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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 63.

² Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 439.

³ Lehmkuhl, I, n. 389.

⁴ St. Alphonsus, n. 103.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

194. Particular questions concerning simony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² S. C. Indulg., Dec. 21, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:7-14.

² Matt. 10:10.

³ 1 Cor. 9:4-14.

⁴ Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, n. 42.

⁵ Cf. Gury-Ballerini, ad n. 292.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Second. On the Second Precept of the Decalogue

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

Ex. 20:7.

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

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 103.

812. Simony of natural law is also concerned with things annexed to spiritual things. - Something can be annexed to the spiritual in three ways:

a) Antecedently, when the temporal thing preexists, to which afterward the spiritual accedes, as are all consecrated or blessed things: sacred vessels, chalices, temples, sacred buildings, oil, sacred vestments, a rosary, altars, etc.; capsules or cases of relics; land or a building to which the right of patronage or of a benefice adheres; and to appraise these by price or to sell them is not simony, unless by appraising them more on account of the consecration or the connected spiritual thing, or unless the Church specially prohibits this: for the matter or temporal thing is estimable by price and has intrinsic value in itself, independent of the spiritual thing.

b) Concomitantly, if it exists together and in a quasi-parallel mode with the spiritual thing, so that each is joined together, as bodily labor in undertaking sacred functions. This can happen either intrinsically, if in the thing it is not separable from it, but per se and necessarily and inseparably is joined with it, as labor necessary in the celebration of Mass, administration of a sacrament, preaching; or extrinsically, if it is separable and is joined to it only per accidens, as inconvenience in celebration with chant, in a distant place, at a later hour, at the will of a person. To sell the first is simony, because it is inseparable from the spiritual thing, as an intrinsic part of the spiritual function: for it enters into it and constitutes a part of it and is one work with it; whence if it were sold, the spiritual thing itself would be considered sold; to sell the other is not simony, because it can be separated from the spiritual thing, whence independently of it it can be appraised by price and sold.

c) Consequently, if the temporal thing supposes the spiritual thing as cause and depends upon it, as an ecclesiastical benefice is annexed to an office, the right to the sustenance of life to the religious state. And to sell and appraise this by price, while such connection remains, is simony, because it depends upon the spiritual thing, since it supposes the spiritual thing and is related to it as an accessory; therefore if it is sold, necessarily that spiritual thing which is presupposed is sold (a. 4).

For thus it is connected with the spiritual thing so that with it in moral estimation it constitutes one thing, and therefore one without the other by private authority can in no way be bought or sold, for example, 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.

813. Simony of ecclesiastical law is committed in various ways:

1. By exchanging ecclesiastical benefices by one's own authority, or by resigning them in favor of another, by bargaining about them, compromising, reserving a pension, or deducting from the fruits of a benefice a compensation to be furnished in the act of provision (can. 1486-88, also 1441 and 1927).

2. By selling or buying offices for the administration of the temporal things of the Church, as of a steward, sacristan, procurator, defender, etc.

3. By giving or receiving gifts on the occasion of some sacred function, for example, of an examination for a parish (Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 18 de ref.), of the conferral of orders or tonsure (sess. 21, c. 1), of admission to a religious order (sess. 25, c. 16), of dimissorial letters (can. 545).

4. By selling ecclesiastical burial itself or a part of a cemetery; but not only the right of burial in a determined more honored place, because thus human honor is sold, a utility estimable by price.

5. In the administration of sacraments or of other sacred things, by exacting or asking something beyond offerings according to lawfully admitted taxes (can. 1507, § 1 and 736).

6. By exercising a species of trading or commerce concerning Mass stipends (can. 827, 840 and 2324).

Let it be noted that to sell blessed things, if nothing is asked for the blessing, is not simony, although by this they lose indulgences.

I. A new manner of opining having been brought in, very many sins have put off their malice; since, says Caramuel, one Diana has taken a thousand of them out of the world. Formerly holy men inveighed sharply against simony with its mask laid aside. At present it is so trapped out and adorned with paints and allurements that it is scarcely found in the world. Very many casuists distinguish in money, or in a temporal thing, the characters of a native price, a principal, a secondary, a proximate, a remote, a directly intended, of compensation, of gratuitous remuneration. Hidden under this wrapping of little distinctions, simony, fortified as with leaves and a rampart, blunts the strokes of all the sacred canons, and runs about triumphant.

