Simony

Simony derives its name from Simon Magus, who, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, desired to buy with money the power of giving the Holy Spirit. It is defined to be a studious wish to buy or to sell for a temporal advantage something which is spiritual, or which is annexed to what is spiritual. The terms of this definition are technical and require some explanation.

Simony, then, is said to be a studious wish to buy or to sell, in order to emphasize the fact that although no explicit contract is entered into by the parties, there may still be simoniacal dealing between them. Thus, if a person makes a money present to a priest with the intention of obliging him to give him absolution for his sins in return, he commits a sin of simony, though there is no express bargaining between them.

In simony a temporal advantage is exchanged for something which is spiritual. The temporal advantage may be money and whatever is exchanged for money, or a service rendered, or favour, patronage, and defence. The spiritual object which is given for the temporal advantage is whatever has relation to the salvation of the soul. It may, then, be grace or the gifts of the Holy Ghost, or the sacraments and sacramentals, or prayer, or the use of spiritual power for absolving, dispensing, blessing, excommunicating, and so forth.

Something may be annexed to what is spiritual either antecedently or concomitantly or subsequently. The material of which a chalice is made is said to be annexed to a consecrated chalice antecedently, inasmuch as it existed and had its value before the chalice was consecrated. Something is annexed concomitantly and extrinsically to what is spiritual when it is associated with what is spiritual but only accidentally, as the extra labour associated with singing a late Mass. It is concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to what is spiritual when the connection is necessary, as the labour which must of necessity accompany any spiritual function. A temporal advantage is annexed to what is spiritual consequently, when it follows from and is derived from what is spiritual, as the right ? Acts viii 18. to the revenues of the parish is derived from the office of parish priest. There is no simony in buying or selling what is antecedently annexed to something which is spiritual, provided that the price be not increased on account of the connection with, what is spiritual, and provided the Church has not forbidden it. It is lawful to sell consecrated chalices or the fabric of a church for what the materials are worth. The Church has forbidden any money to be received for the holy oils, even so much as the cost of the oil. Similarly it is not simony to receive payment for extra labour spent on some religious function. It is simony to receive money for what is concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to that which is spiritual, for they are regarded as identical. It is also simony to buy or sell that which is consequently annexed to what is spiritual, for the accessory follows the principal.

Simony is called mental when no express contract is entered into between the parties. It is purely conventional if the contract has been expressly entered into, but has not yet been executed by either party; it is partly conventional when the contract has been executed by one of the parties. Simony is real when the contract has been executed by both parties to it.

Simony which is committed with reference to the presentation and election to benefices, or the resignation or reservation of them, is called confidential simony, in contradistinction to common simony which is committed in other matters.

Furthermore, simony is of divine law when it is against the law of God; it is of ecclesiastical law when it has been constituted by the prohibition of the Church. For, in order to remove all danger of simony against the law of God, the Church forbids certain contractual dealings where spiritual things are exchanged. Thus it is unlawful without due authorization to exchange benefices, which therefore would be simony by ecclesiastical law. Similarly the Church in certain cases forbids the sale of what is antecedently annexed to some spiritual object. It is thus unlawful to take money for the cost of the material in the holy oils, or to sell blessed rosaries or indulgenced crucifixes and other objects of piety. If this is done, simony is committed, and the objects lose all their indulgences.¹

¹ S.C. Indulg., July 12, 1847.

Simony, like sacrilege, is a grave sin, and if it is against the divine law, it is always mortal. For it is a grave injury to divine things and to God to barter even a small spiritual thing for any temporal advantage whatever. If the simony be merely of ecclesiastical law, it is also of itself a mortal sin, but inasmuch as it is constituted by ecclesiastical. prohibition and a sin of disobedience is only venial when the matter is trivial, there may consequently be venial sins of that simony which is merely of ecclesiastical law.

It is not simony to receive stipends for saying Mass according to the intention of the giver, nor to take stole fees on occasion of certain priestly ministrations. The stipends and the fees are not given as the price of the spiritual ministrations, but the occasion of these ministrations is taken for the fulfilment of the duty which is incumbent on the faithful of supporting religion and its ministers. “‘ The Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”¹ The amount of these offerings, as well as the occasions on which they are made, are regulated by ecclesiastical law and custom, and no change should be made in these ordinances by private authority. The priest has a strict title in justice to receive them from all who are competent to pay. On the other hand, he has no right to demand more than the authorized amount.

¹ 1 Cor. ix 14.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Article III. On Simony · Vol. II, Bk. IV, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. III, Section I. On Suspensions which Are Censures or Medicinal Penalties

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.

Vol. II, Bk. X, Pt. III, Ch. I, C.—Excommunications Simply Reserved to the Holy See

n. 24.

The rest is clear from what has been said above. Canon 2346 VI. Si quis bona ecclesiastica cujuslibet generis sive mobilia sive immobilia, sive corporalia sive incorporalia, per se vel per alios in prosprio usus convertere et usurpare praesumpserit aut impedire ne eorumdem fructus seu reditus ab iis ad quos jure pertinent percipiantur, excommunicationi tamdiu sub- (If anyone shall presume, by himself or through others, to convert to his own use and to usurp ecclesiastical goods of any kind whatsoever, whether movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, or to prevent their fruits or revenues from being received by those to whom they belong by right, let him lie under excommunication for so long) jaceat quamdiu bona ipsa integre restituerit, praedictum impedimentum removerit, ac deinde a Sede Apostolica absolutionem impetraverit. (let him lie under it until he has fully restored those goods, removed the aforesaid impediment, and thereafter obtained absolution from the Apostolic See.)

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 10 passages

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Article III. On Simony

n. 620.

I. Notion. Simony is named from Simon Magus, who attempted to buy spiritual gifts with money.¹ But simony is an exchange either forbidden of itself, that is, because of the equating of a spiritual thing with a temporal thing, or prohibited by the Church because of the danger of irreverence toward spiritual things. These points will become clearer from what is to be said.

¹ Acts 8:18.

n. 621.

II. Division. Simony is distinguished into simony of divine law and simony of ecclesiastical law.

Simony of divine law, as we have already indicated, is an exchange with a temporal price either of a thing intrinsically spiritual and not annexed to a temporal thing; or of a thing intrinsically spiritual and annexed to a temporal thing; or of a temporal thing so annexed to a spiritual thing that the temporal thing can in no way exist without the spiritual thing (cf. can. 727, § 1). It is said:

a) Exchange; by this word is understood every onerous contract, whether express or tacit, that is, so placed that the other understands that a temporal thing is given under the obligation of receiving a spiritual thing (can. 728; St. Alphonsus, III, 49). If the intention of obliging another is indeed present but wholly hidden, there is a simoniacal mind, which is also called mental simony (St. Alphonsus, III, 49). "Any natural obligation whatever, such as of gratitude or reciprocal return, does not suffice" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.), because it does not follow the will of the giver but the action itself. It must be said otherwise if gratitude itself is brought into the pact (St. Alphonsus, III, 53). Moreover, a voluntary and deliberate or free exchange is required; hence canon 727, § 1 speaks of the deliberate will of buying or selling, etc.

b) With a temporal price; which can be constituted by: 1. a gift from the hand, as money and every thing comparable with money; 2. a gift from the tongue, namely praise, recommendation, intercession; 3. a gift from service, namely servitude and other temporal services (St. Alphonsus, III, 49).

c) Either of a thing intrinsically spiritual and not annexed to a temporal thing, as the sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

d) Or of a thing intrinsically spiritual and annexed to a temporal thing, as the consecration of a chalice, indulgences annexed to rosaries or other things (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

e) Or of a temporal thing so annexed to a spiritual thing that the temporal thing can in no way exist without the spiritual thing.

A temporal thing can be annexed to a spiritual thing: 1. consequently, "as depending on spiritual things" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 4), "as the revenues of benefices, which are given on account of a spiritual office" (St. Alphonsus, III, 49); 2. concomitantly and intrinsically, as the labor necessarily expended for Mass; 3. concomitantly but extrinsically, as the celebration of Mass in chant, in a distant place; 4. antecedently, as a vessel to which consecration is added. Now a temporal thing is so annexed to a spiritual thing that it can in no way exist without the spiritual thing when it is annexed to it consequently or concomitantly and intrinsically. It is otherwise when it is annexed to it concomitantly but extrinsically, or antecedently, as is sufficiently clear from the examples brought forward (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Simony of ecclesiastical law consists in an exchange which is not repugnant to divine law, but which is prohibited by the Church because of the danger of irreverence toward spiritual things, and therefore from the same motive as simony of divine law, that is, from a motive of religion. To this belong forbidden exchanges: 1. of a spiritual thing with a spiritual thing; 2. of a temporal thing with a temporal thing; 3. of a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing with a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing; 4. of a temporal thing with a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing in such a way that the temporal thing can exist without the spiritual thing (cf. can. 727, § 2; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

n. 622.

III. Morality. The malice, and indeed special malice, of simony consists in the injury which it inflicts upon the dignity of that sacred thing by which it excels every temporal thing, even the most precious (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 49). Moreover:

Simony of divine law is a grave sin from its whole genus, because the exchange of a spiritual thing, since it is far more excellent than every temporal thing, with a temporal price necessarily inflicts grave injury upon the spiritual thing. Hence St. Peter says to Simon Magus: "May your money be with you unto perdition, because you have thought that the gift of God could be possessed with money"¹ (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).
Simony of ecclesiastical law is a grave sin from its genus, that is, grave or light according as the Church prohibits, under grave or under light obligation, an act not simoniacal by its nature (St. Alphonsus, III, n. 50).

¹ Acts 8:20.

n. 623.

Corollary I. The following is free from simony:

On the occasion of sacred functions, to receive something by way of stipend or under the title of support. The reason is that the wage so received is not a price properly so called, since it is not measured by the value of the function performed but by necessary support.¹ Hence Christ says: "The laborer is worthy of his hire."² And the Apostle: "Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary, and that those who serve the altar share with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that those who announce the Gospel should live from the Gospel"³ (can. 730; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, aa. 2 and 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 55).

From what has been said it follows: 1. that a stipend can also be received by one who has otherwise that from which he may live. For from that fact the stipend does not put on the account of price. Therefore the Apostle says: "Who ever serves as a soldier at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who feeds a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?"⁴ (can. 1473; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). 2. That it is lawful to demand a stipend or to bargain about it, because one who acts thus does not bargain about a price. 3. Nor is he guilty of simony who performs sacred functions principally with a view to the stipend, because he does not act with a view to a wage as price; nevertheless he sins venially, because he inverts the order by ordering spiritual things to temporal things (St. Alphonsus, III, 55). Similarly, the usage of the Roman Curia of demanding a sum of money on the occasion of granting a favor is free from simony. The reason is that the money is not demanded under the title of price, but, for example, under the title of sustaining the burdens of the Pontificate, compensation for the expenses of expedition, compensation in the commutation of vows, penalty in dispensation from culpable irregularity or from an impediment because of crime, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 96).

To hand over instruction in a sacred matter for a temporal price, if the instruction does not tend solely to a spiritual good, but also to a temporal good of the instructed person, for example to cultivation of mind or honor. Such are instruction in catechesis or theology, and doctrinal counsel. It is otherwise if it is ordered solely to a spiritual good, as spiritual counsel (St. Alphonsus, III, 94; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 3).
To give a temporal thing for a temporal thing which is antecedently annexed to a spiritual thing, for example for a consecrated chalice, provided the price is not increased because of the annexed spiritual thing (can. 730).
To give or promise a temporal thing under the hope, even manifested, of receiving a spiritual thing, or with the end, even manifested, that you may receive a spiritual thing; and conversely. The reason is that there is no true agreement.

Hence it is lawful, for example, to give money to a poor man so that he may pray for you. But if an explicit or implicit pact intervenes, there is simony. An implicit pact intervenes when the giver has the intention of obliging the recipient, and that intention is manifested by a circumstance; as if some poor man gives something temporal of sufficiently great importance under the hope of receiving a spiritual thing: this circumstance is suited to insinuate in the mind of the one receiving a strict obligation, if the receiver can return nothing except a spiritual thing. If there is a hidden intention of obliging the recipient, at least a simoniacal mind is present (St. Alphonsus, III, 49, 51, 53; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 2). The same holds if a temporal thing is given or promised to another so that he may perform a spiritual thing for his own advantage, for example a gift to a young man if he frequents the sacraments (St. Alphonsus, III, 59; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 4). Others judge that in the case there is not simony even when the giver intends to impose a strict obligation on the other. The reason alleged is that the recipient is not obliged to hand over anything to the giver, but only to take counsel for himself; and this does not seem simoniacal to them.

To sell the right of burial in a more honorable place; for a temporal thing is sold (St. Alphonsus, III, 71).

¹ Namely, to him who labors for the advantage of another, from the natural law itself there is owed the wage by which he may be sustained, and this even if he does not need the wage.

² Luke 10:7.

³ 1 Cor. 9:13-14.

⁴ 1 Cor. 9:7.

n. 624.

Corollary II. Simony of divine law is:

To increase the price of things because of their consecration, blessing, or because of the indulgences annexed to them (can. 730, 1539, § 1).
To obtain for oneself the conferral of a benefice by a temporal price.

It is disputed whether the same can be said of one who by a temporal price obtains for himself presentation or intercession before a superior. Moreover, it seems it must be affirmed, because one who buys the aforesaid things by money prepares for himself a way to obtain a spiritual thing, and therefore, morally speaking, by a temporal price obtains for himself or attempts to obtain the benefice itself.¹ It is nevertheless lawful to free oneself by a temporal thing from unjust vexation, for example by money given to bring it about that someone desist from calumnies by which he accuses him before the Bishop. For liberation from vexation is something temporal (St. Alphonsus, III, 99, 100; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 2, ad 5). Similarly, when another priest is lacking and a grave cause is present, it seems lawful to give money to a priest who otherwise is unwilling to administer a sacrament, provided nevertheless no strict pact is entered into; because a donation can be intended and the sin of the priest permitted (St. Alphonsus, III, 103, q. 5°).

To receive or demand temporal compensation for the conferral of a benefice. According to what was said under 2, the same seems to be said of one who receives or demands temporal compensation for procuring a benefice.

¹ A presentation of this kind, if it is not simony of divine law, must at least be called simony of ecclesiastical law (cf. can. 1465, § 2).

n. 625.

Corollary III. Simony at least of ecclesiastical law is:

To impose deductions from fruits, compensations, and payments to be made by a cleric in the act of provision of a benefice, which fall to the collator, patron, or others (can. 1441).¹
To admit the resignation of a benefice for the advantage of others or under some condition which touches the very provision of the benefice or the distribution of revenues (cf. can. 1486).
To compensate unequal benefices to be exchanged by the reservation of fruits or the payment of money or of any thing estimable by price (cf. can. 1488, § 1).
To exchange a benefice contrary to the prescription of canon 1487 or 1488, § 2.
In place of stipends collected or received, to hand over goods with profit to him to whom the Masses to be said are entrusted (cf. can. 827).
To transmit stipends collected or received while retaining a part of the stipend for the labor expended (cf. can. 840). It is lawful to retain only that which is necessary for the expenses of administration and transmission.

¹ The Pontifical Commission responded that recourse must be had in individual cases, if the Bishop wishes, in the conferral of non-reserved parishes, to impose for one time only a moderate tax in favor of the seminary, even if the parish in question is liable to the tax to be paid to this Institute (October 16, 1919, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1919, p. 476, ad I b).

n. 626.

Corollary IV. It is doubtful, or at least disputed, whether it is simony:

On the occasion of a spiritual thing performed, to ask either for a prohibited temporal stipend or emolument, or for a temporal stipend or emolument above the established tax (cf. can. 463, 552, § 2; 695; 723, 5°; 736; 879, 2; 1056; 1181; 1235; 1303; 1507). Now simony seems to be lacking, both of divine law and of ecclesiastical law.

a) Simony of divine law seems to be lacking. Several maintain the contrary, because when a just title, either of the stipend or of the excess of the stipend, is lacking, what remains is that these are demanded as the price of the spiritual thing performed. But it seems it must be said that in the former case a prohibited stipend is demanded, and in the latter case a stipend greater than is just, rather than the price of a spiritual thing. In a word: there is not necessarily a comparison of a spiritual thing with a temporal thing.

b) Simony of ecclesiastical law seems to be lacking, because neither a spiritual thing with a spiritual thing, nor a temporal thing with a temporal thing, nor a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing with a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing, is exchanged. Nevertheless the cleric would sin and would be held to restitution (cf. can. 463, § 2).

On the occasion of a spiritual thing performed, to demand compensation greater than is just for extrinsic labor. Moreover, simony seems to be lacking. Several defend the contrary, because when a just title of the excess compensation is lacking, the said excess is demanded as the price of the sacred ministry. But rather a price greater than is just of a temporal thing is demanded, than the price of a spiritual thing.
To sell rosaries or other things enriched with indulgences; likewise to expose for public sale blessed or consecrated sacred furnishings. Some hold the aforesaid things as simony of ecclesiastical law, even if the price is not increased because of the annexed spiritual thing. They judge thus because they hold these things as prohibited. But the prohibition is not proved, although the indulgences cease when rosaries or other things are sold (can. 924, § 2), and sacred furnishings exposed for public sale lose their blessing or consecration (can. 1305, § 1, 2°).
Finally, it is disputed to what extent simony can be committed on the occasion of entrance into religion. Now it is lawful to give or accept something: 1. under the title of a spontaneous alms; 2. under the title of dowry in monasteries of nuns, even wealthy ones; likewise in religions of sisters of simple vows, according to the norm of the constitutions (can. 547); 3. under the title of support for the time of postulancy and novitiate, provided this is provided for by the constitutions or by express agreement (can. 570, § 1). The same is lawful for the remaining time if the monastery is needy; for on the one hand authors formerly commonly held that as lawful (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 91), and on the other hand it is scarcely admitted that the new law, if it excludes the remaining time, must be so pressed that it must also be extended to the stated hypothesis. But if the monastery is wealthy, it is disputed both whether or not it is simony to give or accept something under the title of support, and whether it is simony of divine law or of ecclesiastical law. Now it does not seem to be simony of divine law, but certainly seems to be simony of ecclesiastical law. I said:

a) It does not seem to be simony of divine law, because neither a spiritual thing is bought, nor is a temporal thing so annexed to a spiritual thing that it can in no way exist without the spiritual thing. A spiritual thing is not bought, as is clear; for support is bought, which is a temporal thing. A temporal thing so annexed to a spiritual thing that it can in no way exist without the spiritual thing is not bought; for the right to support can manifestly exist without profession, that is, without the spiritual thing. Note also that it is doubtful whether religious profession carries with it a strict right to support.

b) It seems to be simony of ecclesiastical law; for the Code, both by expressly speaking of the time of postulancy and novitiate, and by adding that even for that time nothing can be exacted unless the constitutions or an express agreement provide for it, seems to exclude, or to hold as excluded, the time that will follow profession. But if it is excluded, it is certainly excluded because of the danger of irreverence toward a spiritual thing, namely profession, and therefore, in view of canon 727, § 2, there is simony of ecclesiastical law.

n. 627.

IV. Effects of simony. 1. A simoniacal contract and, if simony is committed concerning benefices, offices, and dignities, the subsequent provision lack all force, even if the simony was committed by a third person, even without the knowledge of the one provided, provided this was not done in fraud of that provided person or while he contradicted it. Therefore:

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

b) 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 to him the fruits received, in whole or in part.

A resignation of an ecclesiastical office made simoniacally is invalid by the law itself (can. 185).
Benefices which have been invalidly conferred because of the vice of simony are reserved to the Apostolic See, even while vacant (can. 1435, § 1, 3°).
A benefice conferred simoniacally is not obtained through the prescription by which other invalidly received benefices are obtained (can. 1446).
A presentation infected by the stain of simony is by the law itself invalid, and also renders invalid any institution perhaps following it (can. 1465, § 2).
The right of patronage is extinguished if the patron has attempted to transfer the right of patronage simoniacally to another (can. 1470, § 1, 6°).
A criminal action against simony can be brought for ten years (can. 1703, 3°).

¹ The election of the Supreme Pontiff, even if performed simoniacally, is valid, namely so that pretexts for impugning the validity may be forestalled (Constitution of Pius X, Vacante sede apostolica, n. 79).

n. 628.

V. Established penalties. 1. Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities:

a) Incur an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

b) By the fact itself remain deprived forever of the right of electing, presenting, and nominating, if they have any such right.

c) If they are clerics, they are besides to be suspended (can. 2392).

All, even those endowed with episcopal dignity, who through simony have knowingly promoted or been promoted to orders, or have administered or received other sacraments, are suspected of heresy; clerics besides incur suspension reserved to the Apostolic See (can. 2371).

¹ Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, VI, tit. 15; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, II, nn. 4-13.

Vol. II, Bk. IV, Tr. II, Diss. III, Pt. III, Section I. On Suspensions which Are Censures or Medicinal Penalties

n. 900.

I. Clerics, even those raised to episcopal dignity, who knowingly through simony have promoted someone to Orders or have been promoted, or have administered or received other Sacraments, incur a suspension reserved to the Apostolic See (canon 2371).

The discussion is of a generally issued suspension (p. 742).
Simony is taken as explained on p. 773.
Under the name of order here also come first tonsure and episcopate (canon 950).
The word "knowingly" refers not only to the first part, but also to "have administered or received."

Note. Delinquents, even laymen, are moreover suspected of heresy (canon 2371).

II. Those who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, contract ipso facto suspension a divinis, reserved to the Apostolic See (canon 2372). Under the name of order here does not come first tonsure, since it confers no power from which someone can be suspended (cf. canon 950).

Note. One who in good faith has been ordained by one of those enumerated above lacks the exercise of the order thus received until he is dispensed (canon 2372). Here it is not a question of a penalty, since delict is absent, but of mere privation. The dispensation, however, in view of general principles, belongs to the proper Ordinary of the one ordained.

III. Until he obtains absolution from the Holy See, a religious dismissed for delicts less than those mentioned in canon 670 remains ipso facto suspended (canon 671, 1°).

IV. A cleric who, against the prescription of canon 120, has dared to drag before a lay judge another person enjoying the privilege of forum, namely apart from Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Legates of the Apostolic See, or major Officials of the Roman Curia for affairs pertaining to their function, or his own Ordinary, or another Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or major Superiors of religions of pontifical right, contracts ipso facto suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary (canon 2341). The prescription of canon 120, insofar as it must here be attended to, establishes that another person besides the enumerated persons cannot be summoned before a lay judge without the permission of the local Ordinary, namely of the place in which the case is being conducted.

On the word "dragging," see p. 766.

The Ordinary to whom the suspension is reserved is the proper Ordinary of the suspended person, not the local Ordinary whose permission had to be obtained.

Note. If the delinquent is a layman, he must be punished by the Superiors with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault, according to the norm of the constitutions (canon 2341).

V. A fugitive religious, if he is in sacred orders, contracts ipso facto a suspension reserved to his own major Superior (canon 2386), that is, a priest, deacon, or subdeacon. Under the name of religious here also come members in societies of men who imitate the manner of life of religious, living in common under the governance of Superiors according to approved constitutions, but are not bound by the three customary public vows, nor are they properly designated by the name religious¹ (cf. canon 673, § 1).

The discussion is of a generally issued suspension (p. 742).

