someone against the will of his lord, he who received it could not licitly retain it. But the Lord, whose stewards and ministers the prelates of churches are, ordained that spiritual things be given gratis according to Mt. X, 8... And therefore he who obtains any spiritual things by the intervention of a gift cannot licitly retain them."

B. Besides, penalties are established in can. 2392: "With the prescription of can. 729 remaining firm, those perpetrating the delict of simony in any offices, benefices, or ecclesiastical dignities:

1. Incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See;

2. By the fact itself remain deprived in perpetuity of the right of electing, presenting, nominating, if they have any;

3. If they are clerics, besides, let them be suspended."

This is applied in can. 2371: "All, even those increased by episcopal dignity, who knowingly have promoted or have been promoted through simony to orders, or have administered or received other sacraments, are suspected of heresy; clerics besides incur suspension reserved to the Apostolic See." And can. 2327: "Those making profit from indulgences are punished by the fact itself with excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See."

But for those who make profit from Mass stipends, or who increase the customary taxes in ministering sacred things, ferendae sententiae penalties are foreseen, can. 2324 and 2408.

Question 7. What penalties are laid upon simoniacs?

Response. All, even those increased with episcopal dignity, who knowingly have promoted through simony to orders, or have been promoted, or have ministered or received other Sacraments, are suspected of heresy; clerics moreover incur suspension reserved to the Apostolic See (Can. 2371).

With the prescription of can. 729 remaining firm, those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities whatsoever:

1st. Incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See;

2nd. By the fact itself remain deprived in perpetuity of the right of electing, presenting, or nominating, if they have any;

3rd. If they are clerics, moreover let them be suspended (Can. 2392).

Question 8. What is the value of a simoniacal contract?

Response. The penalties established by law against simoniacs remaining firm, the simoniacal contract itself, and, if simony is committed concerning benefices, offices, or dignities, the subsequent provision lacks every force, although the simony was committed by a third person, even without the knowledge of the one provided, provided this is not done in fraud of the same provided person or with him contradicting it. Wherefore:

1st. Before any sentence of a judge, the thing simoniacally given and accepted, if it is capable of restitution and reverence owed to the spiritual thing does not stand in the way, must be restored, and the benefice, office, or dignity given up;

2nd. One simoniacally provided does not make the fruits his own; but if he has perceived them in good faith, it is permitted to the prudence of the judge or Ordinary to condone the fruits perceived in whole or in part to the same (Can. 729).

I. QUESTION I. Do they lie subject to the penalties against conventional simony, when such simony is not complete on either side? ANSWER. Peter resigned a benefice to Paul under a promise of a hundred gold pieces; he did not pay the promised money. Do these men incur the penalties against simoniacs? Sánchez, Lessius, Valentia, and others deny it: because so long as the money is not paid, real simony is not complete. Otherwise mental simony does not lie subject to penalties, as all confess. This opinion is false. For the incurring of the penalties passed against simoniacs it is enough that a spiritual thing be delivered with a promise of money to be paid. For then the simony is real, not mental. Simoniacs incur the penalties, whether the simony be against divine right or against ecclesiastical right. Since the law does not distinguish simoniacs of divine or of ecclesiastical right. Those who are guilty of simony contracted upon entrance into Religion incur excommunication by that very fact reserved to the Pope. Several contend that those do not incur this penalty who are guilty of simony contracted in the reception of the habit, but only in profession. But this distinction is arbitrary, and in no way drawn out of the law, chapter Exiit, on simony.

II. QUESTION II. What penalties are imposed upon those receiving sacred Orders simoniacally? ANSWER. He who through simony ordains anyone, or is a mediator that he be ordained, is bound with an anathema, and remains suspended from the collation of any Orders whatsoever and from the execution of all pontifical acts, and is interdicted from entrance into the Church and from the perception of all fruits, if he shall have violated the suspension in a pontifical office. But those ordained are obnoxious to excommunication reserved to the Pontiff, and suspended from the execution of all Orders. He who unknowing has been simoniacally ordained by another's work remains suspended from the execution of the Order.