II. The Council of Toledo, canon 3, established these things: If any of the bishops, money having been received IN WHATSOEVER MANNER, shall have ordained a bishop, an abbot, and so forth, let him lie under the peril of his own grade.

III. The Council of Trent, innumerable other canons being passed over, session 24, chapter 18 On Reformation, among several things decrees these: And let them beware lest they receive anything at all on occasion of this examination, either before or after, otherwise let both they themselves and those giving incur the vice of simony, from which they cannot be absolved save with the benefices dismissed which they in whatsoever manner even before obtained, and let them be rendered unfit for others in the future.

IV. Nothing, whether before or after, can be delivered to examiners and collators of benefices. Therefore vain are the comments which teach that something can lawfully be bestowed either before or after, covered with whatsoever paint. Neither the Scriptures, nor the Fathers, nor the Councils distinguish in a temporal thing to be delivered the characters of price, of motive, of proximate, of remote, of principal, of accessory; but absolutely, all technicalities being rejected, they cry out: Freely have you received, freely give.

V. Fr. Gregory of Valentia is wont to be cited among the first who relaxed the mandates against simony. And in fact, Vol. III, disputation 6, question 16, point 3, he teaches these things: “A man can confer a spiritual thing on account of a temporal thing principally, as on account of an end, in such wise that the temporal be not with him the end of the spiritual thing itself, as though the temporal were esteemed by him at more than the spiritual, but only the end of the will, or of the application of the mind to the act of conferring the spiritual: this is not simony.” Which in the same place he more fully confirms.

VI. Could a prettier and more acute little distinction be devised? A collator of a benefice can principally accept a temporal thing; but this temporal thing is not the end of the spiritual thing, but only of the will, or of the application of the mind to the act of conferring the spiritual thing. A temporal thing therefore is given not on account of the spiritual thing, but that the collator may apply his will to the conferring of the spiritual thing. Whether heretics and the impious reading these festive interpretations are about to receive scandal, let others judge. The doctrine of Valentia was followed by Tanner and very many others, among whom Fr. Viva himself.

VII. The Roman See, hearing that the wickedness of simony was fostered by the opinings of certain men and daily stalked abroad, condemned the three following theses. Alexander VII proscribed this, no. 22: It is not against justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefices gratis: because a collator conferring those ecclesiastical benefices, money intervening, does not exact it for the collation of the benefice, but as it were for a temporal emolument which he was not bound to confer. And the Venerable Innocent XI devoted the two following, 45 and 46, to execration: To give a temporal thing for a spiritual is not simony, when the temporal is not given as a price, but only as a motive for conferring or effecting the spiritual; or even when the temporal is only a gratuitous compensation for the spiritual, or contrariwise. No. 46: And this also has place, even if the temporal be the principal motive of giving the spiritual; nay, even if it be the end of the spiritual thing itself, so that it be esteemed of more worth than the spiritual thing.

VIII. QUESTION I. Does he commit simony who gives money as a motive not of immediately obtaining a spiritual thing, but as an honourable intermediate motive from which a spiritual thing may be expected? ANSWER. Some deny it. But this opinion is to me false, and utterly contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of the Councils, and of St. Thomas. A candidate for Orders, or for a parochial benefice to be received, offers money to the examiners, to the bishop, to the collator, and so forth. What is that true, honourable, intermediate motive from which the benefice or the sacrament of Order is expected? They are silent. In brief, the candidate would not deliver or promise a temporal thing, unless he hoped for the attaining of the benefice or of the sacred Orders. Therefore he commits simony.

IX. The same opinion the Salmanticenses defend, tract 19, chapter 1, point 4, no. 55, where they teach that for the character of simony there is required a will of giving money “as a price, or of commensurating it with the spiritual thing, and of esteeming it at so much, so that it be through an onerous contract. This depraved will nevertheless being excluded, even if a temporal thing be given with the mind of obtaining a spiritual thing, not as an onerous price but gratis, or out of gratitude or benevolence, even with the imposition of some antidoral obligation, no simony is committed — whether the gift be conferred before the collation of the spiritual thing, or after it, or at the same time with it.”