Note. The whole canon 2386 establishes the following: A fugitive religious incurs ipso facto privation of office, if he has any in religion, and suspension reserved to his own major Superior, if he is in sacred orders; but when he returns, he is to be punished according to the constitutions, and if the constitutions make no provision concerning this, the major Superior is to inflict penalties according to the gravity of the fault.

VI. The following contract a suspension reserved to no one:

A priest who without necessary jurisdiction has presumed to hear sacramental confessions is ipso facto suspended a divinis (canon 2366). Without necessary jurisdiction, that is, without at least probable jurisdiction (cf. canon 209). What sacramental confession is, see n. 430. It is enough, however, that someone hear a confession of this kind, even if he does not absolve the penitent.
A priest who without necessary jurisdiction has presumed to absolve from reserved sins is ipso facto suspended from hearing confessions (canon 2366). The pronouncement of the form of absolution is required, however, and mere hearing of confession or fictitious absolution is not enough.
Whoever maliciously approaches orders without letters or with false dimissorial letters, or before canonical age, or by a leap, is ipso facto suspended from the order received (canon 2374). Under the name of order here does not come first tonsure, because it confers no power from which someone can be suspended (cf. canon 950).² "Maliciously" is equated with the words "has presumed," etc., about which see p. 718.
A cleric who has presumed to resign an ecclesiastical office, benefice, or dignity into the hands of laymen incurs ipso facto suspension a divinis (canon 2400).
An Abbot or Prelate nullius who, against the prescription of canon 322, § 2, has not received the blessing, is ipso facto suspended from jurisdiction (canon 2402). Canon 322, § 2 establishes: Abbots or Prelates nullius who, by apostolic prescription or from the constitutions of their own religion, must be blessed, should receive the blessing, within three months from receiving the apostolic letters and with legitimate impediment ceasing, from the Bishop whom they prefer.
A Vicar Capitular who grants dimissorial letters for ordination against the prescription of canon 958, § 1, n. 3, is ipso facto subject to suspension a divinis (canon 2409). From canon 958, § 1, n. 3, the Vicar Capitular can give dimissorial letters for seculars only with the consent of the Chapter after a year from the vacant see; but within the year only to those constrained by reason of a benefice received or to be received, or by reason of some certain office for which, because of the necessity of the diocese, provision must be made without delay.

¹ Pontifical Commission, June 2-3, 1918 (A.A.S. 1918, p. 347).

² Whether the Episcopate is included, cf. Cerato, op. cit., p. 195.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 24 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Simony · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Sinfulness of Simony

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Simony

n. 2317.

Simony

Simony.—Simony derives its name from Simon Magus, the first person in New Testament times, as far as we know, who committed this crime. For it is written of Simon (Acts, viii. 18 sqq.) that he attempted to buy from St. Peter the power of imposition of hands. But the sin was not unknown in the Old Testament, as we see from the examples of Baalam (Numb., xxii. 7), Giezi (IV Kings, v. 20 sqq.), and Jason (II Mach., iv. 7 sqq.).

n. 2318.

Definition of Simony

Definition of Simony.—Simony is defined as “the studied will to buy or sell for a temporal price or consideration something that is spiritual either intrinsically or extrinsically.”

(a) Simony is in the will, for it is an act of injustice pretending to have or to receive the right of dominion over spiritual things that belong to God alone, and injustice is a vice of the will. Hence, simony is not an internal sin of the intellect; for, though one who practises simony externally makes to some extent a profession of belief in the heresy that man is the owner of spirituals and gives grounds for the suspicion that he holds that the sale of spirituals is lawful, yet he may know well that the things of God are priceless and still wish to give or receive a price for them. Again, simony is not to be identified with the external act of bargaining for spirituals; for, though the law punishes only external or completed simony, the guilt and malice of the sin is present even when one has the desire to traffic in spiritual things, but makes no overtures or compact.

(b) Simony is a studied will; that is, it is an act of free and deliberate choice selecting some form of internal or external simony as a desirable means. Hence, it is not sufficient for the sin of simony that there be an internal wish not fully voluntary on account of inculpable ignorance or imperfect consent; nor, on the other hand, is it necessary for incurring the guilt of simony that there be a mutual pact, but it suffices that one party alone have the will to make the pact or to obligate another party to simony.

(c) It is a wish to buy or sell, that is, to give or receive a temporal thing in exchange for a spiritual thing. There is question here, then, not only of the contract of sale, but of any other form of onerous contract, such as hire, rent, loan, exchange, do ut des, facio ut facias, etc. To be simoniacal, however, a contract need not be fulfilled or explicitly manifested; it suffices that it be unfulfilled or tacitly made, if the sinful intent can be gathered from the circumstances of the case. Hence, from the present part of the definition it follows that there is no simony in a gratuitous contract (e.g., when one gives a gift to another hoping and expecting that the later from gratitude will give in return something spiritual which it is lawful to bestow from gratitude; when a poor person offers to make a novena for benefactors who give him an alms). It is simony, however, to make an onerous contract under the guise of a gratuitous contract, for example: “I give you this money as a pure gift on condition that you will not be ungrateful but will give me this spiritual favor as a pure gift.”

(d) The price or consideration in simony is some thing, action or forbearance which in some way is of advantage to the recipient. Simony in the strictest sense is committed when a temporal thing is offered for a spiritual thing (e.g., money paid for a Sacrament); simony in the wide sense is committed when, contrary to the law on simony, things like in character are exchanged (2323 a). Thus, if the Church forbids Mass to be exchanged for Mass, or benefice for benefice, or the office of sacristan for that of sexton, transgressors are guilty of the second form of simony.

(e) The matter of simony is something intrinsically or extrinsically spiritual. In general, the spiritual is that which proceeds from God or tends to Him as the Author or End of eternal salvation (viz., the destiny, law, means, works, etc., proposed to us in Christian revelation and religion). Among these things those are intrinsically spiritual that pertain to the supernatural order on account of some inherent character of their own (e.g., grace, Sacraments, Mass, miracles) or some intimate union with things spiritual (e.g., benefices attached to spiritual offices, consecration to be given a chalice); those are extrinsically spiritual that are in themselves temporal, but in church law are treated as spiritual for the sake of reverence to the intrinsically spiritual (e.g., chrism in regard to the material itself of the oil and other ingredients). If the matter of a contract is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically spiritual, there is no simony in buying or selling it (e.g., devotional books, household furnishings of a rectory, personal effects of a cleric).

n. 2319.

Temporal Price in Simony

Temporal Price in Simony.—The temporal price in simony is some temporal good or advantage. St. Gregory the Great distinguishes three kinds of simoniacal prices as follows:

(a) the price from the hand (munus a manu) is either money or things that have a money value, such as movable or immovable property, corporeal or incorporeal rights. It would be simony to give a benefice in exchange for a sum of money, for a loan, for real estate;

(b) the price from the tongue (munus a lingua) is any kind of patronage, such as praise, recommendation, protection, defense, opposition to competitors, etc. It would be simony to confer a benefice in exchange for the influence in one’s favor which the recipient of the benefice would exercise with some powerful person, for his vote in an election, etc.;

(c) the price in service (munus ab obsequio) is any kind of temporal labor or assistance given for another’s benefit, such as the management of his business or the instruction of his children. It would be simony to grant a benefice in exchange for work done as secretary, treasurer, or advisor.

n. 2320.

The Spiritual Thing in Simony

The Spiritual Thing in Simony.—The thing inherently spiritual in simony is also of three kinds. (a) That which is spiritual from its nature is a thing that is supernatural in itself, such as sanctifying grace, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the power of orders or of jurisdiction. (b) That which is supernatural from its cause is a thing produced by a supernatural agency or power, such as health obtained through miracle. (c) That which is supernatural from its effect is a thing having the virtue of producing supernatural results, ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis, or as an occasion (e.g., Sacraments, prayers, sermons).

n. 2321.

Temporal Thing United with Spiritual

Temporal Thing United with Spiritual.—In the two following ways things are made spiritual in reference to simony through intimate union with spirituals: (a) by necessary connection, when a temporal thing is so annexed with a spiritual thing that it cannot exist without it. This includes the things annexed consequently, and perhaps also those annexed concomitantly and intrinsically (see 2322); (b) by contractual connection, when a spiritual and a temporal are the partial objects of a contract, as when in the sale of a consecrated chalice the price is raised on account of the consecration.

n. 2322.

Temporal Thing Annexed to Spiritual

Temporal Thing Annexed to Spiritual.—In three ways a temporal thing is annexed to a spiritual thing.

(a) The temporal thing is annexed antecedently if it precedes the spiritual thing as its prepared or appointed or presupposed matter or subject. Thus, all things that receive a consecration or blessing (e.g., chalices, rosaries) or a property to which a right of patronage is attached are of this kind. Relics are properly of this category, but, since they have usually no material value, it is customary to include them amongst spirituals.

(b) The temporal thing is annexed concomitantly if it is simultaneous with the spiritual thing as being the action or labor that produces it. If the union is essential and inseparable, the temporal thing is said to be annexed intrinsically (e.g., the work performed in saying Mass, preaching, making a sick call); if the union is not essential, the temporal thing is said to be annexed extrinsically (e.g., the special work performed in saying Mass, if it has to be sung, or said in a distant church, or at a determined hour).

(c) The temporal thing is annexed consequently when it presupposes the spiritual thing as the cause on which it depends. Thus, the revenues of a parish are a temporal thing, but they follow on the pastoral office which is a spiritual thing.

n. 2323.

The Various Kinds of Simony

The Various Kinds of Simony.—(a) In reference to its matter or the law violated, simony is either against natural and divine law or against positive ecclesiastical law. Simony against divine law consists in the exchange for temporalities of things that are spiritual or intimately annexed to the spiritual (see 2321), such as Sacraments, indulgences, or jurisdiction. Simony against church law consists in an exchange that has the appearance of simony against divine law, or that easily leads to simony against the divine law, and is consequently forbidden by the Church in order to safeguard religious respect for sacred things, as when one violates the law by taking money for holy oils. In the former kind of simony, things of different orders (spirituals and temporals) are exchanged one for the other; in the latter kind of simony, things of the same sort (spirituals for spirituals, temporals for temporals, etc.) are exchanged where the law forbids (Canon 727).

(b) In reference to its manner, or the way in which it is committed, simony is internal or external. Internal simony is the will, without the external agreement, to exchange spirituals for temporals; it is purely mental if nothing external is done by reason of the internal will; it is not purely mental if something external is done by reason of the internal will (e.g., if the person who desires to commit simony makes a money present to another in the hope that the latter will feel morally bound to give something spiritual in return, or if one gives something spiritual looking for a substantial gift of money as compensation). External simony is an outward pact freely entered into between two parties to exchange spirituals for temporals. It is called purely conventional, if neither party has as yet performed his part of the agreement; it is semi-real or mixed, if one of the parties has executed his part; it is real if both parties have performed, at least in part, what they agreed to. A simoniacal compact is explicit, if expressed by clear words or signs (e.g., “I will pay $100 for your vote”); it is tacit, if circumstances indicate the evil intention (e.g., very unusual presents given before an election).

n. 2324.

Confidential Simony

Confidential Simony.—Simony committed in reference to benefices is called confidential because the contract is illegal, giving no judicial protection, and there is only the confidence or reliance on another’s word to give assurance that the agreement will be kept. Canonists discuss at length the following contracts in which it is committed:

(a) the contract per accessum grants a benefice with the agreement that the grantee will later resign, so that access to it may be had by the grantor or a third party at present incapable;

(b) the contract per ingressum resigns a benefice not yet taken possession of with the understanding that the person who now enters into possession will leave the place open for his predecessor if he himself resigns or is promoted;

(e) the contract per regressum resigns a benefice already possessed with the understanding that it may be recovered by the person now resigning or by a third party;

(d) the contract per reservationem partis obtains a benefice for another with the stipulation that he will pay a certain percentage of its revenues to the person who obtains it for him or to a third party (see Canon 1441).

n. 2325.

Simony Against Divine Law

Simony Against Divine Law.—Simony against divine law is committed in reference to spiritual things when a temporal price is formally or virtually given or received for them.

(a) Thus, the temporal thing is formally set up as the price, when it is regarded or treated as the end of the spiritual thing or action itself (finis operis), one of the things exchanged being used as the measure of value of the other. This happens when a person wills to buy or sell a spiritual thing, either because he thinks that its value may be expressed in terms of money or other temporal thing, or because he judges that he should treat it as though money were its equivalent, as when one fulfills a spiritual office and excludes every other motive than that of lucre (Denzinger, n. 1196).

(b) The temporal thing is virtually set up as the price, when it is intended as the sole proximate end of the agent himself (finis operantis), though there is no explicit thought about values or prices or comparisons. This happens when one gives a temporal thing and has no other immediate personal purpose in this act than the acquisition of a spiritual thing, or performs a pretendedly gratuitous service, intending thereby to obligate the beneficiary to the grant of some spiritual benefit, or bestows a “gratuitous” temporal favor as compensation for a spiritual benefit or vice versa (Denzinger, n. 1195). This is simony, for he who explicitly intends only an exchange, implicitly intends a price; and if it were not simony, then simony would be almost entirely an entity of the mind, since it is a very simple matter to will that the temporal thing exchanged shall be not the price, but only the motive of the contract or gratuitous compensation.

n. 2327.

Rules of Alexander III for Determining Simony

Rules of Alexander III for Determining Simony.—Alexander III gave several rules for determining whether a gift is made from liberality or with simoniacal intent.

(a) The following are marks of simoniacal intent: the quality of the giver (e.g., that he is poor, or in great need, or not customarily generous), the quantity of the gift (e.g., that it corresponds with the value of a vacant benefice, that it is surprisingly large), the time of the gift (e.g., that it is made when the donee is not in any special need, or when he is about to confer an office, or after hints have been made). If a gift is bestowed in connection with a spiritual thing received, the presumption is for simoniacal intent, unless there was a sincere and reasonable motive for the gift.

(b) The following, on the contrary, are marks of a liberal intent: the quality of the giver (e.g., that he is wealthy, noted for kindness and compassion, or liberal to all, or is a relative of the donee); the quantity of the gift (e.g., that it is small or normal in size), the time of the gift (e.g., if it is made when necessity, festal occasion, or the like calls for it).

n. 2328.

Simony against Divine Law in Reference to Things Annexed to Spirituals

Simony against Divine Law in Reference to Things Annexed to Spirituals.—(a) It is simony against divine law to buy or sell things annexed to spirituals consequently (e.g., the revenues of a benefice) or concomitantly and intrinsically (e.g., the ordinary labor and fatigue connected with preaching, saying Mass); for in the former case the temporal grows out of a spiritual and is morally one with it, while in the latter case the temporal has no value except in so far as it is joined with the spiritual.

(b) It is not simony against divine law to buy or sell things annexed to spirituals antecedently (e.g., blessed candles, sacred vestments), if the price is not raised on account of the spiritual thing, or things annexed concomitantly and extrinsically (e.g., the extraordinary labor and fatigue caused by saying Mass in a distant place or at a late hour); for in both cases the temporal has its own proper value and is not considered as inseparable from the spiritual. There is simony against divine law, however, if the price is raised on account of the spiritual part (e.g., if something is added for the blessing given a candle), and simony against church law if the transaction is forbidden as simoniacal (e.g., deductions and payments made in the act of preferment to a benefice are contrary to Canon 1441).

n. 2329.

Conditions Necessary for Simony against Ecclesiastical Law

Conditions Necessary for Simony against Ecclesiastical Law.—(a) There must be an exchange through some kind of onerous contract, but it suffices that the understanding be tacit and non-executed, as was explained above (see 2323).

(b) There must be a law of the Church which, from a motive of respect for sacred things, forbids the exchange.

(c) The simoniacal exchange is made, whether a temporal annexed to a spiritual is given for another temporal annexed to a spiritual (e.g., benefice for benefice), or a spiritual for a spiritual, or a temporal for a temporal. Canonists enumerate the following as examples of simony of ecclesiastical law: gifts made in connection with a competitive examination for a parochial benefice, with ordination or grant of certain testimonial letters (Canon 545), with erection of confraternities; sale of blessed oil or chrism, or of the right of patronage (Canon 1470); remuneration for collection of stipends or for expenses of Mass (Canons 840, 1303).

n. 2330.

Certain and Uncertain Simony

Certain and Uncertain Simony.—(a) Cases in which simony is certain are the administration of Sacraments or sacramentals to the unworthy for the sake of the fee or favors, the sale of indulgences, taxes or charges made contrary to law (e.g., for a Mass of bination). Other examples are given in 2323 sqq. The Church demands that certain ministrations (e.g., Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders) be gratis, but there may be local customs or conditions that justify exceptions. Some moralists teach that there is no simony when a stipend is exacted for an obligatory ministry, if the simoniacal motive is absent.

(b) Cases in which simony is controverted are those in which a tax or stipend in excess of what is just or lawful is exacted (e.g., a Mass stipend higher than custom permits). Some claim there is simony, because the excess must be for the spiritual thing; others hold that there is no simony, but only an unjust increase in the stipend allowed for support; others say that there is no simony in the internal forum if the intent is not simoniacal, but that there is simony in the external forum on account of the presumption of simoniacal intent.

n. 2331.

Doubtful Cases of Simony

Doubtful Cases of Simony.—In some gifts and payments the presence or absence of simony depends on the object for which they are given.

(a) Thus, when they are given for omission of a spiritual act, there is simony if the omission includes the exercise of spiritual power (e.g., to omit absolution is to retain sins or censures); there is no simony if the omission is the mere exercise of free will (e.g., to omit Mass, confession).

(b) When they are given for omission of opposition or annoyance, so that one may be able to obtain some office or benefice, there is simony if the temporal thing is thereby given for the benefice itself or for the way to it (i.e., if one has no strict right to the spiritual thing, or if the opposition is just), as when the candidate for a benefice pays a competitor to withdraw, or pays an accuser to keep silence; there is no simony if the temporal thing is given for freedom from unjust vexation (i.e., if one has a strict right to the spiritual thing and the opposition is clearly unjust, as when one who has acquired a right to an office pays an enemy to desist from placing impediments). The payment made by Jacob to Esau for the birthright, to which Jacob was entitled by divine disposition, may be regarded as having had for its end, not the paternal blessing and other spiritual rights of the first-born, but immunity from persecution by Esau.

(e) When they are given for instruction, there is simony if the instruction has for its direct purpose the spiritual benefit of the disciple (e.g., catechetical instructions, sermons, spiritual direction); there is no simony if the instruction has for its direct purpose the improvement of the mind or the utility or advantage which the disciple will derive from it (e.g., instruction in theology, preparation for examinations).

(d) When they are given for admission to religious life, there is simony if the money is paid for the religious state itself, the vows, or other spirituals; there is no simony if the money is paid for the temporal support of the religious institute, that it may be able to meet its expenses.

n. 2332.

Cases in Which a Transaction Is Not Simoniacal, but Lawful

Cases in Which a Transaction Is Not Simoniacal, but Lawful.—(a) There is no simony when a temporal is given on the occasion of but not for a spiritual. This happens when there is a just title for bestowal of the temporal, such as right of support (e.g., pastors’ salaries, Mass stipends, fees), extrinsic values in a work or object (e.g., the special labor in saying Mass under certain conditions, and, according to some, the special affection one has for a relic, the lucrum cessans on account of some function performed).

(b) There is no simony when something of value is given in exchange, but not for a spiritual, nor in contravention of an anti-simony law. This happens whether like be exchanged for like (e.g., Mass for Mass), or a temporal for a thing associated with a spiritual as the latter’s subject (e.g., money for a rosary or cemetery plot which has been blessed). In the former case there is no prohibition; in the latter, the temporalities have their own distinct values which may be paid for, if the price is not raised on account of the spiritual (see Canons 730, 1539).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Sinfulness of Simony

n. 2335.

Theological Malice of the Sin of Simony

Theological Malice of the Sin of Simony.—(a) Simony against the divine law is a mortal sin from its nature and in every instance. No matter how small the spiritual thing that is sold, it is priceless, and a grave injury is done by putting a price on it. Simony is a serious injury to God, since it usurps His place as the only Lord of spiritual things (I Cor., iv, 1), to the spiritual things themselves, since it estimates their worth by vile material gain (Prov., iii. 15; Acts, viii. 20), and to the recipients, who should receive the gifts of God freely (Matt, x, 8). Hence, St. Peter denounced Simon Magus as deserving of perdition (Acts, viii. 20), and in law simony is spoken of as the worst of pests, a cancer, leprosy, a scourge.

(b) Simony against ecclesiastical law is a mortal sin from its nature, since it is forbidden as a protection to religion and under grave sin; but in particular cases it may be only a venial sin, since the church laws do not bind under grave sin, when the matter or the danger is not serious, as was said in 382.

n. 2336.

Moral Malice of the Sin of Simony

Moral Malice of the Sin of Simony.—(a) Simony is reducible to real sacrilege (see 2311 c). It is treated separately for the sake of convenience, on account of the large number of questions that pertain to it, and also because there is reason to consider it as a distinct species of sin (2308 c). Hence, the moral malice of simony is that of irreligiousness.

(b) Simony of divine law and simony of ecclesiastical law, according to the more common and likely opinion, are alike in moral malice. For although the mere prohibition of the Church does not make a non-sacred thing sacred, it does make the non-sacred thing unsaleable precisely because related to things that are sacred. In other words, the motive of the law is the protection of sacred things against the appearance or danger of simony, and the motive of the law is the factor that determines the moral character of precepts and prohibitions of human law. Thus, to miss Mass on Sunday is a sin against religion, because the Church commands in virtue of religion that Mass be heard on Sunday; to eat meat on Friday is a sin against temperance, because the Church forbids the use of meat on Friday in virtue of temperance. Hence, it is not merely disobedience, but simony, to violate a law which forbids a certain contract because of its nearness to the sale of spirituals for temporals. Moreover, he who willfully exposes himself to the immediate danger of some sin wills the malice of that sin.

n. 2337.

Invalidity and Penalties of Simoniacal Contracts

Invalidity and Penalties of Simoniacal Contracts.—(a) Every simoniacal contract is invalid and of no force either in the external or in the internal forum, because it sells what is unsaleable under divine or ecclesiastical law. If the contract has to do with benefices, offices or dignities (e.g., “You vote as I wish and I will give you such and such favors,” “You obtain for me such a dignity and I will pay you well”), the appointment to them is rendered null and void, even though the simoniacal act be done by a third party without the knowledge of the beneficiary, unless it be done by that third party to injure the beneficiary or against his protest (Canon 729). Invalidity is also produced in case of simoniacal resignations (Canon 185), commissions (Canon 1441), presentations (Canon 1465, Sec. 2), and prescription does not operate for one who holds a benefice obtained through simony (Canon 1446).

(b) Certain simoniacal contracts subject the guilty parties to special punishments. Thus, the penalty for simony in appointments, elections or promotions to office and dignities is excommunication latae sententiae reserved simply to the Holy See, and deprivation forever of all right of nominating, voting, presenting, and suspension (Canon 2392); the penalty for simony in elevation to Orders or in use of other sacraments is suspicion of heresy and suspension reserved to the Holy See (Canon 2371).

n. 2338.

When the Canonical Penalties for Simony Do Not Apply

When the Canonical Penalties for Simony Do Not Apply.—(a) Purely mental simony is not subject to ecclesiastical penalties, since the Church does not pronounce on internal acts. But this does not take away the serious guilt in the sight of God. (b) External simony is subject to ecclesiastical penalties, but canonists dispute about the meaning of certain Canons, for example, whether only real simony falls under the punishments latae sententiae, whether the penalties of Canons 729 and 2392 apply only to simony of divine law, or to simony of ecclesiastical law as well.

n. 2339.