III. Those who are ordained under the title of a feigned patrimony cannot be promoted to higher Orders, nor can they exercise the Order received, as Trent established, session 21, chapter 2 On Reformation. Those who simoniacally confer or procure for another a benefice or an ecclesiastical office by election, postulation, confirmation, or nomination, whether publicly or secretly, by that very fact incur excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; and obnoxious to this penalty also is the one receiving the benefice, as is had in the Extravagant Cum detestabile, on simony. Besides, all collations and provisions made in this way are annulled. Wherefore simoniacs do not make the fruits their own, but ought to restore them before the judge's sentence, and to dismiss the benefice received, even if the simony was committed by parents or friends without the beneficiary's knowledge, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 100, art. 6, reply 4.

IV. QUESTION III. Whether simony in the collation of benefices deprives one of benefices rightly obtained before? ANSWER. Authors commonly deny that before the judge's sentence a simoniac is deprived of the benefices which he lawfully possessed before the benefice acquired through simony: because, they say, this is expressed in no law. There is nevertheless excepted fiduciary simony, which by force of the constitution of St. Pius V induces the privation not only of the benefice procured by such simony, but also of all antecedent ones; just as simony perpetrated with examiners, which by Trent deprives one of all benefices rightly obtained before, besides the benefice simoniacally acquired. Lastly those who attain benefices through simony remain by that very fact unfit for obtaining other benefices before the judge's sentence, as St. Pius V expressly declared in his constitution Cum primum. What the Salmanticenses say out of Lessius, Sánchez, and Castropalao — that the aforesaid constitution is not received in use — is a mere comment. It is indeed not received in use by very many, because they in fact commit simony. But by this reasoning neither is the Gospel received in use by very many, because it is violated. A contrary use does not bring it about that just laws sufficiently promulgated do not oblige.

V. QUESTION IV. Whether the things acquired through simony ought to be restored? ANSWER. The affirmative resolution is plain from what has been said, namely that all benefices simoniacally obtained, and the fruits of the same, are to be restored. The Salmanticenses, tract 19, chapter 4, point 5, no. 21, say: “He who buys a benefice does not do an injustice, but suffers it. For he ought to have received gratis that which, a price being given, he received: he sins only against Religion, whose transgression does not oblige to restitution. Nor does he who confers the benefice sin against justice, or by divine right make the collation invalid.” This doctrine has been condemned by Alexander VII, no. 22: It is not against justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefices gratis, and so forth. From the proscribed doctrine the cited authors infer several absurd corollaries, which are to be guarded against.

DEALING WITH EACH SPECIES OF SIMONY.

SIMONY merely mental incurs no penalty, except the eternal one before God; this is the common opinion of Valencia at point 6, who adds that this is true even if the mental simony proceeds to the exterior act of giving and receiving; it is clear from the chapter Mandato, which is the last outside the title on Simony, against Adrian, quodl. 9, Soto, book 9, de Iustitia, question 8, article 1, Aragon, question 100, article 6, who say that such a simoniac is bound to restitution: For neither the temporal thing acquired by it must be restored, nor the acquired benefice resigned, unless perhaps it is clear that that temporal thing was given only reluctantly, to buy off harassment, as Tannerus also notes, n. 44, Bassaeus, at the place cited.

CONVENTIONAL simony obliges first to restitution, whether temporal or spiritual, provided that it can be restored, as with a benefice; for a Sacrament cannot be restored, as D. Bonaventure notes, book 4, dist. 25, question 4.

IT IS PROVED. For every simoniacal contract, whether conventional or real, is null, at least by positive law: chapter Presbyter; chapter Si quis Episcopus, book 1, question 1; chapter de hoc; chapter Adrianus, on Simony, as the Saintly Doctor reports in the confessional, chapter 5; and the extravaganza Detestabile, under the same title.

It is likewise PROBABLE, says Tanner, num. 86, that no conventional simony, except that called simony of confidence, induces by that very fact any penalties of positive law. The same is held by Navarre, n. 104, Covarruvias, on the Clementine Si furiosus, part 1, §. 1, Lessius, book 2, chapter 35, doubt 27, although Soto and Cajetan said the contrary.