X. What could be brought forth more expressly against Trent and against all the sacred canons assuredly escapes me. For the character of simony there is required a will of commensurating money with the spiritual thing, and of esteeming it at so much? He who should have this will would be a most impudent heretic, not to say a simoniac. Which of the Catholics ever asserted that money can equal a spiritual thing of an altogether superior order? This opinion, in my judgment, is in fact contained in the rescribed condemned theses. For this doctrine being admitted, there is no simony in the world. If you desire more, consult Vol. X, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 8. Nor does it please me to delay longer in overthrowing a doctrine evidently false.

XI. QUESTION II. Whether it be lawful to give a temporal thing under the hope of obtaining a spiritual thing from the donee, or contrariwise, under the title of friendship or of gratitude? ANSWER. Fr. Billuart affirms it, provided it be sincerely and not feignedly expected as a spontaneous gift out of mere gratitude, friendship, and liberality, and not owed under the title of a temporal gift. Since, he says, this is to give a temporal thing as a motive indeed of obtaining a spiritual thing, but by the mediation of another honourable motive, namely gratitude and friendship.

XII. These are pure and mere comments devised for encrusting the wickedness of simony. All the Councils, chiefly Trent, forbid to give money — not the mind, not the mode of giving. The Councils forbid to give a temporal thing for the obtaining of a spiritual thing. Most ineptly is the mode of giving devised, when in fact money is given. Nor do collators of benefices, of Orders, and so forth care whether the money be given under the title of a price, or of an incitement, remote or proximate, or under the motive of antidoral gratitude, provided it be in fact given and they in fact receive it. This alone they care for; the rest they deride. This farrago of precisions and distinctions being admitted, there would be no simony in the world.

XIII. QUESTION III. Whether the sale of the sacraments be simoniacal? ANSWER. All affirm it, when anything is exacted for the administration of the sacraments. Similarly he would be a simoniac who should sell the Eucharist. Those things which are given to sacred ministers are destined for their sustentation, by no means as a price of administering the sacraments: for the labourer is worthy of his meat, says the Evangelist Matthew; just as also to a priest celebrating there is given something for his sustentation. It is agreed among all, by natural, divine, and ecclesiastical right, that it is forbidden to receive or to deliver anything as a price, whether for the receiving of the sacred habit, or for monastic profession.

XIV. Those who preach either for the sake of applause or for the sake of gain are simoniacs, as the Angelic teaches, 2-2, question 100, article 3, reply 2. If a priest in the article of death should be unwilling to baptize without money, if the one to be baptized were a boy, anyone else, even a layman, could baptize him. If the one to be baptized were an adult, and no priest were at hand, the priest would be simoniacal, and then the baptism of desire would supply, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 100, art. 2, reply 1. Whence is rejected the opinion of those who teach that money can be given for the bending of the will of an avaricious priest. But that comment is utterly empty. Simony similarly is to receive anything for the administration of the sacramentals. Those things which are wont to be bestowed for the chanting of Mass, for a funeral office, for a procession, and so forth, are immune from the stain of simony, because they are given according to a laudable custom for the sustentation of the ministers.

XV. Fr. Nicholas Mazzotta, tract 3, disputation 5, question the only one, on simony, recounts many who teach that something can be received without simony for the obligation of exercising spiritual things, provided this obligation be severed from the ecclesiastical function. He reports also the opposite opinion. Fr. Mazzotta imitates the method of Fr. La Croix of proposing a collection of probable contrary opinions, that readers may be able to choose what more pleases and flatters them. The former opinion has already been proscribed.

XVI. QUESTION IV. Whether it be simony to sell or to buy the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction? ANSWER. Authors commonly distinguish. There is a power of jurisdiction which regards the forum of conscience, as to absolve from sins; and there is a power which pertains to the exterior forum, as to dispense in vows and in laws, to visit, to condemn, and so forth. For all these things to receive anything is simony, because they are spiritual. Similarly it is simony to exact anything for a licence of hearing confessions, of absolving from censures, for the concession of indulgences, for the faculty of dispensing in vows and oaths, for the assistance of a parish priest at a marriage, for the election, collation, and confirmation of benefices, and so forth.