Influence of Simony on Spiritual Effects

Influence of Simony on Spiritual Effects.—(a) On Effects of the Power of Orders.—Sacraments administered simoniacally are valid, for the law nullifies only the contract made about the Sacrament, not the Sacrament itself. It seems also that in the case of sacramentals (such as simple blessings imposed on articles) the blessing is not lost by sale of the article, provided the price is asked only for the object and not for the blessing. A blessed or consecrated object loses its blessing or consecration when it is put up for public sale (Canon 1305).

(b) On Effects of the Power of Jurisdiction.—Acts of jurisdiction are valid in spite of simony, unless there is special provision to the contrary. Indulgences are lost ipso facto, if anything temporal is taken for the indulgenced object (Canon 924). Religious profession, it seems, is valid, even though simoniacal.

n. 2340.

Restitution of the Temporal Price Received for a Spiritual Thing

Restitution of the Temporal Price Received for a Spiritual Thing.—(a) If the simoniacal contract is semi-real (that is, if the spiritual consideration has not been received), the price must be restored; for we have then the case of an immoral and unexecuted contract (see 1878 d). (b) If the simoniacal contract is real (that is, if the spiritual consideration has been received), the price should be given back; for the case then is one of commutative justice, a temporal price being taken for a thing (e.g., a blessing) that has no temporal price, or for a service that one was bound to give gratis (e.g., parochial sermon by the pastor). But if a service was not obligatory, it is held by some that there is no certain duty of restitution, if the spiritual thing cannot be restored (e.g., when one received a stipend for a Mass of bination or demanded an excessive fee for a sacred function).

n. 2341.

Restitution of the Temporal Price Received for Temporal Things Annexed to Spirituals

Restitution of the Temporal Price Received for Temporal Things Annexed to Spirituals.—Restitution is obligatory as follows: (a) when commutative justice is violated, as when one charges for a blessed candle or rosary in excess of its market value or just price, or when by fear or force one compels another to exchange a chalice for a ciborium; (b) when law or judicial sentence imposes restitution as a penalty for an offense, as when for money one has resigned one’s benefice in favor of another person.

n. 2342.

Circumstances of Restitution for Simony

Circumstances of Restitution for Simony.—(a) The Time for Restitution.—If simony is against natural law, restitution is due before sentence; if against ecclesiastical law only, restitution is due only after sentence.

(b) The Person to Whom Restitution Is to Be Made.—Satisfaction should be given to the owner, or injured party (e.g., to the person who was charged for a blessing), or, if this is impossible, to the poor or pious causes. The revenues derived from a benefice simoniacally obtained should be restored to the church to which the benefice belongs, unless this is advantageous to the guilty parties, or probably to charity, or religion, or the successor in the benefice.

(c) Excuses from Restitution.—Impossibility, condonation or the permission of the Church, express or presumed, excuses from the duty of restitution.

n. 2343.

Restitution of Spiritual Thing Simoniacally Received

Restitution of Spiritual Thing Simoniacally Received.—The spiritual thing simoniacally received must be restored even before the sentence of the judge (Canon 729, Sec.1). (a) Thus, if it is a benefice, office or dignity that was obtained or conferred through simony, it must be resigned; nor may the guilty party keep the fruits, unless he was in good faith and permission is given. (b) If the spiritual thing is something other than a benefice, it should likewise be given up, provided it is of a kind that can be restored (e.g., it is impossible to restore a Sacrament received or a consecration given to a church) and restitution will not cause irreverence (e.g., it would be irreverent to restore blessed objects or relics to the seller if he meant to profane them).

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 21 passages

Vol. I, On the First Precept of th…, VIII. On Simony · Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, I. On Justice Considered Generally · Vol. IV, On the Constitution *Apostolicae Sedis*

Vol. I, On the First Precept of th…, VIII. On Simony

n. 508.

What is simony and what is its malice? - Simony is the studious will of buying or selling for a temporal price something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual. Studious, not only because, like any other sin, it requires deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that the pact be actually completed by mutual consent; rather, the interior will, even of one person, to make a bargain or to oblige another is sufficient. Acts 8:18 seqq.

Spiritual, here, is understood as everything which of itself or by the institution of God or of the Church pertains to the salvation of the soul, and therefore to the order of spiritual goods, namely supernatural goods; wherefore natural things, although spiritual, do not belong here. Hence civil or natural honorableness is outside simony, but not sanctification of the soul, and God's offense and glory. Moreover some things are spiritual in themselves and formally, for example, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace; others causally, namely insofar as they are the cause of spiritual gifts, for example, sacraments and sacramentals; others finally effectively, which proceed from a spiritual cause, such as dispensation in vows, absolution from censures, etc.

Something can be annexed to the spiritual in three ways: antecedently, to which the spiritual accedes, as that which is ordered to the spiritual, such as sacred vessels, which are ordered to the use of the sacraments; consequently, to which the spiritual is presupposed and which depends upon the spiritual, such as the right to revenues of benefices, which is had on account of a spiritual office; concomitantly, either intrinsically, if in reality it is not separable, as labor in the administration of sacraments, or extrinsically, if it is separable, as singing in the celebration of Mass. Whether the labor is intrinsic or extrinsic, it is always something temporal in itself.

Now, per se, it is licit to sell a temporal thing which is antecedently annexed to the spiritual, such as the silver of a chalice; for that thing always retains its intrinsic value, independent from the spiritual thing, C. Hoc eius 2, sec. 1, c. 10, q. 2, yet with no account of the consecration being taken in the price. But if a chalice or sacred vestment is sold for profane uses, they must first be broken or unstitched, so that they lose consecration, Authent. Praeterea, C. de SS. Ecclesiis, the material thing remaining with its own value. Since this cannot be done in temples - for thus only a heap of stones would be sold - hence several deny that temples can be sold. Benedict XIV, Quaest. Can., q. 142. But if a church has been profaned, has ceased to be a church, and Apostolic approval is present, it too can be sold for profane uses. Pallottini, v. Ecclesia in genere, sec. II, nn. 48, 51, 55. It is said per se, for it can happen that a sale of this sort is prohibited by ecclesiastical law. And thus by ecclesiastical law the sale of a church is prohibited, C. Querelam 15, de Simonia; of the goods of a benefice; of chrism; of blessed oil; of a cemetery.

Likewise, for something annexed concomitantly extrinsically, it is permitted to receive a stipend, for example, for a journey in celebration of Mass, at a certain hour, in a certain place, etc. Those things which are annexed to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically can likewise be sold per se. For indeed intrinsic labor, insofar as it is labor, differs in nothing from extrinsic. Besides, in a sung Mass, in the celebration of Mass at the first hour after noon, are not the singing and the hour most truly intrinsic to the Mass? And yet a richer stipend is received on account of the singing, on account of the first hour. And if something can be required by reason of deprivation of liberty for carrying out other works and receiving emolument from them, as the adversaries themselves confess, then that can be required by reason of that labor from which that deprivation comes. For only by reason of such labor in favor of another can that deprivation give title to requiring the owed stipend from him. Therefore to receive something on account of labor, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, as wages of work, not as the price of a spiritual thing, is not simony per se. And thus in the celebration of Masses a stipend is received; in the preaching of the word of God an honorarium is also received. "Likewise some temporal things are given to those praising God in the celebration of the ecclesiastical office, whether for the living or for the dead, not as a price, but as a stipend of sustenance." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2; Trent, sess. 21, c. 3 de R. "Stipends are owed to work and labor." S. Th., Quodl. 7, a. 18. "Sustenance is owed from one's own labor." S. Th., Quodl. 7, a. 18. But since this stipend is ordered to the necessary support of the ministers themselves, and therefore is in fact required, it is called a stipend of sustenance or of necessity. Hence it is clear that a stipend is given per se not on account of the work, but on account of the work performed, on account of labor merely according to the very notion of labor furnished in favor of another, in order to the one working, by whose necessary sustenance it is measured; not on account of labor in order to the work as spiritual, and to the spiritual utility of the neighbor from it, which would be simony. And therefore it is a stipend, not a price, because it is not the price of the work, but the stipend of the work performed or of labor. Indeed the worker, by reason of his work, is worthy of his wage. This wage indeed is not measured properly and per se by the thing or labor, but by the condition of the one laboring. Price, on the contrary, is properly and per se measured by the thing. And therefore the stipend accepted is called the stipend of sustenance, insofar as from that labor the priest has a title of sustenance. 1 Cor. 9:13, 14.

It is also clear that nothing consequently can be accepted by way of a stipend ordered to sustenance, by reason of sacred ministry performed for the utility of another, considering in it also not the specific and spiritual utility of that labor, but only the generic notion of a work furnished in favor of another, if, for example, the priest is a pastor or beneficiary who is bound by office to that sacred ministry. For then from the revenues of the benefice he already receives sufficient stipends for his sustenance; and from justice he is bound to exercise that sacred ministry. Per se; for if there intervenes, as indeed often intervenes, a prohibition of the Church, then simony is committed. Indeed on the occasion of ministering Confirmation, nothing is accustomed to be given. The Eucharist also is to be ministered with no gift accepted on that occasion. On the occasion of ministering Penance, nothing is to be accepted. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. poenit. Likewise nothing is accepted for administration of extreme unction. And Orders are to be conferred altogether gratis from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1. In addition, Innocent III forbade clerics to accept anything at all for the sake of burying the dead. C. 13, de Sepult.; C. 9, 41, de Simon. Yet in the present time, on the occasion of burying the dead, money is generally paid to pastors and church attendants. But pastors are bound to bury the bodies of the poor gratis. S. Congr., 5 May 1617.

Finally, those things which follow upon a spiritual thing cannot be sold while this connection remains; for that which is annexed consequently to some thing supposes the thing itself, and behaves as its accessory. Therefore if the principal cannot be sold, neither can what necessarily follows from it. C. Si quis obiecerit, c. 1, q. 3. Hence it is simony to sell the right of living from the goods of a monastery, since this is annexed consequently to profession, which is spiritual. While this connection remains; for by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff separation can be made. "Temporal things themselves indeed may be sold; but their order to spiritual things ought not fall under sale." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 1. And thus a dowry is required from nuns for their sustenance.

For a temporal price, that is, for a thing estimable by price, or which bears before itself temporal advantage, although perhaps it cannot be estimated by price or money; whether it is a gift from the hand, that is, money itself, or any other temporal good equivalent to it; or a gift from the tongue, that is, favor, or an office to be furnished by voice or writing, such as praise, blame, patronage; or a gift from service, namely a temporal office by some deed, such as service. There will be simony on account of a gift from the hand if you give someone a benefice with a pact that he remit a debt to you or to another. There will be simony on account of a gift from the tongue if a Bishop confers a benefice on someone so that by him he may be adorned with praises, affected with favors, or so that he may not incur his hatred. Finally there will be simony on account of a gift from service if a Prelate confers a benefice on a servant or on the son of a servant, so that he may serve him gratis, or so that his duty of serving may thus be compensated. Whence it is not simony to give a spiritual thing for a spiritual thing; for example, I say Mass for you, so that you say so many rosaries for me; to give relics for other relics, a chalice for a ciborium, or with the authority of a legitimate superior to exchange one benefice with another. For things of the same order are well estimated mutually.

Of buying or selling. These words signify any onerous contract, or the will of obliging another by pact to give something spiritual for something temporal, or conversely. Of obliging, so that either an obligation is first had from it, or from it there is had a new onerous obligation of a temporal thing, or from fidelity, whatever that temporal thing may be, although not properly a thing, but some contract to be entered into, for example, a loan. C. 114, caus. 1; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 78, a. 2 ad 4, a. 5; L. 56, 57; Suarez, c. 37.

Therefore the malice of simony is in this, that the spiritual is equated with the temporal. This can have place in two ways, formally and virtually. Formally, when someone directly intends, in place of the temporal and on account of its estimation or on account of price, to receive the spiritual. Virtually, when someone wishes by means of a temporal thing, not as a price but as the proximate and immediate motive of giving, to obtain the spiritual, and no other true and honorable motive intervenes. For in this will is virtually included the intention of exchanging one thing with the other. For then someone confers a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, or conversely, as for an intrinsic and final motive; and thus at least in the mind there is given a virtual pact. Hence simony is had if the one furnishing the spiritual imposes upon the recipient an obligation or condition of furnishing something for the utility of the giver or of another. Simony, on the contrary, is not present if someone freely hands over some temporal thing to another for a benefit already received, or for alluring him so that some spiritual thing may be furnished for him; for example, if a rich man gives alms to a poor man so that he may pray for him. In this sense it is also permitted to promise someone a gift for his spiritual utility, for example if he hears Mass or receives the sacraments, because this is a simple donation, indeed under a condition or under a mode, for the utility of the recipient; but there is no onerous contract. Nor consequently is any obligation imposed upon the other of furnishing a spiritual thing. And thus also a dowry is licitly offered to a girl, if she enters a monastery. C. Sunt nonnulli 114, caus. 1, q. 1; L. 49, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 104, 70, 72, 93; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, aa. 1, 2, 4, 5; 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2; Quodl. 4, a. 23; Quodl. 5, a. 23; Quodl. 6, a. 10; Ithur., Cas. 36; Suarez, de Simon., c. 45; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 62 seqq., 82 seqq.; Lessius, l. 2, c. 35; Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, nn. 13, 14, 15, 42; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 165; E. M.

n. 509.

Of how many kinds is simony? - By reason of pact, one simony is mental, another conventional, another real. Mental is when something temporal is given with the mind of obliging to render something spiritual, or conversely, but without any external pact; or when something temporal is given as a compensation owed from justice for a spiritual thing received, or conversely, yet without any previous pact. Conventional simony is that which proceeds to the external pact itself, yet without its real execution. Conventional simony is called purely conventional if the pact has been fulfilled by neither party; it is called mixed from conventional and real, namely, if the pact has been fulfilled by only one party. Finally, real simony is that by which the pact is fulfilled by both parties, at least inchoatively, by real giving or acceptance of the thing. S. Th., Quodl. 5, a. 23; 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 29 seqq.; Struggl 24, 25; L. 49, 67.

By reason of matter, simony is distinguished into confidential simony, which concerns ecclesiastical benefices, and common simony, which concerns any matter whatever. Confidential simony consists in this, that he who procures a benefice for another in any way, that is, either by electing, presenting, postulating, conferring, giving in commendam, instituting, or ceding and resigning in favor of another, reserves something by his own authority from a pact, express or tacit, either concerning the fruits of the benefice or concerning the benefice, afterwards obtaining the consent of the superior in that cession or resignation; otherwise it would be common, not confidential, simony.

Moreover a fourfold reservation is distinguished. 1. Reservation of access, when someone confers or procures a benefice for another in any way, yet with this pact, that the latter at a suitable time resign it to another, for example to a blood relative, or to himself. Access is said to be reserved to this person, because he had not previously obtained either institution or possession of the benefice. 2. Reservation of ingress, when someone resigns to another a benefice already conferred upon himself but not yet possessed, on this condition, that in a given case and time the resigning person himself have the right of obtaining its possession, or of actually entering into the benefice. 3. Reservation of regress, when one who resigns a benefice already possessed by himself to another does so with this pact, that in some determined case and time it is to return to the resigning person himself. 4. Reservation of pension or fruits, when the one conferring or resigning a benefice, whether only conferred or also possessed, causes it to come to someone with a pact that this person should furnish to him, or to another designated by him, all the fruits of the benefice or part of them, or pay a pension from it. To himself or to another; if to another, all agree that it is confidential simony. If to himself, several deny that it is confidential simony, but say it is common. This confidential simony is only of positive law. But if the confidence is extended to the exchange of a spiritual thing with a merely temporal thing, then it is also simony of divine law, concerning which it must be said at once. But it is understood what the price or quasi-price is in this confidential simony. For it is either one and the same benefice, which is conferred or renounced so that it may be returned and as it were restored to the one conferring or renouncing, or to another; or the fruits of the same benefice, or a pension or part of them, to be conferred upon the same. Pius IV, Const. Romanum Pontificem, 16 Kal. Nov. 1564; St. Pius V, Const. Intolerabilis, 1 June 1569; Trent, sess. 24, cc. 9, 19; sess. 25, c. 7 de R.; Suarez, de Simon., c. 43; Ithur., Cas. 34, n. 24; Cas. 36, n. 25; Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 39; L. 49, 90.

The aforesaid reservation ought to be from a pact. Besides, confidential simony ought to be either real or at least mixed conventional; whence it is called confidential because it is with a certain confidence and pact. Therefore mental simony, although concerning benefices, is not properly confidential simony. With a pact; according to Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 40-42, and others, without an express pact, only the intention of the one resigning or conferring, expressed by an external sign, of obliging another to give to himself or to another access, ingress, regress, or a pension is sufficient; yet St. Alphonsus, nn. 86, 87, and others more probably deny this. In addition, that reservation ought to be without due authority of the superior; otherwise there will be no confidential simony. Finally, the same reservation ought to concern only ecclesiastical benefices. From Extr. 2. Wherefore, if simoniacal pacts are made concerning pensions, or any other right which is not properly comprehended under the name of benefice, it pertains to common simony, not to confidential. Common and confidential simony are distinguished on account of special laws and penalties which are had in law against this latter; wherefore it is not extended beyond the cases determined in the same law. Whence those exchanging benefices among themselves with a certain confidence or pact that the exchange is to be dissolved at a given time, and that regress is to be granted, for example to the benefices thus exchanged for themselves or others, or that a pension is to be paid to themselves or others, do not commit confidential simony, but common. For the Constitutions of Pius IV and St. Pius V speak only of cession and resignation of benefices. Those exchanging among themselves; otherwise it would be concerning a Bishop or any other collator of a benefice making such a pact with one or the other, or both, of those exchanging. But it is not confidential simony, but common, if the cession and resignation of a benefice is had with confidence or a pact not concerning the benefice itself or its fruits, but concerning another temporal or spiritual thing to be given or returned; or even not concerning the same benefice, but concerning another to be resigned. C. Quaesitum 5; C. Cum olim 7, de Rer. permut.; L. 85, 88.

By reason of the law by which simony is prohibited, one simony is of natural or divine law, another of ecclesiastical law. Simony of divine law is had where the dignity of a spiritual thing, namely one which is such in itself or from the institution of Christ, is vilified by comparison with a temporal thing; that is, when one is given and accepted for the other. For the other, namely as though the price of the other. Hence simony of divine law is not had if someone, moved by the recommendation of a powerful man, confers a benefice upon an unworthy person, unless namely by that conferral he principally intends human favor. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; for he gives a spiritual thing, but receives nothing for it. Likewise if someone gives a dowry to a girl so that she may become a nun; for he gives something temporal, but again receives nothing for it.

But simony of ecclesiastical law exists when, contrary to the prohibition of the Church, a spiritual thing is given for another spiritual thing, as in an exchange of benefices made by one's own authority; or when a thing temporal in itself, annexed to another spiritual thing or ordered to it, is given for a temporal price, as if someone buys the ecclesiastical office of steward, treasurer, sacristan of a Church, etc.; or when in the administration of sacred things a gift or wage is required or accepted, when this is forbidden by Law. For although the malice of equating the spiritual with the temporal is properly absent from those exchanges and acceptances, nevertheless they bear before themselves the appearance of a certain sale and purchase of spiritual things, and contain danger. Whence the Church deservedly forbade them from a motive of religion and reverence toward sacred things. Therefore this simony of merely ecclesiastical law is not intrinsically evil, but is evil only because it is prohibited by the Church on account of reverence toward sacred things. For law has the force of causing its object to be the matter of some virtue, in view of the cause on account of which it commands it; thus, for example, Communion made by a man not fasting, without an excusing cause, is sacrilege, because the Church from a motive of reverence forbade the taking of food or drink before Communion. Hence, since penalties are of strict interpretation, penalties against simoniacs are to be limited to those guilty of simony of divine law, unless something else is clearly deduced from the law itself. L. 68, 69, 108.

n. 510.

What kind of sin is simony? - Simony is a most grave sin of irreligiosity; and, if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter; but if the simony is of ecclesiastical law, smallness of matter can be given in it. The first part is proved: 1. from the common opinion of theologians; 2. because any spiritual thing, by comparison with a temporal thing, is vilified with great injury to God himself.

And therefore it is a certain species of sacrilege; indeed, according to Suarez, c. 1, n. 7, it is a species distinct from all other sacrileges, because a spiritual thing exceeds every temporal thing by its most excellent dignity. Whence by that comparison there is a special injury to it. This is also established from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8:20: Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God may be possessed by money. The second part is proved. For on the part of the spiritual thing, this, although very small, is always of the greatest estimation. But on the part of the price, the less this is, the more the spiritual thing is vilified. The third part is proved. Because simony of ecclesiastical law is not forbidden because, as it were, a temporal price is given for a spiritual thing; but it is prohibited by the Church for removing every appearance of simony and avarice, and other inconveniences. Whence through this an injury is not properly done to the sacred thing, but only a precept of the Church is violated; but in this smallness of matter can be found. Yet according to some an exception seems to have to be made as to examiners in a competition for a parish. Trent, sess. 24, c. 18. But others omit this exception or expressly deny it. Can. 1, q. 1, 2, 3, de Simon. et ne aliq., etc.; L. 50; E. M.

n. 511.

Is it simony to give principally something temporal on account of something spiritual, or conversely, but not uniquely? - R. Affirmative. The reason is that even thus comparison of a temporal thing with a spiritual thing is present. For although the temporal is not given as a price, but as a motive, so that the other may give the spiritual, if it is given as the principal motive, it would not be given if it were known that the other would not give the spiritual. Whence virtually it is a certain price. But the motive which is added, however honorable it may be, does not destroy the malice of the prior motive, on account of which principally the temporal is given. Confirmation is from propositions 45 and 46 condemned by Innocent XI.

But in order that simony be had, when one thing is not given for another but is given on account of another, it is necessary that, although it is given without a previous pact, it nevertheless is not given gratis, but is given either with the mind of obliging to give, or by title of compensation or retribution, however much it is given voluntarily and is given from gratitude, namely if it is given as owed. For only then is the thing which is given on account of another, equivalently in moral estimation, truly given for the other. Then there is in reality at least implicitly an unnamed contract: I give that he may do; I do that he may give. But otherwise it would be if something temporal is given on account of something spiritual, or conversely, principally on account of gratitude, but not for obliging, nor as owed, every obligation even of mere fidelity having been removed, merely for signifying a grateful mind, or for attracting benevolence, etc. For one thing is the quasi-intrinsic motive of the work, on account of which, for which, the work itself is intended; another is the extrinsic end of the work performed or of the one working, who orders his action in favor of another to this or that. "For in any sale the price is received as the end" of the thing or work sold. S. Th., Quodl. 8, a. 11. L. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 64; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 3; 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2, q. 2; E. M.

n. 512.