Now there is simony of confidence, when someone, upon whom an ecclesiastical benefice is conferred, or who resigns one, or whom one presents or elects for it, or who in any way promotes the matter so that one of the aforesaid may be done, at least tacitly bargains (for without a pact, at least tacit, simony does not occur, as after Navarre num. 107 Lessius says, doubt 16, num. 95, Tannerus 96) that the same benefice be resigned to himself or to another, or that a pension from it, or its fruits, or a part of them, be granted to the other.

LIKWISE, if you admit some right of access, regress, or ingress. The Prelate procures access to a benefice who, wishing a benefice for another, say a nephew, gives him a right, but meanwhile confers it on a stranger until the nephew comes to a suitable age, at which, on arriving, he may approach the benefice by his own authority. He has regress if he resigns the benefice with the right of receiving it back, should that one predecease him, or become a Bishop, or should he not pay the pension. Ingress is said to belong to one who, before taking possession of the benefice, resigns it to another, retaining the right of approaching it, should that one predecease him, or be made Bishop, or become a religious. These retrocessions the Council of Trent reproves, session 25, chapter 7.

THIS simony entails for the contracting parties papal anathema; Second, deprivation of the benefice; Third, deprivation of other benefices previously obtained; Fourth, unfitness for all benefices; Fifth, the conferment of such a benefice, simoniacally conferred, is reserved to the Pope alone. So Pius V, extravaganza Intolerabili. See Navarre, num. 100.

TO undergo these penalties it is required that the benefice be accepted, as Lessius warns, book 2, c. 35, dub. 26, Filliucius, tract. 45, chapter 13, question 5, Suarez, chapter 43, num. 13, and others.

NOTE that this simony, forbidden only by ecclesiastical law, alone induces by that very fact the penalties of positive law. But if the pact is afterwards fulfilled, the penalties are drawn back to the time of the pact. Some, however, concede this only in the forum of conscience alone, as Navarre, c. 25, num. 104, Henriquez, de excom. chapter 19. Likewise, that it holds only after sentence, Lessius teaches, at the place cited, Sanchez, book 9, de matrim. disp. 30.

Take note also that these unfitnesses are incurred even when examiners take something from the examination for parishes from those to be examined, as Lessius notes, chapter 34, dub. 26 and 27.

REAL simony in sacred orders incurs these penalties. First, the ordainer is excommunicated. Second, suspended from conferring any orders, even first tonsure. Third, suspended from every pontifical act. Fourth, interdicted from entering the Church. Fifth, if he still acts against these, he is suspended from the administration of his Church and from receiving all the fruits of benefices. Sixth, he can be absolved by the Roman Pontiff alone, even if the offense is occult, Extravaganza Cum detestabile, Sixtus V. See Lessius, book 2, chapter 35, dub. 24.

WHOEVER has received an order in this way: First, he is excommunicated by that very fact. Second, suspended from the exercise of his orders. Third, if he ministers, he becomes irregular. Then, by the Bull of Sixtus, he is by that very fact deprived of all dignities and benefices, and becomes unfit for them. Fourth, absolution and dispensation are reserved to the Pope; but if the case is occult, setting aside the Bull of Sixtus, the Bishop could dispense and absolve, from the Council of Trent. See Diana, part 4, tract. 4, resol. 157.

WHOEVER confers or procures a benefice for another by real simony, by electing, presenting, postulating, or instituting, is by that very fact excommunicated. Under the name of benefice understand an Abbey, Priory, Rectorship, Guardianship, Provincialate, Generalate, etc., as Portel teaches, V. Simonia, Suarez, tract. 5, disp. 52, sect. 4, Sigismund of Bologna, part 2, chapter 1, disp. 55, Diana, at the place cited, resol. 156, Bassaeus, V. Simonia 6, num. 2. Others, however, restrict the name of benefice, since in an odious matter, to benefices with revenue. So Azor, part 3, book 12, chapter 21, question 6, Bonacina, disp. 1, question 7, §. 2, and others, who thus approach a benefice: First, he is by that very fact excommunicated; Second, such a conferment is null and bestows no right; nevertheless, if the simony was committed for an institution, the election is not void. Third, he becomes unfit for that same benefice, and even if the simony is public and brought to the external forum, only the Pope can by law render him fit again. But if it is occult, some hold that it is removed by the Bishop. That it can be taken away also by the mendicant confessors, Croufers teaches, ad c. 7. Reg. min. sect. 28, Bassaeus, V. Simon. 6, num. 2.