XVII. QUESTION V. Is it simony to receive anything for entrance into a monastery? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 16, establishes these things: But neither before profession, except for the food and clothing of the novice or novice-woman of that time in which she is in probation, let anything from her goods be bestowed upon the monastery UNDER WHATSOEVER PRETEXT, whether by parents, or by kinsfolk, or by guardians, or by alms. These two things are certain among all. But very many casuists, who consider money as a price and as a primary and secondary, proximate and remote motive, and as an antidoral title, of obligation, of gratuitous compensation, take away all simony out of the midst. But the sacred canons which forbid to receive or to deliver anything for entrance into Religion are so clear that they rout all the aforesaid little distinctions and devised comments. Consult Vol. X, Book 2, dissertation 3, chapter 5.

XVIII. QUESTION VI. Is it simony forbidden by divine right alone to confer any benefices whatsoever with a view to a temporal emolument? ANSWER. Two rights are included in benefices. One spiritual, or the right of administering spiritual things, which is called the office; the other the right of perceiving temporal things, which is called the benefice. According to all, simony is forbidden by every right, from which not even the Pope can dispense, namely the sale of a benefice inasmuch as it means the right of administering spiritual things. Authors dispute whether it be simony forbidden by divine right to catch at or to confer benefices with a view to the temporal emolument alone. Some deny it. But this opinion is to me false, because the right to the temporal revenues is so annexed to the right to the spiritual offices that it can in no way be separated. There are to be distinguished the fruits of a benefice, which a beneficiary can sell, let out, or exchange, from the right of perceiving these fruits. This beneficial right is inseparable from the prior right of administering spiritual things. Therefore he who sells the one must needs sell the other.

XIX. To offer something to Sempronius that he may intercede with the collator is simony. Fr. La Croix continuously adds a distinction: if you give for the labour, it is not simony. And this opinion Fr. Mazzotta transcribes, tract 3, chapter 5, saying: “But if you give something to an intercessor, whether mediate or immediate, not indeed for the intercession, but for the labour, for ceasing gain, for emerging loss, for the expenditure of time, and so forth, in going and returning, it is not simony, because these are something temporal altogether extrinsic.” La Croix, no. 91, and others commonly.

XX. In truth La Croix teaches this opinion in just so many words with Diana, Castropalao, Raynaud, and others. The falsity and laxity of that opinion is evident to my weakness. That to deliver money for an intercession with the collator of a benefice is simony, those authors themselves confess; but to deliver money for the time to be expended, for ceasing gain, for emerging loss in going and returning, is not simony. And why? Because these are something temporal altogether extrinsic. Excellently! I yield. Can an intercession be made without some expenditure of time, without approach and return to the collator? If a man must intercede, it behoves that he speak. And that he may be able to speak, time is required, and approach and return. Therefore if it is simony to deliver money for an intercession, it is simony also to deliver money for the things necessarily annexed to the same. Even to the collator himself money could be given, not for the collation but for the expenditure of time consumed in the collation. Diana devised these little distinctions; from Diana Castropalao, from Castropalao La Croix, from La Croix Mazzotta: and afterwards they conclude, So the Doctors commonly. Unskilled readers reading these things think that the Doctors of the Church so teach; and hence with a secure conscience they commit simony. Behold how true is what I said at the outset, that, these opinions being admitted, no simony is given in the world.

XXI. The sale of the habits of military Orders, which are given to Religious deputed to the choir and the divine office, is simony. Similarly to sell pensions erected into the title of a benefice, as praestimonia or simple benefices, is simony, as all confess. Several things concerning these pensions St. Pius V established in the Bull which begins Ex proximo. Someone asserts that this Bull is nowhere received. But he is deceived, and deceives. For the Salmanticenses testify, no. 74, that it is received in Spain. And the common opinion teaches that pensions of this kind cannot be redeemed or sold without simony. Simoniacal also is the sale of an ecclesiastical right of patronage.

XXII. He who has been elected to a benefice, and has the collation from a lawful superior, although he do not yet possess it, has a right in the thing. Therefore he can redeem an unjust vexation with money, provided it be truly unjust, without simony, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 100, art. 2, reply 5. To redeem with money a vexation before a right in the thing is acquired is simony, as St. Thomas asserts in the same place. Authors nevertheless distinguish a vexation intended against a right to be acquired by one who can hinder but cannot profit, from a vexation intended against a right to be acquired by one who can both hinder and profit. When a vexation is redeemed from one who can hinder and profit by electing, confirming, and so forth, simony is committed. But to redeem a vexation intended by one who can hinder but cannot profit is no simony.