Is it simony to perform sacred functions for earning a stipend, and to receive something for the spiritual instruction of others? - R. To the first. These words are from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, aa. 2, 3: "To receive money for spiritual grace is the crime of simony, which can be excused by no custom, because custom does not prejudice natural or divine law.... But to receive something for the support of those who minister the sacraments of Christ, according to the ordination of the Church and approved customs, is not simony nor sin. For it is not taken as the price of a wage, but as a stipend of necessity.... Yet in such a way that the intention of buying and selling is absent, and that it is not exacted from the unwilling by withdrawal of spiritual things which are to be exhibited; for this would have a certain appearance of sale. Yet spiritual things first having been exhibited gratis, established and customary oblations, and any other revenues, can licitly be exacted from those unwilling and willing to pay, the authority of the superior intervening." "If he receives distributions of this sort as the end of his work principally intended, he commits simony and thus sins mortally. But if he has God as the principal end in such an act, but looks to distributions of this sort secondarily, not as to an end, but as to that which is necessary for his sustenance, it is established that he does not sell the spiritual act, and thus he does not commit simony nor sin. For thus the acceptance of distributions will not be the cause why he goes to church, but properly the determination of this sort, why he goes now and not at another time." S. Th., Quodl. 8, a. 11. "In certain Churches also some are enticed to serve the Church by temporal distributions; not that they receive a reward, but they are certain secondary inducements to serving God, just as the Lord also says, Matt. 6:33, Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things, namely the necessities of life, will be added to you." S. Th., Quodl. 4, a. 23.

Nor therefore does it stand in the way that such a person would neither read Mass nor preach without profit; for this does not prove that the temporal is a price, but only that it is an end, namely the end not of the spiritual work but of the one working, occupied in favor of another, or a condition without which he would not work, namely the stipend of fitting sustenance failing, or a stipend for the necessity of sustaining life. S. Th., Quodl. 2, a. 12. Namely, from labor undertaken in favor of the neighbor, someone has a title of sustenance. Therefore the wage is then intended as a means of sustenance, a simoniacal mind being excluded. Therefore simony exists when something temporal is given for something spiritual, as though the price of it; but by no means when something temporal is required as a just stipend or wage of the work and labor, and also of the help or temporal office furnished, and much less if the temporal is given as a subsidy and alms. Labor is any inconvenience by which someone is affected in furnishing or undertaking a spiritual matter. But help is any office which is furnished short of inconvenience. "Tithes," says S. Thomas, Quodl. 6, a. 10, "are owed to priests in common indeed according to natural law. But natural reason dictates that those who labor for the people in spiritual things receive from the people stipends for their support; and according to this it is also sanctioned by divine law in the New Testament. For, as is said in 1 Cor. 9, the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel that they should live from the Gospel. But in the Old Law, by a judicial precept, the quantity of that which was to be paid by the people to the ministers of God was fixed, namely the tithe; and this also is from the statute of the Church, although the priest is rich, nevertheless a poor man is bound to pay him tithes"; namely, because the aforesaid stipend is owed from justice and from positive precept. 1 Cor. 9:7, 11. Yet those who thus "perform sacred ministries principally on account of temporal emolument, (namely as a means of sustenance, not as the price of the sacred ministry) cannot easily be excused from venial fault, since it is a certain disorder to direct spiritual things to the temporal." L. 55. Indeed it is a certain disorder principally to intend, for example, in performing the sacred rite, not the honor of God and the salvation of souls, but one's own temporal utility. Yet the same St. Alphonsus, l. c., says: "It is not illicit to order a spiritual thing, even principally, to an honorable temporal end." Therefore, per se, what is licitly accepted can also be licitly intended. Nor indeed does it stand in the way that such a person does not need sustenance, for this is accidental. But since this stipend is owed from justice, it is also permitted to bargain about it. Whence it is clear that this stipend is owed and does not have simply the character of alms, which is liberally given to one in need. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 89-95; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3; L. 55, 104.

As to Ruthenian priests in the Canadian region, it has been provided that they not exact stole fees and emoluments of sacred ministry from the truly poor; and it is altogether forbidden to extort them under threat of baptism or blessing of marriage, or to exclude a faithful person unable to pay from any sacred function. S. C. de P. F., 8 Aug. 1913, art. 18. Stole fees are so called which are paid to the pastor for sacred functions for the advantage of the faithful, for example for baptism, for marriage, etc. These stole fees are simply the pastor's, without any obligation of spending them for pious causes or giving them to the poor.

R. To the second. One must distinguish: either that instruction by its nature tends only to the spiritual utility of others, for example catechesis, preaching of the word of God, and similar things; or it tends toward some temporal good of theirs, for example to the natural instruction of a matter even sacred and religious, for every doctrine, even revealed, insofar as it is doctrine, is something natural. For it is naturally compared and handed down, and ordered to the erudition of the mind, which is a natural good. Such is the resolution of cases of conscience, instruction for interpreting Sacred Scripture, for unraveling theological controversies, etc.

If the first, certainly it is simony to receive for that instruction something temporal, since it is a merely spiritual thing, unless it is received by reason of the necessary sustenance of the one working, occupied in favor of another. If the second, there will simply be no simony, because he who teaches science can receive a stipend, as though hiring out his services. Nor does it matter that that science is supernatural; for proximately and per se it is not ordered to the salvation of the soul, but to enlightening the intellect, just as other natural sciences are. L. 94; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 3; Schmalzgr., l. 5, tit. 3, nn. 34, 89 seqq.

n. 513.

Is it simony if a priest promises a layman a Mass for the outcome of a game, while his companion puts up a temporal price? - R. Negative per se, because by this reason a spiritual thing is not properly equated with a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which otherwise would have to be handed over. Therefore the commutation of a debt is with a stipend. For he does not sin who offers a creditor 100 Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he remit a debt of 100 francs; therefore, by parity, neither does he sin who promises a Mass for the outcome of a game, while the other puts up 20 asses. Moreover, a game of this kind is rarely without some scandal, and therefore must always be dissuaded. L. l. 3, n. 882; Voit 506.

n. 514.

Is it simony if a priest requires for Mass a stipend above the usual tax, or that established by the Bishop? - R. Negative as to the internal forum and before God, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind, because since he has another title of requiring remuneration, the comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. Indeed he would sin against obedience or justice by requiring more than is equitable, but by no means against religion. Yet in the external forum he would be held as simoniacal, because this kind of increase would be presumed to be required not for sustenance but as the price of a spiritual thing; for this reason several theologians and canonists absolutely affirm that in that case true simony is committed. But the stipend of Masses is not usually so taxed that it alone suffices for the daily sustenance of a priest. For the celebration of Mass does not require the labor of a whole day on the part of the priest, and it is always supposed that the priest is not otherwise lacking other supports of life. It belongs to ecclesiastical authority to determine the just stipend. One requiring a stipend greater than is just, either because above the tax established by ecclesiastical law or because it exceeds the just compensation of labor extrinsically annexed, is bound to restitution, and ought to restore to the giver. Gousset 694; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 5, c. 9, n. 1.

n. 515.

Is a cleric serving a Bishop, and expecting something spiritual as recompense, simoniacal? - R. Negative, if he serves in spiritual things, for example, in the office of preacher, for "those sweating over ecclesiastical utilities are worthy to enjoy ecclesiastical remuneration." C. Eccles. 76, c. 12, q. 2. R. Negative also, if he serves in temporal things, and if the primary intention is of giving the temporal gratis, because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the superior. But otherwise, if a spiritual thing is intended as owed recompense, not however as the effect of a grateful mind. L. 51, 62; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 1.

n. 516.

Is it simony to confer a benefice on account of carnal affection, namely on account of kinship? - These words are from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5 ad 2: "If someone confers something spiritual on someone gratis on account of blood relationship, or any carnal affection, it is indeed an illicit and carnal conferral, but not simoniacal, because nothing is received there; whence this does not pertain to the contract of buying and selling, on which simony is founded. Yet if someone gives an ecclesiastical benefice to someone with this pact or intention, that from this he may provide for his own blood relatives, it is manifest simony." Quodl. 4, a. 15; Quodl. 5, a. 23.

n. 517.

Is it simony to hand over something temporal for omission of a spiritual thing? - It is simony if it is given for the omission of a thing which someone is bound to place by force of spiritual power, so that that omission is as it were a positive act of authoritatively binding, retaining as impeded, etc., as is, for example, the omission of absolution, dispensation, etc.; or if that omission directly and proximately prepares the way to spiritual things, for example if you give money to another so that he not compete for a benefice, since in the first case the exercise of a spiritual thing is sold for a temporal thing, and in the other, by a temporal thing, at least mediately, a spiritual thing is intended to be bought. "Correction is a spiritual act; whence he commits simony who receives money so that he not reveal or punish a sin which he is bound to reveal or punish." S. Th. 4 D. 25, q. 3, a. 2, q. 11.

But if omitting the thing depends merely on liberty, and that omission contributes nothing to obtaining a spiritual thing, it will indeed be able to be a shameful sin, but nevertheless it will not be simony, because nothing sacred is sold, since omission is nothing, but only the use of free choice, which is something temporal, as would be the omission of praying, celebrating, etc. Temporal; for simony, on the contrary, will be present if a spiritual thing is handed over, since not doing something spiritual is something temporal, namely the liberty or choice of doing. L. 97; Ithur., Cas. 36, n. 17; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 5; C. 14, de Simonia.

n. 518.

Is it simony to give or receive something for entrance into religion? - It is certain that it is not permitted to give or receive something for entrance alone, because this would be an exchange of a sacred thing, of which sort religion is, with a temporal thing. It is likewise certain that it is permitted for a monastery to require something for the sustenance of novices, because since they do not yet pertain to religion, and can depart at will and often in fact do depart, it is not equitable that the monastery be under so grave a burden for them.

It is also certain that it is permitted for a poor monastery to require something for the sustenance of the one entering, because then a spiritual thing is not exchanged with a temporal thing, and otherwise equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery collapse, burdened by obligations. And when a monastery has no goods, the one entering cannot acquire a right to them. But it is controverted if the matter is of a wealthy monastery. St. Liguori, n. 92, denies, unless the one to be received is old or infirm, who would be an extraordinary burden and of no advantage. For the right to sustenance is annexed to the religious state. But not a few others affirm, provided that money is not required for the entrance itself, but is received or asked only by reason of sustenance or dowry. Because then religious profession is not sold, but sustenance, which is something temporal. As to nuns, from the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation and common practice, it is established that a dowry is to be handed over by individual nuns without distinction for their sustenance. For these monasteries are liable to various misfortunes. Whence it is enough for the Bishop if he imposes moderation on the expenses usually made on the occasion of entrance, etc., as Benedict XIV admonishes him, de Syn., l. 11, c. 6. Yet they ought to take care not to receive unsuitable persons solely on account of dowry or some other temporal thing; for this would be simoniacal. Trent, sess. 25, c. 16, de Reg.; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 4; E. M.

n. 519.

Is it simony to redeem oneself by money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, for example, the sacraments, etc.? - By money, that is, by a temporal thing, whatever it may be, in some way estimable by money. By money; for if vexation is redeemed by a spiritual thing, simony is certainly present. Cf. 511. For vexation is something temporal. For it is to be hostile to someone, whether by doing or by not doing, lest he be able either to obtain or retain some good. But it is unjust when through it the right of him who is vexed concerning the aforesaid good is injured.

Moreover someone can be unjustly vexed either in a spiritual right already acquired, whether in the thing or to the thing, or in such a right not yet acquired but certainly to be acquired. If the first, it is not simony to redeem by a temporal price unjust vexation from whomever it may finally come. For the price is not given for a spiritual thing, but for the cessation of unjust vexation. Therefore it would not be simony to give money to electors so that they desist from the election of an unworthy person, because the Church has an acquired right in worthy persons; whence it would be given for desisting from evil. Just as neither would it be simony to give for choosing a worthy or worthier person in general; for it would be given for this, lest a bad election be made. But if the person were determined, it would be simony, since it would directly be to give money for his election.

Unjust vexation; for if the vexation is just, for example if someone is accused of a true crime on account of which he ought to lose a benefice, or can no longer exercise spiritual rights, it would be simoniacal to redeem this vexation by a price, because such a right is not firm; and therefore by removing just vexation, a firm right is bought, which is spiritual. And the same must be said if the right is doubtful and by redeeming vexation it is rendered certain. For then a certain right is rather bought than vexation redeemed. If the second, it is also lawful to redeem unjust vexation by a price, because the price is given for a temporal thing. Thus, for example, if someone by defamation impedes a patron from choosing you for a benefice, you will certainly be able to give money to the defamer so that he cease from that defamation, because in this case you would redeem nothing but reputation, and would remove force and fraud; these being removed, the patron still remains most fully in his own judgment to choose you or not choose you for the benefice.

The thing is not changed per se if the unjust vexation proceeds from a person who can not only harm but also help, for example, from a co-patron who unjustly turns other co-patrons away, although the matter is dangerous. For the fact that he can help and does help is accidental; for nothing is redeemed except his unjust vexation by which he harms. Therefore there also will not be simony if someone, in order that he may receive baptism, absolution, the Eucharist, which otherwise he could not receive and which otherwise he would have to lack altogether, gave money to the one vexing; yet in this case simony is contracted by the one vexing. Per se; for by Canon Law it is held as simoniacal to redeem vexation, even unjust, in ecclesiastical benefices, from him who by ceasing to harm thereby helps. C. 23, 33, de Simon. Unjust vexation; for when money is given to him who can help or place a just impediment, he is induced not to oppose what he could justly oppose; and thus directly and properly a way is laid to the benefice, for example, by a temporal good having been given. Proposition 45 condemned by Innocent XI. A fortiori, if a temporal price is given for intercession. Then intercession is bought by a temporal price, which in itself is something temporal; yet mediately the thing is as though spiritual, insofar as the intercession is for obtaining a benefice. Struggl 29; Suarez, de Relig., t. 1, l. 4, c. 12; L. 49, 64, 65, 98, 99 seqq.; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 1, ad 5; E. M. 511.

n. 520.

In how many ways is simony of ecclesiastical law committed? - In the following ways. 1. By exchanging benefices, making transactions about them, making pacts, resigning them in favor of another, reserving pensions in them, without license of the superior. C. Quaesitum 5, de Rer. perm.; C. Constituimus 4; C. Super eo 7, de Trans.; C. Nobis 27, de Sim.; C. Ex multis 9, q. 3, caus. 1. The reason of the law is the danger lest this be done in view of a temporal thing, since these include some advantage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 1 ad 5, a. 4 ad 3.

Add: to sell benefices, even according to that which is temporal in them, namely according to the right of receiving fruits. "Yet more probably," says St. Alphonsus, n. 70, "they say that it is simony by divine law from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2... as is gathered from C. Si quis 15, caus. 1, q. 3, and from C. Ex diligenti 17, de Simon." Cf. also L. 76. Add also: to sell the right of patronage of presenting to a benefice. C. De iure 16; C. Praeterea 23, de Iure patr. Yet Lessius, Palaus, Laymann, etc., affirm that this sale is forbidden also by divine law. L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. Transactions concerning the right of patronage and concerning another spiritual thing annexed, an oratory, a temple, etc., are likewise prohibited, if namely on one side something spiritual is given and on the other something temporal, C. Praeterea 9, 10, de Trans. But they are licit if on both sides something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual is given. C. Ad quaestiones 6, de Rer. perm. "The right of patronage cannot be sold per se, nor given in fief; but it passes with the village which is sold or ceded." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. "Trent, sess. 24, c. 14, de R., commands Bishops not to permit any payment or promise for admission to possession of a benefice, as having the stain of simony or suspicion of avarice, any custom to the contrary being rejected. The Council permits only that, if there is a custom, something be given to be converted to pious uses." L. 99; C. Cum in Ecclesiae 9; C. In tantum 36, de Simonia.

By giving or accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, before or after, on occasion of an examination for parochial care, for example, when there is a question of choosing a pastor in a competition, from Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R. On occasion of the examination; for to give or receive for the examination itself would be simony of divine law. From the Decree of S. C. Cons., 15 Feb. 1612, synodal examiners and parochial consultors, on occasion of their office, neither before nor after, can receive anything, by the oath taken, even offered under the appearance of a gift. Likewise any gift whatsoever is prohibited to be received by ministers of whatever order in the Roman curia. Ord. serv. in Rom. Cur., Norm. comm., c. 3.
By accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, on occasion of the conferral of an order, or of letters for the order itself, or even of first tonsure, from the same Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, de R. Yet there is excepted there the tenth part of a gold coin for the notary, if no salary has been established for him and custom permits him to receive it. But the Sacred Congregation, 8 Oct. 1678, permitted Bishops to receive a candle, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests; indeed the same Congregation, deputed by Innocent XI, also fixed the emoluments which are required for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc. "It is granted to Bishops in dispensations (of marriages) to accept something to be distributed in alms, provided that nothing comes to themselves or their own, by way of penalty or commutation, but not by way of sustenance. For this is forbidden to them from... Trent, sess. 25, c. 18, de R." L. 96.

It is not permitted to a Bishop in the visitation of a diocese to receive gifts besides victuals. Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 3, de R.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1502 seqq. Innocentian Tax: Innocent XI, Decree of 8 Oct. 1678, established what emoluments could be required for various acts and writings of non-contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But with the conditions of times having changed, S. C. C., 10 June 1896, issued a new Decree concerning this matter. According to the norms of this Decree, a description or schedule of these taxes is to be made in individual dioceses and transmitted for approval to the same S. C. C. In France, a determined tax for sacred worship to be imposed on the faithful from obligation is not approved. Secretariat of State, 8 Oct. 1907.

By selling or buying temporal ecclesiastical offices ordered to sacred things, of procurator, sacristan, steward, defender of the Church; this indeed has been done in view of religion. C. Si quis 3; C. Salvator 8, c. 1, q. 3; Suarez, c. 29. But to sell spiritual ecclesiastical offices, for example of vicar general, coadjutor of a pastor, chaplain, is simoniacal by its nature.
By selling a part of a cemetery; indeed it will be simony of divine law if it is sold as a sacred place, or if the right of burial is sold. Yet the right of a tomb can be bought, so that someone may be buried in such a place, because then burial would not be sold even by reason of the earth, but the price would be required by reason of the burden which is assumed, of not burying others there; this indeed is something temporal, and law does not prohibit it; indeed usage approves it. The same must be said if more is required for carrying a silver cross instead of an iron one; for one is not of greater blessing than the other, but this is a worldly honor, which certainly can be sold. C. Abolendae 13, de Sepult.; L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2.
By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; yet the usage has prevailed in cathedral churches that something is accepted from particular churches for compensating the expenses which have been made in procuring the matter. C. Placuit 102, c. 1, q. 1; C. Ea quae 16, de Simonia. Nor indeed is it permitted to accept anything for administration of the sacraments beyond that which has been established by custom and ordination of the superior. Cf. 505, 512. Likewise every shameful profit, trade, and species of business with stipends of Masses is prohibited. S. C. C., 11 May 1904.
By requiring money for admission into religion, not for the state itself, which would be simony of divine law, but by reason of sustenance, unless either law, or custom, or the poverty of the monastery excuses. Cf. 518.
By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of Confraternities, against the Constitution Quaecumque of Clement VIII. And reception into a Confraternity will be invalid if anything is received contrary to the laws of the Church, even under the title of alms.
By publishing Indulgences and other spiritual graces, some wage having been accepted, Trent, sess. 21, c. 9, de R., and by making gain from the concession or publication of Indulgences and other spiritual graces. St. Pius V, Const. Quum plenum, 2 Jan. 1569. By several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it was forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale. And if otherwise is done, the indulgences are lost. Decret., tit. de Simonia, l. 5, tit. 3; Struggl 23; L. 68, 69, 72, 74, 77; E. M.

n. 521.

What are the penalties laid upon simoniacs? - Even now there remains firm the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae against simony committed in the election of the Roman Pontiff. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis on Censures; L. 112, last paragraph. A simoniacal election of the Supreme Pontiff is altogether illicit, but is not void ipso facto, lest a pretext be had for attacking the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff. Pius X, Const. Vacante Sede, 25 Dec. 1904; Julius II, Const. Cum tam divino, 19 Kal. Feb. 1505.

Under penalty of excommunication, pacts by which Cardinals, even with an oath added, oblige themselves to give their vote for someone, are prohibited and are void and null. Likewise void and null are those things which are established by common consent, for doing something if they are assumed to the Pontificate. Pius X, Const. Vacante Sede, 25 Dec. 1914. [Translator's note: the printed text reads "25 Dec. 1914"; this appears to be a printing error, since Pius X died on 20 Aug. 1914.] "He who has simoniacally acquired ecclesiastical dignities shall be deprived of them by the law itself, and for the future shall be incapable of obtaining them and any others." St. Pius V, Const. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, sec. 8.

There is excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. On account of the same real simony, in benefice matter, there is incurred besides nullity of election, presentation, and canonical institution, so that one thus promoted and instituted cannot make the fruits of the benefice his own, even if the money was given by a third person, he himself being completely ignorant; unless perhaps either he possessed the benefice in good faith for the space of three years; or if he, the wicked plan of simony having become known, contradicted, and yet, without his knowledge, another promised or conferred; or if a third party committed simony for this end, that he might render him incapable.

In addition, incapacity for obtaining the same benefice is incurred. The same: for he does not become incapable of obtaining others except after sentence, as they more probably and commonly teach in explaining the Bull of St. Pius V, l. c., where the contrary seems to be hinted, concerning the external forum, since the Bull then speaks of convicted guilty persons. Indeed, if he already has other benefices, he can retain them, because no express law decrees this penalty ipso facto. Riganti, Reg. 36 Canc. 132; Suarez, de Relig., l. 4, cc. 57, 58; L. 111, 112; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6.

These are the words of St. Pius V, l. c., immediately after the other words related above: "He who has obtained a benefice or ecclesiastical office simoniacally shall likewise be deprived of them by the law itself, and shall be bound to restitution of all fruits which he has received, and shall be perpetually incapable of obtaining them and any other ecclesiastical benefices. But if anyone has been convicted of having committed such a crime several times, etc."

It must be noted: Penalties of this sort for real simony are not incurred if there has not been an external sin completed on both sides. For odious things are to be restricted. Hence one accepting an ecclesiastical benefice with a pact of furnishing money is not bound before payment of the money either to resign the benefice or to restore the fruits received from the benefice. But it is otherwise concerning confidential simony, as will soon be said. For then, from the Bull Intolerabilis, 1 June 1569, of St. Pius V, penalties are incurred even through mixed conventional simony, namely completed on only one side, when the benefice has already been handed over or accepted with a confidential pact. For if the other has also received, or has begun to receive, what was promised to him by pact, not only confidential but also real simony is had. L. 106.

As to the faculty of dispensing from incapacity for obtaining a simoniacally conferred benefice, these things are to be observed: If the benefice is simple, even of a canonry or dignity, to which care of souls is not attached, and it was accepted through simony ignorantly, namely when simony was committed by another, the beneficiary being ignorant, then the Bishop can dispense even in that vacancy, provided that the beneficiary spontaneously renounces. C. Si alicuius 54, de Elect. Indeed the same faculty is to be attributed to the Bishop when the benefice indeed is double, but the conferral of the same has not been declared void by sentence. For, with a sentence of this sort intervening, recourse would have to be made to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation at least for that turn. It is said for that turn, because if the same benefice is first conferred on another and happens again to become vacant, it certainly can be conferred upon him who had been ignorant of the simony committed by another in his provision. Cf. Reiffenst., l. 5, t. 3, n. 337. If knowingly someone has accepted a benefice simoniacally, whether simple or with cure, even if he spontaneously renounces, the Bishop cannot dispense with him for having the same benefice, neither for that turn nor for another. L. 111, 117, 118; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6; Ithur., Cas. 34, n. 32.