REAL simony concerning entrance into religion: First, it induces anathema. Second, suspension of the convent or Chapter, if they consented. Third, the admitted are unfit for the monastery. Yet these penalties are incurred with the profession following, but not if the simony is retracted before it, so Filliucius, chapter 13, Reginald, book 23, n. 173, Suarez, chapter 56, num. 7, Bassaeus, at the place cited, num. 3.

NOTE that by the common opinion, the excommunication inflicted against simoniacs in an order or benefice is incurred also on account of a simony forbidden by human law alone, as in the permutation of a benefice without the authority of a superior, the reservation of a pension without the authority of the Pope, etc. So the Doctors in Bassaeus. Yet others teach the opposite, with Diana, part 4, tract. 4, resol. 155. See Tanner, num. 95.

THAT every simony can be absolved by the confessors of the Mendicants, our Croufers teaches, lecture 28, because the Popes after Sixtus, who made the reservation, say that he who can absolve from heresy can also absolve from any reserved cases.

SOME add that the penalties established by law have their place in the Sacrament of order, and in benefices, and entrance into Religion: wherefore, they say, they are not incurred in conferring other Sacraments, in consecrations, dispensations, and in the selling of a pension, just as not in the permutation mentioned above, because no law expresses it: so Tannerus. But only the Pope can dispense a simoniacal benefice-holder who acts knowingly.

RESTITUTION also presses upon one who has accepted simoniacally. So the Doctors, with D. Bonaventure, in book 4, at the place cited.

What is accepted for a spiritual thing must be restored by divine law, even if the spiritual thing has not been handed over. That this restitution is to be made to the one who handed it over, some teach, in Bassaeus, 7, from the chapter Veniens, on Simony, before the judge's sentence.

YET the true opinion is that it must be restored to the Church. So D. Thomas, question 100, article 6, ad 4, and question 32, article 7, and all the Doctors before Soto, with D. Bonaventure. The Canonists, to support this opinion, cite the chapters, de hoc; and cap. Audivimus, de sim.

At the chapter Veniens, I say that in that case he gave without fault. Hence Valencia and others do not rightly say that the dominion over the temporal thing is not primary dominion, but only over the spiritual. Certainly each, acting in bad faith, is equal.

IF the benefice has already been handed over, and the simony is completed on both sides, some, with Soto, teach that it must be restored to the giver before the sentence, but after it to the Church.

YET the true opinion, as I said, is that it must be restored even before the sentence. So D. Thomas above, and D. Bonaventure.

A PRICE accepted simoniacally, but not unjustly, is not subject to restitution by natural divine law, because restitution is owed to violated justice; but simony is irreligion.

BUT a price accepted for a spiritual thing is against justice: therefore he is bound, although Navarre, n. 103, Sylvester, question 20, Cajetan, V. simon., say he is not bound to restore.

A SPIRITUAL thing, simoniacally acquired, is not by divine law to be given up; say, a benefice. So commonly in Bassaeus, 7, num. 3.

By ecclesiastical law, however, a spiritual thing is not to be restored unless it is an ecclesiastical benefice. But other spiritual things either cannot be given up, as the Sacraments, except as to use, as in Orders, as the Saintly Doctor says above, or are not to be given up before the sentence.

NEVERTHELESS, as to the price, it must be restored by positive law.

NOTE also that the fruits are to be restored either to the Church, or to the Apostolic treasury, or to pious uses; or to the successor, where there is use, of the fruits of the vacant benefice given to this one, Lessius, num. 174, Tannerus, 92, and others.

ALSO, whoever in good faith acquired for himself something from another who obtained it simoniacally is bound to restitution (except fruits consumed in good faith), from D. Thomas, ad 3.

THEY EXCEPT the case where that one, out of malice, burdened him with these goods, so that he would be forced to restore; for then the law did not oblige.