XXIII. To commute spiritual things for spiritual things is no simony, benefices being excepted. Wherefore it is lawful for you this week to celebrate four Masses for Peter, that Peter may celebrate just as many for you at another time. So relics can be delivered for relics.

XXIV. QUESTION VII. Can benefices be exchanged without simony? ANSWER. By ecclesiastical right all exchanges of benefices are forbidden and declared simoniacal, unless the authority and dispensation of a superior accede. For although the titles of benefices be spiritual, and on this account a spiritual thing can be commuted for a spiritual; nevertheless, because to the titles of benefices there are annexed temporal revenues which kindle avarice, therefore the Church has forbidden that these exchanges be made without the superior's authority. Under the name of benefices are understood all spiritual things which have annexed temporal emoluments. There is required therefore the authority of that superior who conferred the benefices. Wherefore a bishop cannot grant the faculty of exchanging benefices conferred by a superior, namely by the Pope. If the benefices be in diverse dioceses, the consent of each bishop is necessary, or of the patrons who have the right of nominating and presenting.

XXV. Exchangers of benefices can at the same time mutually enter upon honourable conditions, and propose them to the lawful superior. Elsewhere I shall show that these exchanges are rarely lawful. The acceptance of money for the collation of a benefice is not only simoniacal but also against justice; the opposite opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 22.

XXVI. Bishops cannot grant a faculty of exchanging a benefice with a clerical pension. If the pension be lay, it can by no wrapping, not even by the Pontiff's authority, be exchanged with a benefice, as is plain. When benefices are unequal either in revenues or in dignity, they cannot be compensated with money, or with the accession of a temporal thing, whatever some may say to the contrary.

XXVII. A transaction in composing a suit over a benefice is simoniacal, if it be done without the authority of the Apostolic See. Several things concerning this matter some dispute, which it is not worth while to weigh, as being useless, because it pertains to the Apostolic See to settle them.

XXVIII. QUESTION VIII. How can a benefice be resigned without simony? ANSWER. 1. Anyone can resign a benefice into the hands of his bishop, no condition being added; 2. In favour of such a person; 3. In favour of such a person, a pension being reserved to himself; 4. Without designation of a person, and with reservation of a pension. A resignation made in the first way is true, and can be safe. For a resignation made in the other ways the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is required, who can dispense for the good and convenience of the Church.

XXIX. The Salmanticenses, no. 55, contend that a resignation can be made into the hands of a bishop in favour of Peter, provided this condition be not made in all rigour by the resigner, so that he should suspend the resignation, but only declare to the Prelate the mode conceived by the resigner and to be observed in the provision of the benefice after the absolute renunciation is made. These are bland thoughts, which a prudent bishop alone can resolve, by admitting no condition at all, whether rigorous or bland. For in this fashion he will explore the sincerity of the resigner.

XXX. Simoniacal are reciprocal renunciations, by which you renounce in favour of Peter, that he in turn may renounce to you. Similarly simoniacal are the renunciations which they call triangular, as when you renounce to Peter, that Peter may renounce to Paul, and at last Paul renounces his benefice to you.

XXXI. QUESTION IX. Whether a confidential renunciation of benefices be simoniacal? ANSWER. That resignation of a benefice is called confidential which is made into the hands of a lawful Superior with a trust that he in whose favour the benefice is renounced will resign the same benefice to him or to another, or will pay a pension or something else. A fiduciary resignation with an express or tacit agreement is beyond doubt simoniacal, forbidden by divine, natural, and human right, as all confess. A fiduciary resignation without any agreement, but with the hope that the resignee will under the title of gratitude at an opportune time resign the same benefice either to himself, or to a friend, or to a blood-relation, or to whomsoever he shall have willed, or will pay part of the fruits — although absolutely and speculatively it may be without simony, in practice nevertheless it is almost always to be reputed simoniacal.

XXXII. Guilty of simony are Canons who principally assist at choir on account of the distributions, as St. Thomas teaches, Quodlibet 8, article 5, saying: A cleric who goes to church principally on account of the distributions which he receives, as the end of the work, commits simony. Easily will each man assert that he goes to choir not principally but secondarily on account of the distributions. But let them seriously weigh their own conscience, whether they truly go to choir on account of the divine worship. Whence can they gather this? From several signs: from the fervour of devotion, from the modesty and attention with which they celebrate the divine praises; from the omission of frequenting choir when there are no distributions, or small ones.