There is also excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatsoever, of whatever dignity they may be." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. In addition, on account of completed confidential simony, that is, when the benefice has been given and accepted in confidence, even if the pact has not yet been fulfilled by the other party, there is had: nullity of the resignation or conferral made in confidence; incapacity for the same benefice; reservation of the same benefice to the Apostolic See. But the fruits badly received from these benefices are applied to the Apostolic Camera. L. 89, 90, 111, 117; Schmalz., n. 273; Giraldi, t. 2, p. 572. By the Constitution In sublimi of Benedict XIV, 29 Aug. 1741, resignations of benefices with reservation of pension and a pact of canceling it are prohibited and annulled, with the penalty of deprivation of the benefice, incapacity for obtaining others, and restitution of money; and cancellations and extinctions of pensions obtained within six months from the possession of the benefice having been taken are invalidated.

Likewise there is excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff against "those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into religion." Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. But it is very probable that this penalty is not incurred in simple entrance, but in profession, which even if made simoniacally is certainly valid. "Likewise infamy of law and consequently irregularity are incurred on both sides." L. 108. All simoniacal elections to the Generalate, Rectorate, and any spiritual office in religion are more truly void. L. 112; Extr. Comm. Sane 1, de Simonia.

Excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff is also present against those making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces by conceding or publishing them; and likewise against those collecting alms for Masses and seeking profit from them by causing them to be celebrated where they are celebrated at a lower price. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. Cf. v. 2, nn. 1194, 1195. In addition, quasi-business on occasion of Masses is prohibited under penalty of excommunication reserved to Bishops for laypersons, and of incapacity and suspension for clerics, according to the norm of the Decree of S. C. C. Ut debita, 11 May 1904. Cf. v. 2, nn. 1206, 1238.

As to simony committed by synodal examiners of parochial benefices, these things are decreed by Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R.: "Let them beware lest they receive anything at all on occasion of this examination, neither before nor after; otherwise both they themselves and others giving incur the vice of simony, from which they cannot be absolved unless the benefices which they in any way, even previously, obtained have been dismissed. And they are rendered incapable of others for the future." Therefore they are deprived, before any sentence, of benefices already obtained. Thus Scavini, ed. 12, Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 143, and St. Alphonsus, n. 112. But others deny, because this penalty has not been received with so great a rigor. D'Annibale, ed. 4, p. 3, n. 118. Cf. here 230; Thesaurus, de Poen. eccl., v. Simonia IV, 1.

Besides these, there are also other penalties, but probably they are not incurred except after the sentence of a judge. When simony is notorious, infamy of law is incurred, and therefore irregularity. Decretal., l. 5, t. 3, de Simon.; Extrav. Comm., l. 5, t. 1; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6; E. M.

n. 522.

Is the spiritual thing acquired simoniacally to be restored? - R. Affirmative as to benefices; thus the common and certain opinion of the doctors. The reason is that the laws, as a penalty of the delict, stand in the way so that the receiver cannot acquire ownership either of the price or of the benefice received. And since acquisition of the benefice is void, by that very fact ownership of the fruits cannot be acquired either; and therefore these too are to be restored, if they were received in bad faith. But these are to be restored to the church to which the benefice pertains. C. 11, de Simonia, provided that those who committed the simony receive no advantage from this. But it is probable that they can be "spent in alms" for the poor. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 32, a. 7, or returned to the successor in the benefice, or "converted to pious uses," S. Th. 2. 2, q. 62, a. 5 ad 2. A composition can also be made with the Pontiff concerning the said fruits. Received in bad faith; because someone does not seem bound also to restore fruits received in good faith, except insofar as he had become richer, and therefore only those extant. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6 ad 3. And whether the discussion is of a simoniac in good faith or even of a simoniac in bad faith, it is also very probable that fruits received in view of the stole are not to be restored, because those fruits are not given as revenues of the benefice, but as a stipend of office.

R. Negative as to the rest, although a judge can impose restitution as a penalty of the crime. Thus the common opinion with Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 284. The reason is not only because certain things cannot be restored, for example, sacred order; but also because in order that the transfer of a spiritual thing, for example, of holy relics, be valid, by divine law nothing more is required than power in one person of transferring ownership of the thing, and in the other of receiving it. But unless from elsewhere there is a defect in one or the other, this power is present in both as to the spiritual thing. Therefore. But if the transfer is valid by divine law, it will also be valid by human law, since by this, scarcely anything except simoniacal provisions of benefices are decreed void. L. 113, 116.

n. 523.

Is the price accepted simoniacally for a spiritual thing to be restored? - If only the crime of simony intervened, but no injury of justice, there is no obligation of restoring the simoniacal price before the condemnatory sentence of a judge, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred with the spiritual thing to another. Schmalz., l. 9, t. 3, n. 286. Understand this with the exception of benefice matter, in which what is given and accepted must be restored before every sentence of a judge in the forum of conscience, not indeed by natural law, but only by ecclesiastical law from C. De hoc 11, h. t. The reason is that the laws impede the one accepting both the benefice and the price, so that he cannot acquire ownership of the thing received, and this as a penalty of so grave a delict. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, n. 283. But where the simoniacal pact is also repugnant to commutative justice, the price is to be restored before every sentence of a judge. The reason is that from injury to commutative justice, the obligation of restoring arises by the very law of nature. L. 114, 115.

n. 524.

You will resolve: Therefore he is bound to restore the price who accepts a price for a merely spiritual thing which brings no temporal advantage, since for a thing which is not estimable by price there is no price; and therefore a price is accepted for it against justice. He who accepts a price for a spiritual thing, even if this brings a temporal advantage, which nevertheless someone, for example a pastor, is bound from office and justice to furnish. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 3. A Bishop or Prelate who sells benefices or ecclesiastical offices, the conferral of which pertains to him by force of his office; since from his office he ought to dispense them gratis, and therefore, by accepting a price, he sins against justice. Schmalz., l. c., nn. 293, 295.

n. 525.

To whom is the simoniacal price to be restored? - If the price has been given, but the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, the common opinion teaches that the price is to be restored to him who gave it, unless the judge has decreed otherwise. The reason is that the laws establish penalties only against real simony.

But if handing over has followed on both sides, the benefice cause must be distinguished from the rest. For in this the simoniacal price, from C. De hoc 11, de Simonia, is to be restored to the church in which the benefice is situated; or, if the superior so decrees, it can be distributed to the poor or to another church. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 6 ad 4. Yet there are not lacking those who think that restitution must be made to him who was injured, that is, to him who gave. D'Annibale, ed. 4, p. 3, n. 116.

But as to the price accepted for another spiritual thing, since we find nothing clearly decreed by Law, it remains that it be restored to him who paid it. The reason is that per se, and unless law or a superior establishes otherwise, where unjust acceptance intervenes, restitution is to be made to him who was injured. But in the case, he who gave the price was injured. Therefore, if he who paid the simoniacal price gratuitously remits what was paid, he who accepted it licitly retains the same until, as a penalty of the crime, he is ordered by a judge to spend it for the church or the poor. Schmalz., l. 5, t. 3, nn. 297, 301; Struggl 32; L. 115; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 32, a. 7 c.; q. 62, a. 5 ad 2.

Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, I. On Justice Considered Generally

n. 850.

What is servitude, and how many kinds are there? - Servitude, taken actively and generically, is a right which belongs to someone, so that the thing of another, or another person, serves his thing or himself, that is, is applied to its or his utility. But servitude taken passively is the obligation of another's thing, or of a person, corresponding to the aforesaid right. "The thing of another, or another person"; for one's own thing does not serve its owner. Therefore the advantages which the owner receives from it, he receives by right of ownership, not by right of servitude. The same must be said a fortiori of a person.

Hence servitude can be: 1. Personal, which is owed by a person to a person, and is proper to a slave toward a master. 2. Mixed, which is owed by a thing to a person, of which sort are use, usufruct, habitation. C. A. 521. 3. Real, which is owed to a thing by a thing, as a burden imposed on an estate for the utility of another estate. The thing bearing the burden is called serving; the thing receiving the utility is called dominant. C. I. 531; C. G. 637; C. H. 530; C. A. 473; C. B. 1018, 1019, 1090; C. L. 2267.

Real servitude is divided into continuous and discontinuous. The former is exercised without the act of man, such as servitude of prospect, of drip, of aqueduct, of sewer. The latter is exercised by the act of man, such as servitude of way, of drawing water, etc. C. I. 617; C. G. 688; C. H. 532; C. L. 2270. Besides, one is apparent, another non-apparent. The former appears outwardly by some sign, such as servitude of door, window, aqueduct; the latter lacks this outward sign, such as servitude of not raising a building higher, of pasturing a flock, of cutting wood. C. I. 618; C. G. 689; C. H. 532; C. L. 2270; Inst. 1. 2. t. 3. sections 1, 2, 3; Book 8 of the Digest.

Real servitude is divided into urban and rural, according as it is for the utility of a building or of a field. L. 1. Communia praediorum, etc. "The rights of urban estates are such: of raising higher and obstructing the lights of a neighbor, or of not raising higher; likewise of turning drip-water onto the roof or area of a neighbor, or of not turning it; likewise of inserting beams into the wall of a neighbor; and finally of projecting (that is, making a projection; a projection is a member of a building extending out, sporto) and protecting (or making a projection in the roof of buildings, namely of projecting the roof, fare uno sporto nel tetto), and other things similar to these." L. 2. de Servit. praed. urbanorum. "The servitudes of rural estates are these: path, driving-way, road, aqueduct. A path is the right of going, walking for a man, but not also of driving a beast of burden. A driving-way is the right of driving. A driving-way is the right of driving either a beast of burden or a vehicle. Therefore he who has a path does not have a driving-way; he who has a driving-way also has a path, even without a beast of burden. A road is the right of going and driving and walking; for road contains in itself both path and driving-way. Aqueduct is the right of leading water through another's farm. Among rural servitudes are to be counted drawing water, driving cattle to water, the right of pasturing, of burning lime, of digging sand." L. 1. de Servit. praed. rustic.

Vol. IV, On the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis

n. 1191.

VIII. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices.

Those guilty, namely those conferring and receiving a benefice simoniacally. Those guilty: here there is not held, of whatever dignity they may be. Hence some exclude Cardinals, but others also wish them comprehended. For this clause is not held in the following article so that they may be understood as excluded here, but so that in that article even Cardinals and prelates may be understood as included, who previously, according to the opinion of many, were punished only by interdict from entrance into the Church. Pius IV, constitution Romanum Pontificem, sec. 4. Simony, i.e., such properly and strictly, or of divine law. Real simony, by each side giving and receiving the thing and the price. But although it is required that the simony be real, fulfillment from each side, nevertheless, if only part of the promised thing is paid, real simony is now understood to be perfected from each side and sufficient for incurring this excommunication.

In benefices, i.e., in benefices properly so called, of which kind pensions, or temporary vicarships, etc., offices, dignities, etc., in religious orders are not. Therefore one who sells a spiritual pension, although he commits simony, does not incur the present excommunication. For a benefice is: a perpetual right, constituted by ecclesiastical authority, of receiving revenues from the goods of the Church because of a sacred office. Perpetual, i.e., both objectively, insofar as the benefice itself of itself is so perpetual that it remains with the beneficed person until it is taken away from him for a legitimate cause, and so that by the death of the beneficed person, or by his removal from the benefice, the benefice itself is not extinguished, but is vacant of possessor, so that it is to be conferred on another, and therefore endures perpetually in itself; and subjectively, insofar as the beneficed person ought to have it perpetually, as long as he lives, irrevocably. Hence under the name of benefices, properly and strictly, do not come parishes which are conferred in a revocable manner. But others, for incurring this censure, do not require subjective perpetuity also. In benefices, i.e., in buying or selling the benefices themselves; in conferral, election, presentation, and other acts which pertain to provision of benefices. Whatsoever: namely whether they are double benefices or simple; whether of right of patronage or of free collation, etc. Accomplices: therefore this penalty is incurred, e.g., not only by one conferring and receiving a benefice, but also by those by whose cooperation, mediation, or favor the simoniacal contract is perfected. Extravagant 2, h.t.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 3, nn. 2, 3; disp. 7, n. 8; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, fourth excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 24; Thesaurus, De Poen., part 2, Simony.

n. 1193.

X. Those guilty of real simony because of entrance into religion.

Those guilty: therefore in the case of simoniacal entrance into religion, both those giving and those receiving incur the present excommunication. Because of entrance. "It is very probable that excommunication is not incurred in simple entrance, but in profession." L. 108. Because of entrance: this simony is of divine law; but because of support of novices there is no simony; of professed persons, there is either none or only simony of human law, and therefore, where it is still in force, by no means subject to this excommunication.

In religion, strictly and properly so called. Extravagant 1, h.t.; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, second excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, q. 29.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 41 passages

47. On Simony

Ascanius fictitiously promised that he would give a gem of great value to Anselm, if he should withdraw from contention for the parish, certainly hoping that, with him withdrawing, the parish would fall to himself, otherwise not unworthy. The matter fell out according to his opinion; but, having become master of his wish, he denies that he wishes to give the gem, nor does he give it except terrified by Anselm's long-lasting threats.

Q. What as to the case?

R. "It is most certainly certain that that guilty man (Ascanius) is guilty of the sin of unjust deception and of cooperation in the mental simony of Anselm, yes even of presumed simony, so that therefore in the forum of the court he can be punished by the Judge.... For the rest, I altogether deny, against several, with far more doctors of the first rank, among whom is the distinguished Doctor, that the agreement, as in the case, was simoniacal; although he professes that Navarrus' affirmative opinion does not lack every appearance of probability, nevertheless he pronounces without hesitation that the negative opinion, which we embrace with him, is true. - And indeed, since a fictitious promise is posited, the intention of paying the price is lacking; therefore also, and necessarily, the will of buying the benefice is lacking, so that no place remains for mental simony; but, mental simony having been removed, conventional simony, which is founded on mental simony, falls; and, conventional simony having been removed, real simony is simply taken away, which cannot consist without it. Therefore, since the promise of the gem is posited as fictitious, the agreement of Ascanius is stained with no stain of true simony. Indeed there is fictitious simony in the contract; but if it is fictitious, then it is not simony just as fictitious gold is not gold....

Anselm, withdrawing from contention for the parish with the empty hope of the gem, himself committed simony as to affection, or mental simony, through the depravity of his internal mind; yet as to effect, none except fictitious and altogether merely apparent. For just as the will of each spouse is required for true marriage, so the will of the buyer, as equally of the seller, is required for true purchase and sale. If either spouse is unwilling to marry, the marriage is simply null; therefore, whether the seller is unwilling to sell, or the buyer unwilling to buy, there is no purchase, sale, and consequently in the case there is no simony, which consists in the studious will of buying or selling....

But what after the gem has been handed over?... I consider this one thing in the present matter: that Ascanius paid the fictitiously promised gem only late and terrified by the long-lasting threats of Anselm, so that consequently he seems to have paid it not as the price of the parish, but to redeem himself from unjust vexation. For this is called unjust vexation, by which someone intends to deprive another of a right already absolutely acquired and certain, and indeed by unjust means, such as threats of revealing, for example, an offense; which we suppose to be hidden, not without great dishonor of the delinquent joined with immense harm to him. This Anselm intends; therefore he was inflicting unjust vexation by threats upon Ascanius, possessing the parish by acquired right, as regards value, in order to deprive him of the right of the parish. But the common opinion with the Angelic Doctor, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2, ad 5, teaches that it is not simoniacal if someone by money redeems vexation unjustly done to him in a right already acquired, with an express text in chap. Dilectus 1, de Simonia; therefore, even after the gem has been handed over, Ascanius can retain the parish in the forum of the Pole." Ithur., Case 36.

Hieronymus obtained a canonry from the bishop, by a spontaneous commendation made by his vicar general. When Hieronymus learned this, he approached the aforesaid vicar and, giving thanks to him for his efficacious and spontaneous favor, spontaneously promised him that he would leave to him the fruits of the first semester, as a sign of a grateful mind.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Assuredly no stain of simony is had in the commendation made to the bishop by the vicar general, since it was wholly spontaneous, imposed no obligation on the bishop, nor was there any intention of it, since nothing of this sort is said in the case. Nor indeed is there a stain of simony in that promise of Hieronymus. For simony indeed would be had if, before the office of commendation had been furnished and before the conferral of the canonry, the vicar general had stipulated those fruits of the first semester, or Hieronymus had promised them, although for the sake of a grateful mind alone, because from the stipulation and promise a new obligation, at least of fidelity, would have arisen. But in the case that promise was made after the office of commendation had already been furnished and after the canonry had already been obtained. Therefore it was made altogether spontaneously and liberally, from a grateful mind. And indeed, if someone, with no benefit accepted from another, can liberally promise and give to him, why could he not do the same after receiving a benefit, from a grateful mind? And if, for services furnished, it is licit to confer a benefice on another on account of gratitude, it will assuredly be licit also to give him only the smallest part of the fruits. In order that simony be had, it would be necessary in the case that that which is given, although it is given spontaneously, nevertheless be given not principally, and much less solely, on account of gratitude, as in the case; but that it be given by the title of compensation or gratuitous repayment, and as owed under this name. I. M. 508.

Alphonsus makes an agreement with Augustinus, that he not compete with him in the present concursus for the parish, promising back to him that he himself, in the next concursus for a canonry, will by no means give his name.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Alphonsus would indeed commit simony by agreeing with Augustinus that he abstain from the concursus, if he offered him money or another temporal thing. For then, evidently, by money or a temporal thing he would directly and proximately prepare for himself the way to obtaining spiritual things; the temporal thing would evidently be given principally, indeed solely, on account of the spiritual; and therefore in fact, by the moral estimation of human actions, the temporal would be given for the spiritual, which is simoniacal. But in the case simony, at least certainly, does not appear. The reason is that in the case it is not verified that a spiritual thing is given or promised on both sides for a temporal thing; but altogether the same right, quasi-spiritual, is renounced, and on account of a spiritual thing. Certainly simony of divine law is not had when either spiritual things alone or temporal things alone are given on both sides, as if two should exchange between themselves either offices alone or revenues alone. Simony, if there be any, can be had only from positive law, as if someone should exchange a benefice with the benefice of another, without the legitimate faculty of an approving superior. Yet this is not verified in the case; for no prohibition is had by positive law. La-Croix, l. 3, n. 142, affirms that simony is had in the aforesaid case; but he assigns no special reason.

Cleonicus, a priest, furnished services for many years to a certain Count enjoying the right of patronage over a benefice, having in his heart this hope, that at some time he would be presented by the Count for obtaining the benefice. Hence, when the benefice is vacant, he himself sets forth his merits to the Count, to whom he promises a grateful mind; and he asks a friend that he set these forth to the Ordinary. But to the Countess, whom he knew well to be very greedy for gold, he gives six hundred lire, so that she may intercede for him with the Count. The Countess in fact furnishes this, and Cleonicus obtains the benefice.

Q. What as to the case?

R. 1. Cleonicus committed no simony from this precisely, that he served the Count under the hope of obtaining the benefice. The reason is that in this hope no pact is had of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing, and of obtaining a spiritual thing for a temporal thing. This hope likewise gives Cleonicus no right, imposes no obligation on the Count. Nor indeed is he to be accused of simony because he himself alleged his merits and asked a friend that he report them to the bishop. For the worthy are to be promoted to benefices, and therefore it is altogether necessary that the various gifts and merits of candidates be known. And thus, as common and received practice has it, especially in concursus, the candidates themselves are accustomed to set forth the various offices which they have held, studies formerly made, academic degrees which they have obtained, and other things of this sort. Nay indeed, it is not simony, although it is dangerous, "if you give someone money so that he simply propose your merits to the bishop, because for simony it is required that the obtaining of the spiritual thing be the immediate end of the furnishing of the money, but it is not sufficient that it be something consequent from another immediate end having no connection with it." Lig. l. 3, n. 64. Likewise, Cleonicus, in itself, is not to be charged with simony from the fact that he promised that he would be grateful. Because this promise of a grateful mind, speaking in itself, also contains no pact, nor does it contain any intention of giving a temporal thing for a spiritual thing; but only of having gratitude, which by the law of nature is owed to any benefactor. I. M. 515.

Cleonicus is guilty of simony by giving money to the Countess for intercession; the Countess is guilty of the same crime by accepting the money. For that money is not given merely for favor and intercession, which in itself is something temporal, without the benefice being intended by the same offering of money; but it is indeed given for favor and intercession, intending at the same time and principally by that offering of money to obtain the benefice. This is not obscurely allowed to be gathered even from this, that for favor alone or for intercession alone he would never in any way give so great a sum. And certainly, if Cleonicus had offered the Count six hundred lire, and by asking at the same time had requested that that benefice be conferred upon him, he would have incurred simony, cc. 18, 34, de Simonia; and this for this reason, because it would prudently be presumed that by this offering, as a certain motive, he principally intended the benefice. Therefore the very same thing seems to have to be said if, with the weight of gold offered, he petitioned for himself through the Countess. Nor is it to be doubted that the Countess herself also, as greedy for gold, intended this sum more in view of the benefice than of her intercession. Besides, although such mediation formally is something temporal and extrinsic to the spiritual thing, nevertheless in itself and proximately it "prepares the way for obtaining a spiritual thing," St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 2, ad 5; and therefore on account of this connection and order which it has toward the conferral of the benefice, it is a certain virtual conferral of the benefice; whence a true comparison of the temporal and the spiritual is had. Lig. l. 3, n. 64. - Elbel 603-608; G. 285-287; D'Annib., p. 3, ed. 3, n. 38; I. M. 508, 511.

"A certain ecclesiastic, suitable for obtaining benefices, desires to institute a new benefice from his own goods, with this condition nevertheless interposed: that to himself first, and then after his death to certain blood-relatives, the right of nominating be attributed. He likewise adds that he wishes to enjoy this benefice first, and for that reason to present himself to the bishop, by whom he ought altogether to be admitted to the benefice."

Q. Is this licitly?

R. This can seem simoniacal for the following reasons: 1. "From chap. Tua nos de Simonia this is inquired: If someone should offer certain things from his own goods to some church, asking that in his life it may be licit for him to hold the same goods in that church as a prebend, whether goods offered thus ought to be received; and whether the same cleric can be assumed as a canon of the same church without the vice of simony. But the Supreme Pontiff makes response in these words: We therefore respond thus to your devotion: that if some cleric with condition or pact gives or offers his goods, so that afterward he may retain them as a prebend, and that he be admitted as a canon, an offering or reception of this sort cannot be made without the vice of simony, since in such matters every pact or agreement ought to cease according to the canonical sanctions; but if purely and without any pact and condition he offers his goods, humbly asking that he be admitted as a canon, and that it be licit for him to retain the goods themselves as a prebend, and the clerics of the same church consent purely, a reception of this sort undoubtedly can be made without scruple of simoniacal depravity.

The distinguished man Fagnanus, in the same chapter Tua nos, n. 4, de Simonia, likewise commemorates that this happened to him: Since a certain cleric not so long ago had conferred his patrimonial goods for the erection of an archpresbyterate in a cathedral church, with reservation of the right of patronage, this pact having been added, that he could present himself and not others; when consulted by the same cleric, I responded that the erection and institution thence following had been simoniacal and null by this decretal, and that there was need of a new erection and provision of the Apostolic See, which the same cleric afterward obtained from Our Most Holy Lord Urban VIII; for from presentation there is acquired a spiritual right to obtaining the benefice, and the bishop can be compelled to institute.

But the recent Nicolius hands down a sentence promulgated by the S. C. C. in the year 1686, by which an agreement proposed by a certain man is rejected and disapproved as simoniacal: he promised an augmentation of the endowment of a canonry of lay right of patronage, with this law added, that afterward he be nominated by the patrons to the same canonry. When the canonry in the collegiate church of St. Mary of the Snow, of the right of patronage of the brothers de Mantellis, had been vacant for several months, the priest Thomas Maria Verrus proposed to the said patrons that he would increase the endowment of the said canonry by assigning a certain vineyard, with this express law nevertheless added, that he ought to be presented by them to the same canonry." Is the said agreement simoniacal? The S. C. C. responded affirmatively.

It cannot so easily be understood by what reason the patron of a benefice can present himself, since this is forbidden in chap. Per vestras de Iurepatronatus. For ought there not to be a distinction between the presenter and the presented?"

But these things in no way agree with the proposed case. "For the cleric asks to erect a new benefice from his own goods; he adds this law nevertheless, that he himself and then his blood-relatives obtain the right of nominating; he likewise adds the condition that it be licit for him to present himself.

Surely, if the institution is legitimate and altogether consonant with law, whereby the founder of a benefice desires to present his son, friend, or blood-relative, how can it happen that no stain of simony is recognized in this, and nevertheless the patron who wishes to present himself is accused of the same mark? Indeed, the agreement from which alone simony flows is proposed on both sides, and that also most aptly agrees which Fagnanus hands down: from presentation there is acquired for the one presented a spiritual right to obtaining the benefice, and the bishop can be compelled to institute.

Chap. Tua nos de Simonia by no means seems contrary. For he who then had offered goods, asking that it be licit for him to hold them as a prebend, and that he also be enrolled among the canons, was not instituting a canonry, but only desired to be assumed, and with a change of name to retain his patrimonial goods as a prebend, lest perhaps the canons refuse to enroll him in their body because he lacked a prebend. Besides, since in the same place there is no mention whether the same prebend ought to remain for posterity, it is most plainly established that simony was then implicit. Nevertheless the Pontiff testifies that the contrary would be the case if, without any agreement, he had offered his goods to the church, declaring that he wished to enjoy them as a prebend, and the canons, no consideration of the offered gift being had, had received him into their body.

What Fagnanus asserts cannot be approved by all, on account of those causes which we have lately explained. But that which was then carried out ought in no way to be adverse to those who defend the contrary opinion. Since no one is ignorant that even in causes which contain no impediment of law, if someone nevertheless anxious and solicitous flees to the Pontiff for obtaining absolution, it is very easily granted, so that an entrance may be closed to scruples, and the faithful may be rescued from all solicitude.

But those who run through the sentence of the S. C. C. brought forward above will recognize a manifest distinction between this question of ours and that which was then proposed. For we are treating of the institution of a benefice, which is perfected with the bishop knowing and approving; we are treating of retaining the right of patronage, which sane condition is permitted by the sacred sanctions, so that the faithful may be stirred up to establish new benefices. Finally, we are treating of the condition of presenting oneself, which is joined together with the institution of the benefice, which indeed bears before itself nothing alien from equity. But in that cause the canonry had already been instituted: he who superadded a vineyard for the augmentation of the endowment was not acquiring for himself any right of patronage over the same canonry, which remained with the former owner. The augmentation of the vineyard was decreed without the authority of the bishop; and although he himself had known and approved the matter beforehand, this nevertheless was not sufficient that the most manifest stain of simony be avoided. Since Thomas Maria Verrus, without the institution of a benefice, and with no right of patronage obtained, was augmenting the endowment of the canonry, and by agreement was treating with the patrons of the benefice, that they nominate him to it.

Finally, what was set forth concerning the distinction between the presenter and the presented is very strong when the benefice has already been instituted, of which, if a vacancy should occur, the patron asks the benefice for himself. Then also that distinction has force when, in instituting the benefice, the condition was not added that it be licit for the patron to nominate himself. For it is most certain that conditions can be decreed by the founder of a benefice which even are repugnant to Pontifical law, which nevertheless the bishop ought to admit. But if he himself refuses to assent, it is certain that his dissent is to be supplied by the higher Power." Benedict XIV, Institution 95.

To all these things this also is added, which the same Benedict XIV notes, l. c., namely that several institutions occur approved by bishops without any hesitation, "an agreement having been interposed, by which it is conceded to the founder of the benefice to present himself." - M. E., v. 9, p. 1, p. 173.

n. 6.

Anselmus, a beneficiary, on a certain day resolved not to go to choir partly on account of laziness, partly on account of very rainy weather. But when he recalled that on that day extraordinary and rich distributions were to be made among those present, on the occasion of some funeral, altogether energetically he immediately flies to the church. Then, reconsidering the matter in his mind, he fears lest he has become guilty of simony.

n. 6.

Q. Whether he who goes to church on account of distributions, otherwise not going to go, sins by reason of simony?

n. 6.

R. Simony is had if a spiritual thing is sold for a temporal price. To celebrate the divine office in church is indeed a spiritual act, belonging to a cleric from this very fact that he is a cleric. And therefore he commits simony who intends to sell this act. But in any sale the price itself is the end. "And therefore in the aforesaid case a distinction must be made. For if he receives distributions of this sort as the end of his work, principally intended, he commits simony, and thus sins mortally. But if he has for his principal end God in such an act, and looks to distributions of this sort secondarily, not as to an end, but as to that which is necessary for his sustenance, it is established that he does not sell the spiritual act, and thus does not commit simony, nor sin. For thus the accepting of the distributions will not be the cause why he goes to church, but properly the determination of this sort why he goes now, and not at another time." St. Thomas, Quodl. 8, a. 11; I. M. 512.

Gerontius, a parish priest, already advanced in age, resolved to resign his benefice to his nephew Quirinus; but with the burden that Quirinus annually pay, from the fruits of the benefice, a certain pension to his poor niece Sophia, during her life. Quirinus accepts the burden; and Gerontius seeks and obtains the assent of the bishop, that he himself may resign the benefice, at the same time most humbly supplicating him that he be willing to confer the parish on Quirinus; which the bishop furnishes, ignorant of the pact between Gerontius and Quirinus.

Q. 1. What is confidential simony? - 2. Have Gerontius and Quirinus committed confidential simony? - 3. Was the bishop also guilty of simony?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 509. To the second, affirmatively. For this is established from the very definition of confidential simony, "which is committed concerning ecclesiastical benefices, namely when one procures an ecclesiastical benefice for another, whether by electing, or by presenting, etc., or by resigning, but from confidence, that is, from a pact either expressed or at least tacit, that the other in turn resign that benefice to the procurer or to some third person, or resign a certain pension from the same benefice." Elbel 592. Hence the aforesaid resignation, as simoniacal, was altogether null and invalid, and consequently null was the conferral made by the bishop. Besides, there is inability for the same benefice, and excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - I. M. 521; Elbel 647-649; G. 291, 292.

To the third. The bishop could be guilty of simony insofar as he conferred the benefice on Quirinus at the prayers of Gerontius. For "a gift from the tongue is called either praise itself, pertaining to human favor, which falls under price; or also prayers, from which human favor is acquired or the contrary avoided; and therefore, if someone principally intends this, he commits simony." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 5, ad 3. If therefore the bishop had given the benefice for prayers, service, flattery, or favor to be procured for himself, he would indeed have committed simony; for he would have equated a spiritual thing with a temporal thing. But this simoniacal intention does not appear from the case. But if he gave the benefice, as it is commonly given by all who are timorous, indeed in view of an intercession of this sort, that is, only impelled by those prayers, and therefore without a pact, without a burden, without the mind of comparing thing with thing and of repaying thing for thing, then there was no simony. For for simony it is not sufficient to give a spiritual thing on account of, or because of, a temporal thing, consanguinity, friendship, prayers, services; but it is necessary that it be given for a temporal thing, as for a price, that is, in compensation for it, as from an obligation of justice. I. M. 512; Elbel 612; Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 8, § 3, n. 26; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 2, n. 274, 276.

Celinus, money having secretly been given, procured a rich benefice for his son. Several years having passed, struck by remorse of conscience, he opens the matter to the confessor, who orders Celinus to reveal the matter to his son and persuade him to renounce the benefice and restore the fruits received, since there had been no conferral.

Q. When simony intervenes inculpably in a benefice matter, is the conferral of the benefice null?

R. 1. If all are immune from fault, namely both those giving and promising, and those receiving and accepting, and all others who cooperate in that conferral of the benefice, the conferral of the benefice is valid. The reason is that, just as excommunication and other penalties, so also the nullity of a simoniacal conferral seems to be a penalty, not from defect of solemnity or of required form, but in hatred of the offense, as is established from the Extravagant Cum detestabile de Simonia. But when the cause ceases, the effect ceases; and consequently, when fault ceases, which is the cause of that invalidation, the invalidation itself ceases. Therefore. Thus Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 6, d. 4, n. 8-10.

When the one receiving the benefice is excused from fault and the sin of simony on account of ignorance, but the collator or another third person, noticing the matter well, commits the sin of simony, the conferral of the benefice is null. The reason is that the Church pursues the crime of simony with so great a hatred that, by whomever it may have been committed, she does not leave it unpunished; although, for the punishment of another, the innocent receiver himself suffers per accidens. Thus Lugo, l. c., n. 11-13; Suarez in the same Lugo; and other doctors commonly.

Yet the first case is excepted, if another acted in fraud in this matter, namely in order to render the elected or presented man incapable of the benefice. Schmalzgr., l. 5, t. 3, n. 266. Second, if the one receiving the benefice has persevered for three years with the same good faith in peaceful possession of the benefice; for the 36th Rule of the Chancery concerning triennial possession is defended, and therefore, when that three-year period has elapsed, he is held to restore neither the fruits nor the benefice itself. Schmalz., ibid., n. 267; Castropal. in Lugo, l. c., n. 8; and others; Lig. l. 3, n. 507.

…and 1 more passage — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 77 passages

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the First Precept of th…, Ch. II, Art. II, § III. On Simony

- DEFINITION. Simony, so called from Simon Magus, is the deliberate will of selling or buying for a temporal price something spiritual, or something attached to the spiritual. It is called a deliberate will, that is, a will with deliberation ¹.

¹ Simony is defined as a deliberate will, not only because, no otherwise than other sins, it requires deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that a pact be completed by mutual consent or in fact, but the internal or one-sided simoniacal affection suffices, namely the will of making a pact or of obliging.

A temporal price is distinguished in Canon Law ² as of three kinds: 1. munus a manu, or recompense of any temporal thing whatsoever estimable by price ³; 2. munus a lingua, or patronage, under whose name come praises, recommendations, prayers, etc., to be interposed by agreement in favor of one conferring a spiritual thing ⁴; 3. munus ab obsequio, or any service whatever, or offices rendered to another, e.g., household service or any similar office.

² Thus St. Gregory, related in Can. Sunt nonnulli Caus. 1. q. 1: One thing is a gift from service, another a gift from the hand, another a gift from the tongue. A gift from service is subjection unduly expended. A gift from the hand is money. A gift from the tongue is favor.

But munus here, as is clear, is not taken for a liberal gift, but for a price, or debt, which induces a necessary burden and obligation.

³ To this is referred not only remission of a debt, which is openly clear from Cap. Veniens 10. De Testibus et attestationibus, but also delay of payment, or anticipated payment, and a loan; yet when certain persons wish to give an account of these, they entangle themselves and the whole matter not a little.

And indeed St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 57) was compelled by his own right mind to say that exacting a loan for a spiritual thing is simoniacal, and therefore to put after it the opinion which condemns as depraved only a pact of lending in the future, but not of lending in the present; which opinion the Salmanticenses wrongly ascribe to St. Thomas (De Simon. Cap. 1. n. 35); for the Holy Doctor (2. 2. q. 78. art. 4. ad 2) does not speak of an imposed obligation of lending, but of the benevolence to be sought, by which someone is inclined of his own accord to lend in return.

Besides, St. Alphonsus (l. c.) gives no reason except that Simony is to hand over anything temporal for a spiritual thing. But the difficulty remains in what way a loan, which ought to be gratuitous, can be called something temporal in that sense, so that it is equated to a price. For, as St. Thomas says (2. 2. q. 100. art. 5), for Simony there is required a price or something estimable by price, which is absent from the gratuitousness of a loan.

Therefore Laymann (Lib. 4. Tr. 10. Cap. VIII. § 3. n. 25), in order to reconcile the gratuitousness of a loan with the Simony of one exacting a loan, has recourse to a broader sense of price, so that it comprehends every other temporal advantage which is given by agreement for a spiritual thing. But you would rightly call these things contradictory. For a temporal advantage which is not estimable by price is a chimera. See St. Thomas 2. 2. q. 100. art. 5 and 4. Dist. 25. q. 5. art. 3.

In order to solve the same knot the Salmanticenses (l. c. n. 36) reply that such purity is not necessary in a loan as is required in spiritual things. But this is nothing. For the purity which is required is precisely this, that it ward off compensation which is estimable by price.

Therefore the true reason why it is simoniacal to exact a loan for a spiritual thing must be sought from this, that the use of one's own money granted to others is in itself really something estimable by price; and this not only the common sense of men, but also very many doctors, admit (see Lugo De Iust. et Iur. Disp. 25. n. 18. 24) with St. Thomas (3. Dist. 37. q. 1. art. 6. ob. 2. coll. 4. Dist. 25. q. 3. art. 3). Nor, however, does it follow from this that a price can lawfully be exacted for a loan. For a loan, by the opinion of all, is reckoned among gratuitous contracts, no otherwise than a loan for use and a donation. Therefore whoever lends money voluntarily, from liberality, renounces compensation which he could lawfully exact, just as he who lends for use or donates a horse voluntarily renounces the compensation or price which he otherwise could receive for the use of the horse or for the horse itself. But he who exacts a loan by agreement for a spiritual thing does not receive something liberally offered, but imposes a burden in itself estimable by price. Therefore this is deservedly judged simoniacal.

** With sixteen columns (Pag. 222-229) the VV. detain the reader concerning this Note. But the sum of them is reduced to these heads: 1. That the Salmanticenses rightly cite St. Thomas; 2. That Laymann does not speak of a reciprocal loan; 3. That St. Alphonsus did not bring forward the reasons for his opinion because he judged the reasons cited by the Salmanticenses altogether convincing; 4. That the reason for the doctrine cited in the Note is true, but that the new reasons for the same are not true.

Resp. To 1. The Salmanticenses wished to prove that it is not simoniacal to give spiritual things for a loan; and to confirm this they said that from St. Thomas it is not usury to lend with an agreement that the other lend in return. - But this is false. For the VV. themselves bring forward two places from St. Thomas in which St. Thomas denies that it is lawful to exact something by debt of justice, although he grants that something can be received if it is given from affection of friendship, or from affection of benevolence. But what is given by agreement is given from debt of justice. Therefore the Salmanticenses wrongfully fasten that absurd opinion upon St. Thomas. - After the texts of St. Thomas have been brought forward, the VV. add (Pag. 224): Therefore here the Angelic Doctor teaches in clear and express words that it is lawful for one lending one thing at the same time to receive another loan. - Resp. It is lawful to receive from affection of benevolence and friendship, as St. Thomas has it, Granted; it is lawful to exact and receive what is given by agreement, as the Salmanticenses contend, Denied.

Resp. To 2. It is neither said in the Note, nor was there need to inquire, whether Laymann there treats or does not treat of a reciprocal loan. Therefore those things do nothing to the point.

Resp. To 3. That St. Alphonsus brought forward no reason for his most correct opinion because he held the reasons of the Salmanticenses to be altogether convincing is a mere conjecture of the VV., which otherwise would not contribute very much to the honor and glory of the Holy Doctor. And since the VV. admit (Pag. 228) that the reason of the doctrine brought forward in the Note is true, by that very fact, when they say that the reasons of the Salmanticenses are altogether convincing, they speak contradictory things.

Resp. To 4. The Author of the Notes pursues novelties neither elsewhere nor in this place, nor has he brought forward other new reasons here; but, other less suitable reasons having been put aside, he sought the true reason of the doctrine from the certain principles of St. Thomas and of other Doctors.

⁴ This simony, therefore, is committed when through the conferral of a spiritual thing the conferrer, by some express or tacit agreement, intends to oblige another to pour forth prayers for him, or to some other office of this kind.

From this Suarez (De Simonia Cap. 40) shows that certain persons have extended this munus a lingua beyond what is fair, when they contended that it is simoniacal even for someone to give something spiritual, moved by the prayers either of the one to whom the spiritual thing is granted, or of another; which opinion, as Suarez (ibid. n. 5) notes, certain persons wrongly attributed to St. Thomas. Yet certain persons rightly make an exception if the conferrer exacts these prayers as a condition, especially if he exacts them from a prince-person, whose humble service in these things he seeks. Yet this would rather have to be called munus ab obsequio than munus a lingua.

Thus, therefore, Suarez, rightly distinguishing case from case (l. c. n. 3): I say, therefore, 1. To ask some Prelate, and the same applies to others, to confer a benefice on someone without another promise or agreement, is never sufficient for simony, nor do those prayers have the notion of a price, nor will the Prelate who confers the benefice principally because of them commit simony, although otherwise he can sin. This is now the common and received opinion.

And below (ibid. n. 9): It is gathered from what has been said that it is not simony to induce by prayers a powerful man or a familiar of the Pope or of a Bishop, so that from him he may obtain a benefice for me.

But he then explains the crime of Simony thus (ibid. n. 12): I say secondly: if through the conferral of a benefice or another spiritual thing the conferrer intends to oblige another to pour forth prayers for him, then he properly receives a munus a lingua; whence if he receives under an express or tacit agreement, he commits simony; and the same holds as often as prayers and intercessions have preceded under an agreement or promise of a benefice, if they should be made. This assertion is common.

And he gives the reason, because prayers of this kind are something temporal and estimable by price, and they are made for the favor and gain of him who gives the spiritual thing because of them.... But for this notion of price to intervene, it is necessary that a promise or agreement interpose; for if such prayers precede without obligation, and the conferral of a benefice follows from gratitude alone, or conversely if a spiritual gift precedes and intercession for the giver follows from gratitude alone, it is not simony.

And here those things must not be omitted which Schmalzgrueber notes (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 114). For after he has observed that praises, recommendations, and prayers are called munus a lingua, e.g., if someone confers a benefice on another, one influential with a prince, with an agreement that this man interpose... his prayers with the prince... for obtaining a certain favor which he himself desires, he soon adds: Nor does it matter, even if the intercession is ordered to something spiritual, e.g., to obtaining through it an ecclesiastical benefice; because this intercession in itself is something temporal: therefore while a benefice is given for it, now a spiritual thing is given for a temporal thing; consequently simony is committed. Those ought to have kept these things before their eyes who, among the arguments by which they wish to confirm that the guilt of simony exists in buying with money prayers for obtaining a benefice, use also this, that those prayers are something spiritual. But indeed, if they are spiritual, we would have in the proposed case nothing but an exchange of a spiritual thing with another spiritual thing, and therefore not that temporal price which we call munus a lingua, and consequently neither simony; which nevertheless is contrary to the sacred canons and the common opinion of all.

Likewise the temporal thing attached to a spiritual thing is threefold: 1. antecedently, to which the spiritual thing accedes, as the right of patronage inhering in an estate; 2. consequently, that which depends on the spiritual thing, as the right of receiving tithes; 3. concomitantly, as labor in sacred functions. This labor attached to a spiritual thing is either intrinsically or extrinsically attached. It is called intrinsically attached if it is not easily separable from the thing itself; otherwise it is called extrinsically attached. Thus the celebration of Mass is labor intrinsically attached to a spiritual thing; but extraordinary fatigue, such as singing, delay until midday, a long or difficult journey to be undertaken for celebrating, and other similar things, pertain to labor extrinsically attached.

DIVISION. Simony is distinguished as:

Mental, if it is done merely internally or without agreement ⁵.

⁵ Mental simony is called not indeed the purpose of entering into a simoniacal agreement with another, but the will by which someone, without any external bargaining, intends to oblige another to render a spiritual thing while he confers a temporal thing on him, or vice versa. Thus, e.g., if someone commends his son to the conferrer of a vacant benefice, and meanwhile, under the appearance of a liberal gift, sends silver vessels to him with that internal intention of moving and obliging him to present his son. And to this entirely pertains proposition 45 from those proscribed by Innocent XI: To give a temporal thing for a spiritual thing is not simony if the temporal thing is not given as a price, but as a motive of conferring or effecting the spiritual thing.

To this also pertains if someone, for a temporal thing accepted, confers a spiritual thing on another as compensation owed from justice, or vice versa, for a spiritual thing accepted, a temporal thing.

Conventional, if an agreement indeed intervenes, but has in no way been put into execution ⁶.

⁶ Different partitions of simony occur among different authors. Some divide it in three ways, into mental, conventional, and real; and these indeed distinguish a twofold conventional simony, namely pure, when the agreement has been fulfilled on neither side, and mixed, if it has been fulfilled by only one of the two sides.

But others divide simony in two ways, into mental and conventional; but they distinguish this latter in three ways, namely 1. pure, when neither party has completed the handing over of the thing, 2. mixed, when only one party has handed over, 3. real, when handing over has been made on both sides. And it will indeed be useful to have noted these things for rightly understanding the authors.

But since a convention is the consent of two or more persons to the same resolution, it is clear that the promise of only one of the two parties does not suffice for conventional simony, but it is necessary that the promise have been accepted by the other; otherwise it will be called mental simony rather than conventional.

Real, if the agreement is fulfilled on each side ⁷.

⁷ Three things must be noted here: 1. That simony be reckoned real, and that penalties be incurred, it is not necessary that for the spiritual thing already handed over the simoniacal price have been paid in full, but it suffices that it have been handed over incipiently or in part.

2. Although after the spiritual thing has been handed over simony is held as conventional as long as the simoniacal price has not begun to be handed over, nevertheless as to the penalties of law it is drawn back to the time of the past agreement. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 35) and Reiffenstuel (eod. tit. n. 25).

3. Although certain persons thought (see in Suarez De Simon. Cap. 41. n. 7-9) that, as to the effect of incurring penalties, simony must be held as real when the spiritual thing has already been handed over, although the temporal price has not yet been handed over; and this both because of certain texts of law in which a penalty is threatened, although money has only been promised (see Schmalzgrueber Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 217), and because of confidential simony; nevertheless the more common opinion requires some handing over on each side; and Reiffenstuel clearly shows (Lib. 5.

Tit. 3. n. 239-243) that the texts objected are not efficacious for persuading the contrary. But that, once a benefice has been handed over in confidence, penalties are incurred even before the other has fulfilled his promise, this is so singular from the Constitutions of Pius IV and Pius V that not even the mediators of this simony themselves, although otherwise struck with excommunication on account of real simony (C. Cum detestabile 2. De simonia Extrav.), incur the penalty unless the handing over has been completed on both sides, since they are not comprehended in the Constitutions of Pius IV and Pius V.

There is added confidential Simony, which is done by any agreement or confidence in election or presentation to benefices, or in their resignation, etc. ⁸. - St. Lig. n. 49, 56, etc.

⁸ Confidential simony has special laws and penalties from the Constitution Romanum of Pius IV and the Constitution Intolerabilis of Pius V; and its matter is ecclesiastical benefices alone. Therefore if simoniacal agreements are made concerning pensions or any other right which is not properly comprehended under the name of benefice, they must be referred to common simony, but not to confidential simony.

But this special simony consists in this: that he who gives another a benefice in whatever way, that is, either by electing, or presenting, or postulating, or conferring, or giving in Commendam, or instituting, or resigning in favor of another, reserves something by his own authority from an agreement, express or tacit, either concerning the fruits of the benefice or concerning the benefice itself. I have said by an agreement: for the interior intention alone of obliging would induce mental simony, but not confidential simony; for which, nevertheless, according to § 3 of the Constitution of Pius V, the express consent of the one receiving the benefice is not required, but it suffices that, once the giver's reservation is known, he accepts the benefice.

Moreover, reservation concerning the benefice itself is manifold, as is also drawn from the Constitution of Pius V, and is distinguished, namely:

1. Reservation of access, when someone wishes the benefice to come finally to a blood-relative, or even to himself; meanwhile, however, he confers it in some way upon another by this agreement, that at the opportune time this man resign it to the blood-relative or to himself.

2. Reservation of ingress, when someone resigns to another, on this condition, a benefice already conferred upon himself but not yet possessed: that when this man relinquishes it for whatever reason, he himself, the one resigning, has the right of entering upon its possession.

3. Finally, reservation of regress, when someone resigns to another a benefice already possessed by himself by this agreement, that whenever it becomes vacant in any way, it is to return to the one resigning or to another certain person.

But the principal cause of prohibiting these resignations is hinted at also by the Council of Trent (Sess. 25. Cap. 7. De Reform.), namely a certain hateful species of hereditary succession in benefices; whence the Holy Synod also decrees that coadjutorships are to be granted most cautiously.

Simony is also distinguished as of divine, or natural, law, and of ecclesiastical law. The former is had if the thing exchanged simoniacally is spiritual from its own nature, as are indulgences, Sacraments, etc.; but the latter if the thing is spiritual only from the institution of the Church, as are benefices ⁹.

⁹ Others more clearly say: Simony of divine law is present where the dignity of a spiritual thing is disparaged by comparison and exchange with a temporal thing, namely when for a temporal thing there is given a thing per se truly spiritual or attached to the spiritual. But it is of ecclesiastical law when a spiritual thing or a thing attached to this is given for another likewise spiritual thing or a thing attached to this, as in the exchange of benefices without the authority of superiors, or also when a thing per se temporal is given for a temporal price, as if someone buys the office of steward, treasurer, etc. For although the malice of the aforesaid contempt is absent from these exchanges, nevertheless the Church deservedly forbade them from a motive of religion and reverence toward sacred things. Thus the common opinion, which also holds this latter as simony properly so called. See Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 24-25).

Principles. - I. For Simony it is required that a temporal thing be given or accepted, whether formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself, and in exchange for it, so that an equivalence of the spiritual thing with the temporal is made, or an exchange from the primary motive of having one for the other as a price or just compensation. The reason is clear from the very definition of Simony. Hence if some honest motive intervenes, by force of which the temporal and in turn the spiritual is bestowed, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impulsive cause, and therefore Simony would not exist.

I have said 1. formally, that is, that someone directly intends, in place of the temporal thing and on account of its estimation, to accept the spiritual.

I have said 2. virtually, namely that someone through a temporal thing wishes proximately and immediately to obtain a spiritual thing, and no other true and honest motive intervenes. For in this will there is virtually included the intention of exchanging one thing with the other. - Thus Suarez, etc.

II. It is lawful to give for a temporal price something attached to the spiritual antecedently and concomitantly extrinsically, provided the price is not increased on account of the spiritual thing attached. But it is in no way lawful to give for a price something attached to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically, or inseparably, nor something attached consequently.

The reason for the first is that the things and the labor of the action are truly in themselves estimable by price. Nevertheless, by Canon Law the sale of the balsam which is contained in Chrism is prohibited, although it preexists the consecration; because, since it is of slight price, the Bishop would seem to sell the Sacraments. - St. Lig. n. 72.

Nevertheless, concerning blessed oil or sacred Chrism, Scavini notes: A custom has prevailed in some cathedral Churches, that something is accepted from particular Churches for compensating expenses incurred in procuring the matter.

The reason for the second is that what is intrinsically attached to the spiritual is inseparable from it, whence the thing itself or action would be judged to be sold. Yet even if extrinsic labor is set aside, something can lawfully be accepted for sacred ministry by reason of stipend, or sustenance, as is clear from the practice of the Church. For natural equity demands that honest sustenance be granted to those who devote themselves to the utility of others. Hence Christ, Luke 10:7: The workman is worthy of his wage. - And the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:13: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and those who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel, to live from the Gospel.

For the administration of the Sacraments, however, nothing is to be accepted under this title, even from those giving spontaneously; but if anything is spontaneously offered, it can be accepted as alms. - S. Congr. Conc., February 1, 1593.

The reason for the third is that what is consequent is considered spiritual, or bound to the spiritual. This is also drawn from the special disposition of Canon Law.

III. Simony is a most grave sin ¹⁰; and if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter. But if Simony is of ecclesiastical law, smallness of matter can be found in it according to St. Lig. l. 3. n. 50 ¹¹. - The reason is that any spiritual thing whatsoever, from comparison with a temporal thing, is disparaged with great injury to God Himself. This is also clear from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8:20: May your money be with you unto perdition, because you have thought that the gift of God is possessed by money.

¹⁰ The common doctrine is that simony is reduced to the species of real sacrilege, by which a sacred thing is handled irreverently. For in fact there immediately appears profanation and injurious handling of sacred things, when they are equated to a temporal price, and thus are altogether cast down beneath the dignity by which they surpass every price. See Suarez (De Simon. Cap. 1. n. 7) and Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 12).

¹¹ The reason why lightness of matter can be found in simony of ecclesiastical law is this: that such simony is not forbidden as if a temporal price were given for a spiritual thing, but it is prohibited by the Church for removing every appearance of simony and avarice, and other disadvantages; whence through this injury is not properly done to a sacred thing, but only the precept of the Church is violated; and in this smallness of matter can be found.

Indeed, the smallness of the gift offered can excuse even from simony of divine law, insofar as a thing of light moment, e.g., some little birds, or rare flowers, or first fruits, since it is not apt to induce any obligation, e.g., of presenting to a Canonry, and therefore cannot have the notion of a price, by that very fact removes any suspicion of a contract, whether express or tacit. Pirhing (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 133).

Yet these things do not seem to be valid as to examiners in a competition for a parish. For to these, under the penalties proper to simony, it is forbidden to receive absolutely anything, whether from the candidate, who by giving would incur the same penalties, even if otherwise he was going to receive sufficient votes, or from others. And although some wish to excuse them from penalties on account of lightness of matter, as if someone bestowed moderate food or drink upon an examiner, nevertheless both the words of the decree, "absolutely anything," and the declaration of the S. Congregation stand in the way. See Thesaurus (De Poenis Eccl. V. Simonia, cap. 4).

Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether it is Simony to give a temporal thing principally indeed on account of a spiritual thing, but not uniquely?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that even thus there is present a comparison of a temporal thing with a spiritual. For the motive which is added, however honest it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the former motive, on account of which the temporal thing is principally given. This is also clear from proposition 45 condemned by Innocent XI. - St. Lig. n. 54.

QUESTION 2. Whether it is Simony to give a temporal thing for conciliating a Superior to oneself with a view to obtaining a benefice?

Resp. No, if the primary intention is of giving the temporal thing gratuitously; because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the Superior. But otherwise if the spiritual thing is intended as a due recompense, and not as an effect of gratitude of soul. - St. Lig. n. 51.

QUESTION 3. Whether it is Simony to perform sacred functions principally on account of a stipend, or to receive something for one's doctrine?

Resp. to the 1st. No, at least more probably, because the stipend is not received as a price of a sacred thing, but as something owed to the person who is occupied for the sake of the neighbor. - St. Lig. n. 55. - Lacroix, n. 62, and others commonly, against some. Therefore if some inordinate affection intervenes, for every fault will be absent if need or another honest cause impels one to seek stipends of this kind, it will be a vice not of Simony, but of avarice.

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, if the instruction tends to the spiritual good of others, because it is a spiritual thing, unless, however, it is accepted under the title of stipend or sustenance. But otherwise if the instruction is merely temporal, e.g., in handing down an explanation of sacred Letters or theology ¹². - St. Lig. n. 94.

¹² St. Thomas: He who has knowledge, and has not received with this an office by which he is obliged to expend the use of knowledge for others, can lawfully accept the price of his doctrine or counsel, not as selling truth or knowledge, but as hiring out his services (2. 2. q. 100. art. 3. ad 3).

- QUESTION 4. Whether it is Simony to redeem oneself by money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, e.g., Sacraments, etc.?

Resp. No, at least more probably, because liberation from vexation, which alone is directly intended, is something temporal. - Hence you can give money to your enemy, if he attempts by fraud to impede the electors from favoring you. - St. Lig. n. 101, and others commonly. Indeed Doctors agree in this very thing, even if he wishes to impede by prayers alone ¹³. But you cannot give money to those who can harm or benefit by electing or presenting to a benefice; for to offer money to them lest they harm would be the same as to offer it so that they benefit, namely that they not deny consent. - St. Lig. n. 99. Nor is it lawful for you to give money to your competitor so that he desist from competing for the benefice; because there is no unjust vexation for you to redeem, and you would be preparing a direct way to the benefice for yourself through money, which is simoniacal. - Thus the more common opinion.

¹³ Thus St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 101 and 102). The reason: because if it is lawful to give money so that another cease from vexing me against justice, it will also be lawful to give so that he cease to vex against charity.

QUESTION 5. Whether it is Simony to give or accept something for entrance into Religion?

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

It is also certain that it is lawful for a poor monastery to exact something for the sustenance of the one entering, because then a spiritual thing is not exchanged with a temporal thing; and otherwise equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery, weighed down by burdens, collapse.

It is likewise certain that it is lawful for a monastery to exact something for the sustenance of Novices, because since they do not yet pertain to Religion, and can depart at will, and often in fact do depart, it is not equitable for the monastery to be under so grave a burden for them. The Religion of the Friars Minor, however, by special decree can accept nothing.

But it is controverted if there is question of a wealthy monastery. St. Lig. n. 92 denies that it is lawful, unless the one to be received is old or infirm. Yet not a few others affirm, provided money is not exacted for the entrance itself, but is received or requested only by reason of sustenance, or of dowry ¹⁴. Besides, now every doubt vanishes because of the difficulty of the times. For there are found no monasteries founded so opulently that they in no way need outside help for the present and the future. Besides, Nuns can always exact the established dowry ¹⁵, as is clear from many decrees.

¹⁴ Namely, from the indult that nuns can receive a dowry from those entering, even if the monastery is rich, certain persons wished generally to infer the same concerning monasteries of men, so that at least under the title of sustenance something can lawfully be exacted.

But unless there is question of goods spontaneously offered, because every danger and appearance of simony ceases in these, although otherwise even a gratuitous donation can be prohibited for other causes, as happens in a donation bestowed upon examiners of parish priests, the truer and common opinion with St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 100. art. 3. ad 4) denies this, and rests on C. Quoniam 40. De Simonia. The reason is that the revenues of a monastery are ecclesiastical, ordered to supplying gratuitously the sustenance of religious. Therefore by the very fact that someone is received into Religion, he has a right to receive sustenance from the revenues of the monastery. Therefore under the title of sustenance, which a rich monastery is equal to providing, nothing can be exacted. But when the title of sustenance is lacking, it now remains that something seems to be exacted for the entrance itself. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 200-201).

¹⁵ Yet a threefold limitation must be added: 1. that the agreed dowry not be given for the entrance itself; for this would be simoniacal, even if the monastery is poor. - 2. That no one unsuitable be admitted from the sole hope of receiving something temporal from her; for thus the end of the reception, and indeed the principal end intended by those receiving, would be something temporal. But it is simoniacal to give something spiritual on account of an extrinsic temporal end, especially if this is principally intended. - 3. That apart from necessity a dowry not be exacted indiscriminately from all; for thus the poor, often more worthy and suitable, would be utterly excluded from the religious state, while others, perhaps less suitable, as being rich, would be received; which indeed is unreasonable. Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 197).

- QUESTION 6. Whether a Priest commits Simony who wagers a Mass with a layman on the outcome of a game, while the partner sets out a temporal price?

Resp. No per se, because in this way a spiritual thing is not properly equated to a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which otherwise would have to be handed over. For he does not sin who offers to a creditor 100 Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he remit a debt of 100 francs; therefore by parity neither does he sin who wagers a Mass on the outcome of a game while the other sets out 20 asses. - Thus Voit, n. 506, against others. - Besides, a game of this kind rarely lacks some scandal, and therefore it must always be dissuaded.

QUESTION 7. Whether a Priest commits Simony who for a Mass exacts a stipend above the customary rate or the rate established by the Bishop?

Resp. No, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind; because, since he has another title for exacting remuneration, the comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. He would indeed sin against obedience or justice by exacting more than is fair, but by no means against Religion. Voit, n. 497, however, contradicts this, because, he says, then every just title for exacting the temporal thing is lacking ¹⁶.

¹⁶ Voit is not alone in holding this opinion; for Reiffenstuel also teaches it (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 200), and Schmalzgrueber (Lib. 5. Tit. 3. n. 100) with Friderich (De Simon. Cap. 2. n. 67), and Azor (Part. 3. Lib. 12. Cap. 6. q. 1), and Suarez inclines to it (De Simon. Cap. 47. n. 6), whom therefore the Salmanticenses falsely cite for the opposite (Tract. 19. Cap. 2. n. 23), besides gratuitously attributing this opposite to Dominic Soto and Toletus. Add that others affirm that at least presumed simony is found in this. Thus Bonacina (De Simon. Disp. 1. Q. 6. P. 2. n. 3), Palaus (De Simon. Disp. 3. Punct. 9. n. 2), Filliuccius (Tract. 45. Cap. 10. q. 7. n. 28), and Lessius (Lib. 2. Cap. 35. n. 51).

n. 293.

- QUESTION 8. What are the penalties enacted against simoniacs?

n. 293.

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.

n. 293.

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.

…and 37 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 8 passages

Vol. II, On the Virtue of Religion …, Chapter I: On the Principal Acts of Religion, and the Vices Opposed

n. 935.

IV. Concerning Simony.

1. Notion. Simony (so called from Simon Magus, who wished to purchase spiritual graces with money) is a certain species of real sacrilege, since it imports irreverence toward a sacred thing. It is commonly defined, after St. Thomas,⁵ as the studious (or deliberate) will of buying or selling something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual.

⁵ St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1.

Therefore three things are required for simony: (a) a spiritual thing, concerning which an agreement is made or intended to be made, or at least a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing. Now by the name of a spiritual thing here is understood a supernatural thing ordered to salvation: such are grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, - or the cause of a supernatural thing, as the sacraments, sacramentals, prayers, sermons, - or the effect or use of a supernatural power, for example dispensation from vows, consecration, blessing, health restored by the help of a miracle. - But a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing is that which is ordered to something spiritual, or depends upon it, or is intimately connected with it, whether from its nature or from the institution of the Church. Thus chalices, altars which are consecrated antecedently for the sacrifice of the Mass; labor and time, which are concomitantly annexed to sacred functions; the revenues of a benefice, which are consequently received on account of some spiritual office.

(b) A price paid for a spiritual thing; this can be threefold: a gift from the hand, that is, not only money, but a movable or immovable thing estimable by price, for example remission of a debt, concession of a right, a loan, etc.; - a gift from the tongue, that is, any patronage, any favor conceded or promised, as for example the promise of a vote in an election; - a gift from service, or any temporal service, servitude, administration of affairs, etc., with the intention of obtaining something spiritual.

(c) The deliberate will of making a pact concerning a spiritual thing for a temporal thing. Hence it is not required that the pact be completed by mutual consent, nor a fortiori that it be committed to execution, but it suffices that one truly intend to make a pact with another.

He does not commit simony who gives a spiritual thing for a spiritual thing, for example, you will say Mass for me and I will recite the rosary for you; nor he who exchanges an annexed spiritual thing for an annexed spiritual thing, for example a chalice for a ciborium.

But it is simoniacal to hand over a spiritual thing for something annexed to the spiritual, for example to hand over relics for a chalice or for a certain number of Masses, because the chalice and Mass stipends have a certain temporal value.

n. 936.

1. Species of simony. (A) By reason of the law by which it is prohibited, simony is of divine or ecclesiastical law:

(a) Of divine law, when for a temporal thing a spiritual thing or a thing annexed to the spiritual is given, so that truly and intrinsically the malice of simony is had. Thus, for example, to give or accept something temporal as a price or just compensation for sacraments, relics, sermons, indulgences, etc. But if, on the occasion of sacred functions, some stipend or honorarium is offered or accepted, not as the price of the sacred thing, but as a means of support, simony is not incurred: "Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel to live by the Gospel."⁶ Likewise some special stipend can be exacted for extrinsic and undue labor, for example, for celebrating in a chapel three miles distant.⁷

⁶ 1 Cor. 9:13.

⁷ Cf. Treatise on the Eucharist, n. 185.

(b) Of ecclesiastical law only, when a pact, although not simoniacal of itself, has the appearance of simony or induces danger, and therefore is prohibited by the Church from a motive of religion; for example, the sale of holy oils, of a rosary enriched with indulgences, the resignation of a benefice in favor of another, etc.; for although to sell holy oils and blessed rosaries for as much as they are worth, the matter alone being considered, is not of itself simoniacal, yet there is danger lest they be sold more dearly on account of the consecration or indulgences.¹

¹ Hence if rosaries or medals enriched with indulgences are sold, by that very fact they lose the indulgences, as is explained in the Treatise on Penance, n. 582.

n. 937.

(B) By reason of the pact, simony is mental, conventional, real, and confidential:

(a) Mental, when it is done internally, without any pact outwardly manifested. It is twofold: purely mental, restricted to the internal forum and content with intention alone: this is simony improperly so called and therefore is not subject to ecclesiastical penalties; not purely mental, which indeed excludes every pact, but is manifested by some external act: thus, for example, if a cleric serves a bishop with the intention that, as wages, he may obtain some benefice, - or if a bishop confers a benefice gratuitously with the intention that thus he may induce the beneficed man to manage the bishop's affairs.

(b) Conventional, which is made by a pact of giving or receiving something spiritual for something temporal, without however the agreement being fulfilled on each side; it is called purely conventional if it has been committed to execution on neither side, semi-real, or mixed, if it has been committed to execution on either side, at least partially.

(c) Real, when the agreement has been fulfilled on each side at least inchoately, for example if, the benefice having been handed over, part of the money has been paid, or at least a written obligation has been given by which someone obliges himself to paying the money.

(d) Confidential, which obtains only in ecclesiastical benefices, consists in this, that someone procures a benefice for another under a certain confidence, that is, with the obligation that he resign it to himself or to a third person, or from it pay a pension or part of the fruits. The Canonists discuss this fully.

n. 938.

1. Malice of simony. (A) Simony of divine law is a mortal sin from its whole genus. (a) It is most strictly reproved by Scripture; for when Simon Magus wished to purchase from the apostles with money the power of giving the Holy Spirit, Peter said to him:² "Keep thy money to thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money!" For Christ wills that graces and spiritual gifts be conferred gratuitously: "Freely have you received, freely give."³ (b) And indeed religion is gravely violated when a spiritual and sacred thing is not esteemed more highly than a temporal and profane thing.

² Acts 8:20.

³ Matt. 10:8.

To buy or sell temporal things intrinsically annexed to a spiritual thing, whether concomitantly, as labor in the celebration of Mass, or consequently, as the revenues of a benefice, is simony of divine law, according to the common opinion; but not if it is connected to it antecedently, as a chalice.

n. 939.

(B) Simony of ecclesiastical law is a sin grave from its genus, because it is prohibited by the Church from a motive of religion, in order to remove the grave danger of simony; but it admits smallness of matter, because the Church accommodates its prohibitions to the matter forbidden, and does not prohibit under grave sin what, whether in itself or by reason of the danger which it induces, is only light. But what matter is grave, and what light, ought to be judged from the common estimation of prudent men.

The Church strikes the guilty of simony with various penalties, which the Canonists describe. Specifically, in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, II, n. 8-10, it enacted excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Roman Pontiff, against: "Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever and their accomplices: those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatsoever, of whatever dignity they may be:⁴ those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into religion."⁵

⁴ When simony is confidential, only those are excommunicated who receive and retain an ecclesiastical benefice from that pact, but not the accomplices, nor the one himself conferring or resigning the benefice in confidence, because the matter was so in the old Bulls. Cf. Thesaurus, De poenis ecclesiasticis, Rome, 1770, word "Simonia," c. 3, p. 396.

⁵ This penalty is incurred when something temporal is given for this end, that someone be received into religion, and indeed by those making the pact, and by him who thus admits or is received. But simony is not committed when something is accepted under the title of mere alms, or under the title of support for the time of novitiate in monasteries of men, or when nuns make a pact concerning the dowry which sometimes is required by the rule.

n. 940.

1. Concerning the obligation of restoring what was simoniacally received. Before completed simony, whatever was accepted ought to be restored, since a contract entered into concerning an illicit thing is null, as is proved in the Treatise on Justice, n. 644. After the completed contract, the question can be weighed as to the spiritual thing or the price.

(A) As to the spiritual thing: (a) if the thing accepted is an ecclesiastical benefice, it must be dismissed with the fruits unjustly perceived, excepting only those which correspond to one's own labor; restitution of the benefice is to be made to the legitimate collator, restitution of the fruits to the successor in the benefice, or to the poor, unless a composition is obtained from the Supreme Pontiff, with a just cause acceding.

(b) But if there is question of a spiritual thing distinct from a benefice, it is not to be restored, unless restitution, when possible, is enjoined as a penalty of the crime; thus the sacraments cannot be restored, but relics ought not to be restored unless a sentence of a judge intervenes.

n. 941.

(B) As to the accepted price, if commutative justice has not been injured, it is not to be restored except after the sentence of a judge: because this is prescribed by no law. But restitution is imposed when simony was committed in a beneficiary matter, in the conferral of orders, and in entrance into religion.

But if commutative justice has been injured, because, for example, the price was extorted by fear or deceit, or because it exceeds the advantage of the thing annexed to the spiritual, according to the common estimation of the pious, restitution ought to be made to him who was injured, before the sentence of a judge, because it is required by natural law.

n. 942.

To be noted for practice. Not rarely cases occur in which it is doubted whether some action should be called simoniacal or not. Then attention must be paid to the general practice of the Church, the customs of places not reproved, and the estimation of prudent men.

Thus if someone is unjustly troubled in possession of a benefice, he can free himself by paying money; likewise a faithful person, to whom the sacraments are unjustly denied unless money is furnished, can pay it. Likewise, if you have a right to obtaining some office, and are unjustly troubled by someone, you can give him money that he may abstain from harming you; but you ought not pay an elector anything, lest perhaps he cast a vote against you. He does not act simoniacally who by money impedes the election of an unworthy person; but you cannot buy votes, nor impede another from competing, who has a right of competing.

To avoid the danger of simony, clerics and priests should often meditate upon these words of the Apostle: "Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content."⁶ Otherwise they are mercenaries, they feed themselves and not the sheep: "Their turpitude and wickedness not only pours great darkness upon the priestly order, so that now almost nothing can be held more contemptible and abject by the faithful people; but also brings it about that they themselves obtain nothing more from the priesthood than Judas obtained from the office of apostle, which brought eternal destruction upon him."⁷

⁶ 1 Tim. 6:8.

⁷ Catechism of the Council of Trent, De Ordinis sacramento, n. 5.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 26 passages

Vol. IV, Pt. II, Chapter IV: Simony

Simony is opposed to sacrifice and vow in so far as man, by offering sacrifice or making a vow, relinquishes a part of his property or a right by dedicating it to the service of God, whereas in committing simony he attempts to use that which belongs to God for his own benefit.¹

¹ Acts VIII, 18 sqq.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 100, art. 1.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, 282–287.

Simony may therefore be defined as the serious endeavor to buy or sell for a temporal advantage something which is spiritual, or which is annexed to what is spiritual.²

² St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 25, art. 1: “A deliberate will to buy or sell something spiritual or annexed to something spiritual.” Cfr. Prop. damn. sub Innocent. XI, n. 45–46 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1195 sq.).

The expression “serious endeavor” (studiosa voluntas) in St. Thomas’ definition, which has been embodied in the new Code of Canon Law, emphasizes the fact that, even though no explicit contract exists between the parties concerned, there may still be simony involved.³

³ Slater, A Manual of Mor. Theol., I, 231.

Simony exists only where a material gain is sought or obtained from a spiritual object or function, contrary to natural or positive law.

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 1. Notions and Divisions · Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 2. The Malice of Simony · Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 3, Taxes, and Offerings · Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 4. Sanctions Laid Against Simony

To collect the revenues of a spiritual office and to accept juridically determined emoluments or fees for spiritual functions, such as the so-called iura stolae, is in no sense simoniacal, for “the laborer is worthy of his hire,”⁴ and “they that serve the altar partake with the altar.”⁵

⁴ Matt. X, 10; Luke X, 7. Cfr. 1 Tim. V, 18.—O. Link, Messstipendien, Ratisbon 1901; Bishop Alex. McDonald in the Ave Maria, Notre Dame, Ind., New Series, Vol. X (1919), No. 25.

⁵ 1 Cor. IX, 4 sqq.

n. ¶6.

But the collection of the revenues of a spiritual charge and the acceptance of legitimate fees may become simoniacal if the office was sought mainly because of its emoluments or if the spiritual rights are exercised principally for the sake of the pecuniary revenues attached thereto.

n. ¶7.

Simony is called purely mental when no express contract exists between the parties concerned.

n. ¶8.

It is purely conventional if a contract has been expressly entered into between the parties, but not yet executed by either.

n. ¶9.

It is partly conventional when the contract has been executed by one of the parties.

n. ¶10.

It is real when the contract has been executed by both parties.⁶

⁶ Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Mor. Theol., I, 233.

n. ¶11.

Simony is called “of divine law” (iuris divini) when the transaction is against the law of God; “of ecclesiastical law” (iuris ecclesiastici) when it runs counter to the prohibition of the Church, who in her Code forbids certain contractual dealings in spiritual things.⁷

⁷ Ibid.; C. I. C., can. 727, 728 sq., 730, 1446, 1465, 2371, 2392.

n. ¶12.

Simony is a grave sin in all its species and does not admit of parvitas materiae.

n. ¶13.

Simony is opposed to justice as well as to religion because by committing it man puts spiritual on a level with material things, conducts himself as though he were in control of divine things, and disobeys the express command of Christ: “Freely have ye received, freely give.”⁸

⁸ Matt. X, 8; Acts VIII, 20; 1 Cor. IV, 1.

n. ¶14.

As it is damnable in itself, so simony is detrimental in its effects, because it destroys order and discipline and undermines the respect and obedience due to ecclesiastical authority. The grievously sinful character of this crime is indicated in the words which St. Peter spoke to Simon Magus, when the latter promised to give him a sum of money if he would impart to him the power of the Holy Ghost. “Keep thy money to perish with thee,” said the Prince of the Apostles, “because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”⁹

⁹ Acts VIII, 20.—Tertullian, Apol., c. 39: “The most approved elders preside, having obtained that honor not by a price but by testimony; for no thing belonging to God has a price. Even if there is a sort of treasury, it is not amassed from an honorary sum as though from a purchased religion.” (Ed. Leopold, P. I, 110).

n. ¶15.

Not far removed from simony is the practice of bestowing ecclesiastical offices or benefices upon relatives or favorites, without regard to their qualifications and the general fitness of things, even though there be no desire of material gain (nepotism). The same may be said of unbecoming and improper efforts and means employed for the purpose of obtaining an office or a benefice.¹⁰

¹⁰ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 338.

n. ¶16.

“There are some,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “who betake themselves to this state of life [the priesthood] in order to procure a livelihood; so that, like worldlings generally in some kind of sordid occupation, they seem to look to nothing in the priesthood but gain. For although the natural and divine law command that, according to the saying of the Apostle, he who serves the altar should live by the altar; yet, to approach the altar for gain and lucre is sacrilege of the worst kind.”¹¹

¹¹ Catech. Rom., P. II, c. 7, qu. 4.

n. ¶17.

“As he who serves the altar should live by the altar,” says Bishop Linsenmann, “the hope of procuring a livelihood in an ecclesiastical office is not in itself simony, any more than the exchange of a poor benefice for a rich one, because it is essential to ecclesiastical administration that every priest should have an income corresponding to his station in life and his social position.... But the Church owes it to herself to prevent even the semblance of commercialism in the appointment of her ministers. The prosperity of a society depends largely upon the honesty and integrity of its officials. An ecclesiastical superior who would knowingly and willingly permit his subjects to degrade themselves by employing improper and ignoble means in seeking office, would be guilty of immoral conduct.”¹²

¹² Linsenmann, op. cit., p. 339.

n. ¶18.

From what we have said it is evident that simony is a sin against religion and may in the last analysis be reduced to “real” sacrilege.¹³

¹³ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 197.

n. ¶19.

There is a subspecies of simony that occurs only in connection with ecclesiastical benefices. It is called confidential and consists in this that a man in some way (by election, presentation, bestowal, resignation, etc.) procures an ecclesiastical benefice for another sub certa confidentia, i. e., with the obligation on the latter’s part to resign the benefice in favor of the grantor or of a third person, or to pay him a pension or part of the income from the revenues. This form of simony, too, may be mental, conventional or real, and it may be committed in different ways.¹⁴

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 207.

n. ¶20.

THE DUTY OF RESTITUTION.—An obligation of making restitution of the money or valuables received from a simoniacal transaction may arise from the natural law, from ecclesiastical law, or from both. The natural law demands restitution only if commutative justice has been violated; the ecclesiastical law obliges to restitution if religion alone has been violated. If the simoniacal transaction entailed a violation of commutative justice, the restitution must be made before judicial sentence has been rendered; if there was no violation of justice, restitution need be made only when it is imposed as a penalty and upon conviction by an ecclesiastical judge.

n. ¶21.

Commutative justice is violated, (a) if a purely spiritual thing which has no material value is given in lieu of a temporal gift; (b) if a charge is made for something which one’s office obliges one (ex iustitia) to bestow gratis. Hence restitution must be made if one has accepted money for a blessing or a dispensation, for the consecration of a church, etc., or if a pastor has taken pay for catechetical instruction, or a bishop for the bestowal of a benefice.

n. ¶22.

The ecclesiastical law imposes restitution for simoniacal acts committed, (a) in connection with a benefice, and (b) in connection with entrance upon the religious state.

n. ¶23.

It follows from what we have said that one who would sell a blessed rosary or holy oils would not be bound to make restitution, unless, of course, the amount received (propter spirituale adnexum) exceeded the material value of the object.¹⁵

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 208.

n. ¶24.

If the price agreed upon in a simoniacal transaction has not yet been paid, or if restitution of the same has been made, the spiritual thing bargained for must, if possible, be restored to its original owner, unless the latter relinquishes his right. If the price has been paid, but restitution has not yet been made, the spiritual object under consideration, even though it be susceptible of being restored to its original owner, need not be restored unless restitution is enjoined as a penalty for the crime. Hence one who has simoniacally acquired a sacred relic or the ius patronatus to a benefice, is not bound to restore the same, because the title of ownership has passed over to him and the Church does not require restitution. But if one has simoniacally obtained a benefice, he must return the same and make restitution of the revenues he has derived therefrom, because the Church has rendered such acquisition invalid under pain of restitution.

n. ¶25.

If the duty of restitution arises from a violation of commutative justice, the object acquired by simoniacal means must be restored to the person who sold it, unless it be an ecclesiastical benefice. If, on the other hand, the duty of making restitution is based solely upon ecclesiastical law, restitution must be made according to the terms of the latter, which are briefly as follows: a) If the spiritual thing that formed the object of the simoniacal transaction has not yet been delivered, restitution must be made to him who paid the price, for he is the one who suffered the loss. b) If the object has changed hands, in case of an ecclesiastical benefice, the purchase price must be restored to the Church with which the benefice is connected, even though no violation of justice was involved; if the object is not a benefice, restitution must be made in favor of the poor.¹⁶

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 209.

n. ¶26.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 25, art. 1.—IDEM, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 100.—Suarez, De Religione, l. IV.—A. Leinz, Die Simonie, Freiburg 1902.—P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., l. IV, tr. 10, c. 8.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 231 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 194 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, pp. 525 sqq.—La Croix, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 57.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 270 sqq.—J. d’Annibale, Summula Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 90 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 297 sqq.—N. A. Weber, art. “Simony” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 1 sq.—IDEM, A History of Simony in the Christian Church, Baltimore 1909.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 11 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 1. Notions and Divisions

n. 275.

I. Notions. Simony is a real sacrilege of agreements which, in view of religion, are prohibited concerning a spiritual thing or a temporal thing connected with it.

II. Simony is distinguished as more strictly so called, or of divine law, and more broadly so called, or of ecclesiastical law. Cf. Laymann, Theol. mor. L. 4, Tr. 10, c. ult. n. 3.

Purely mental simony is done without an exterior pact; conventional simony is done through a pact; real simony is completed by at least partial execution of the pact. Before the Code, that was called mixed which was completed by execution on the part of one side only. Simony in the matter of benefices has customarily been called confidential, because it is committed through secret conditions contained in an agreement of an honorable appearance.

n. 276.

Simony of divine law is thus defined by canon 727, §1: "A studied will of buying or selling for a temporal price an intrinsically spiritual thing, e.g., Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, indulgences, etc.; or a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing in such a way that the temporal thing can in no way exist without the spiritual thing, e.g., an ecclesiastical benefice, etc.; or that the spiritual thing is the object, even partial, of the contract, e.g., consecration in the sale of a consecrated chalice."

a) A studied will: i.e., not only deliberate, but choosing means: i.e., whether of an action in which the simoniacal intention is disguised (mental simony, or mixedly mental), or of an open agreement (conventional simony), or even of the handing over of a thing promised by agreement (real simony).

There are indeed some who understand studied will as put for deliberate. But then that definition, which the Code, because it was classical, used, would define the purpose of simony rather than simony itself: as if you should describe theft as a deliberate will of taking another's thing. Nor does a reason appear why a condition common to every grave sin should be commemorated here. Nor would the delict of simony be touched, since it cannot be consummated by an internal sin. Cf. Ball.-Palm., Op. theol. II, 445.

The word studied itself, which of itself signifies application of the mind, seems to have been taken from cap. 11, C. I, q. 1, which thus begins: "He who studies to buy the house of God for a price." Suarez, Rel., tr. III, L. 4, c. 1, n. 9, reports the various explanations proposed for this word.

b) Will is said rather than agreement. For although simony is formally consummated in an agreement, an express or formal agreement is not required even for the delict itself. But for the sin, the interior will already suffices. Therefore the words studied will seem to supply the word agreement, so that no necessity of an express convention can be alleged.

Of buying or selling; by these words is understood any onerous agreement, whether of exchange or of renunciation, even if not led through to effect, even tacit, "in which namely the simoniacal mind is not expressly manifested but is gathered from the circumstances" (c. 728). Therefore, as often as there is an intention of obligating from a pact that is not gratuitous, there is present the studied will which suffices for simony. Hence, before the Code, they distinguished simony as purely mental, without exterior pact; conventional, through a pact; real, which is completed by execution of the pact, at least partial. That was called mixed which was completed by execution on one part only.

Therefore, without a reciprocal agreement simony is not had. Wherefore he is not simoniacal who, merely under hope of gratitude, confers a temporal gift on him who, from gratitude, can confer a spiritual thing.

c) For a temporal price. The proper place of price is exchange, in which two things or performances are compared with one another, and the one is paid or performed as equivalent to the other. And most strictly there is a price if money is to be given, since price is said to be the value of a thing expressed in money.

In broader use, any gain perceived because of any performance of a thing or action can be called a price, even if, comparison being removed, it is not given as an equivalent.

A temporal price is that which comes into estimation in the order of human things: it can be money or a similar thing; praise, blame, recommendation, patronage; service or attendance. Hence it is called by the generic name of gift, and is distinguished as gift from the hand (money), gift from the tongue (recommendation, etc.), gift from service (attendance).

In order that one sin by simony, is it necessary that a price properly so called be exacted, or does even a price understood in broader use suffice? This will be gathered below from the weighed malice of simony.

d) A spiritual thing. Now the other element of simony, i.e., the thing which is forbidden to be sold, must be declared. Such in the first place is a spiritual thing.

A spiritual thing is understood as a supernatural thing ordered to salvation: whether it is formally such, as grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; or causally, as are the sacraments, preaching, sacramentals, prayers; or is the effect and use of supernatural power, as consecration, absolution, dispensation, blessing, excommunication, election, presentation, confirmation (of nomination or election to an ecclesiastical office), conferral of a benefice, some act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

What about the communication of sacred knowledge? This is not reckoned spiritual. Wherefore a true price can be accepted for teaching theology, for handing on Christian doctrine to boys in school, just as profane discipline is handed on there. Yet one must speak otherwise concerning instruction which is directed to the sole spiritual utility of others, as catechetical instruction for preparing first communion. In the same manner a distinction must be made between counsels which are directed merely to the spiritual good of another, and counsels which give temporal instruction (cf. Ball.-Palm. II, n. 466).

N. B. The object of simony is had more strictly where a spiritual thing is conferred ex opere operato, as would have been the sacred power which Simon Magus desired to buy, than when a spiritual effect is conferred only ex opere operantis, or through the occasion of this, for instance through prayers, through preaching.

e) Or a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing. Therefore there are also things temporal in themselves which, because of connection with a spiritual thing, it is not lawful to sell. Yet not every connection brings this prohibition.

Before the Code, they distinguished temporal things annexed to spiritual things antecedently or by way of antecedent, i.e., which by nature were prior to spiritual things: vessels, sacred vestments with respect to the sacraments, the right of patronage with respect to a benefice; temporal things annexed concomitantly, or those which existed at the same time with spiritual things: labor in the administration of sacraments; temporal things annexed consequently, or those which follow a spiritual thing: revenues of a benefice, which are given because of the spiritual office.

Temporal things annexed consequently were said to be excluded from every sale; while, for the value of the matter, buying and selling of a temporal thing antecedently annexed was declared lawful (cf. c. 730), if nevertheless you except the right of patronage, whose sale is positively prohibited (c. 1470, §1, 6°).

Concerning a temporal thing concomitant with a spiritual thing, for example concerning labor joined with a spiritual administration, a distinction must be made between labor extrinsic, which is added to the performance and is not always necessary, for instance Mass to be said late or to be sung, or in a distant place, or at the nod of some person: labor of this kind certainly can strictly be sold or hired by him who already does not owe it from justice, by reason of his office; and labor intrinsic, which cannot be separated from the performance: for example the work, the time to be spent in celebrating Mass, etc. There was no small controversy concerning this labor, which seems to be resolved by this distinction: taken terminatively, that labor can be sold for no price, since it is terminated at the spiritual thing; considered in itself, why the very work expended cannot be hired and let just as the gold of a consecrated chalice can be sold does not at once appear.

Yet they rightly reply that in the case there is no question of hiring and letting work, since no labor but a spiritual fruit is sought, so that the labor is not estimable by price except from the work for whose sake it is undertaken. Wherefore if the work is forbidden to be venal, neither is the labor intrinsically necessary to the work permitted to be venal. Yet nothing would prohibit the sacred minister, if because of that labor he could not do another fruitful thing, from demanding compensation for cessant gain. Cf. Laymann, L. 1, tr. 10, c. 8, n. 11, 12; Arendt, S.J., De laesione iustitiae commutativae, in missae manuali stipendio alteri celebranti diminuto, Parergon, p. 44, 45.

Positively, however, it is forbidden that you exact a greater stipend for saying Mass at a privileged altar (can. 918). Yet a priest does not exact more who, when he has received various stipends, reserves applications at a privileged altar for the richer ones and admonishes those seeking concerning the matter, provided he acts sincerely. But that manner of acting will easily be tainted by a certain appearance of cupidity.

In place of previously received modes of speaking, which were not so clear, the Code substituted clearer and fuller ones, distinguishing a twofold connection: one of individual or necessary nexus, for example such as an ecclesiastical benefice has, or the right of receiving ecclesiastical revenues, which necessarily calls for an ecclesiastical office: "a benefice because of an office"; the other, of participation in the contract, as if, in selling a consecrated chalice, you increase the price because of the consecration: this then becomes a partial object of the contract.

By the words of the canon, "a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing in such a way that the temporal thing can in no way exist without the spiritual thing," labor which cannot be separated from a spiritual action or administration seems to be included as an object of simony, which, moreover, already before the Code, the more common opinion held. Yet because of the general mind of the legislator, who is not presumed, unless he clearly states it, to define questions of this sort authentically, we think controversy can still be raised concerning this matter.

n. 277.

Simony of ecclesiastical law is "to give... temporal things annexed to a spiritual thing for temporal things annexed to a spiritual thing, or spiritual things for spiritual things, or even temporal things for temporal things, if this is prohibited by the Church because of danger of irreverence toward spiritual things" (c. 727, §2). Yet simony of divine law alone is strictly called simony. Cf. Laymann, Th. mor. L. IV, tr. 10, c. 8, n. 3.

Simony at least of ecclesiastical law is committed: 1. by exchange of benefices done by one's own authority or against other prescriptions (cc. 1487, 1488, §1); by private resignation of a benefice in favor of a third party or under a condition which touches the distribution of revenues (c. 1486).

By various payments or compensations which are imposed upon a cleric in the act of making provision of a benefice (c. 1441).
By sale of an office which is ordered to sacred things only extrinsically, as the office of Sacristan, of Oeconomus. For although, from c. 145, ecclesiastical office is to be taken strictly unless something else appears from the context of the discourse, nevertheless we think that the disposition of the prior law remains, which commanded the gratuitous conferral of such an office.
By demanding remuneration for labor expended in collecting and distributing Masses, unless the Apostolic See has conceded it. For manual stipends must be transmitted whole, from c. 840. (Cf. Ferreres, I, 375; but, contrary to what he judges, we do not think that he is simoniacal who for received stipends gives wages to celebrants, against the prescription of c. 827.)
By demanding, without the Bishop's permission, remuneration for the expenses of the celebration of Mass (c. 1303). (But he who demands a greater stipend than the conceded one seems to be unjust rather than simoniacal. Against Ferreres, I, 376.) Today, however, no simony seems to be committed by those who, for the value of the matter, sell sacred things, blessed things, things enriched with indulgences (cf. c. 1539, §1), although the indulgences in reality perish (cf. c. 924, §2).

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 2. The Malice of Simony

n. 278.

St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 100, art. 1, recognizes a threefold ratio of malice in simony: "because a spiritual thing cannot be compensated by any earthly price," since it far transcends earthly things; because the sale of a thing whose dominion is not had is not lawful, and the Pope himself is not lord but principal dispenser of spiritual things (l. c. ad 7); because it is repugnant to the origin of spiritual things, since they have come to us from the gratuitous Will of God. Therefore contempt of the transcendence of spiritual things and of their gratuitous origin, besides usurpation of perfect dominion, composes this malice. Yet especially injurious to a sacred thing is the equation of a spiritual thing and a temporal price. Commonly, moreover, they judge that in simony there is had a special ratio of real sacrilege, which, outside this case, they refuse to subdivide into other species. And because no gift of grace can become venal without grave irreverence both toward the gift itself and also toward God, and the quantity of the price does not change this irreverence, in simony of divine law it is denied that slightness of matter can be had. Yet often the smallness of the reward can prove that a simoniacal mind was absent.
In simony of ecclesiastical law no comparison is made of a spiritual thing with a temporal thing. It is therefore a certain extension of simony to cases not comprehended by natural law; but, since it is forbidden by the same motive, each simony is of the same moral species, namely real sacrilege. Although this simony admits slightness of matter. Yet in the forbidden exchange of two spiritual things there can be present an intention of temporal gain and an abusive usurpation of dominion over a sacred thing. Wherefore simony itself of ecclesiastical law can sometimes be vitiated by some simony of divine law. For this reason we preferred above to recount the examples of simony of ecclesiastical law as at least infected with this genus of simony.

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 3, Taxes, and Offerings

n. 279.

What is asked. There is in the Church a use of stipends, taxes, and offerings for sacred functions or performances.

Hence the question arises how these can be paid or exacted without simony.

Notions. Stipends are paid to him who has either promised to apply a Mass, or administered a sacrament, or discharged a sacred function. Taxes designate money which, besides compensation for the labor spent in writing a document, is exacted by a Prelate who administers law, grants a dispensation or grace. Offerings, outside those particular adjuncts, are contributed by the faithful either freely or by compulsion: freely, as in certain places at the offertory in a funeral Mass, or those which are placed in boxes for various intentions, or even are found placed upon altars; by compulsion, as first-fruits once were and, where they are still in use, tithes. Stipends are paid to the minister working in sacred things; taxes to the Superior dispensing or granting a grace or administering law; offerings are paid either to a sacred person, the pastor, or to the universal or particular Church. Stipends ¹ and offerings made to some person pertain, at least reductively, to the genus of recompense or wages, yet so that stipends are paid more for a particular service or administration, offerings more for services in general, for example of a pastor; taxes and offerings which are not owed to persons approach more to the ratio of a tribute.
Permitted exchanges. In the first place, compensations must be distinguished for performances which are accidental to sacred actions, or which are joined with them almost as a chalice with consecration. Such are singing, exterior pomp of Mass, the exterior apparatus of a sacred ceremony, the obligation of celebrating at a later hour, in a distant or inconvenient place, the very obligation of celebrating in a definite place or of acting as chaplain; compensation for use of sacred furnishings. For unless they are already owed from elsewhere by office, or unless the Church forbids certain things, as it forbids anything to be sought for the obligation of celebrating at a privileged altar, all these things can be exchanged for a price.

Yet the Church is accustomed, in order to remove every appearance of trafficking or cupidity of base gain, to impose upon these external adjuncts a legal price defined by custom or by competent authority. He who exacts anything beyond that just price is a violator of justice. Is he also simoniacal? Not a few think so. "The excess," say Ball.-Palm. II, 465, "is judged to be exacted for the spiritual thing and therefore involves simony." But this, at most, will be a presumption of the external forum. In the internal forum the mind of the agent must be considered. Nor do we think that he who at the same time asks what he could and what was too much is moved by an intention diverse in itself (cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 534).

Concerning stipends, etc., for the sacred thing itself. Setting aside every accessory extrinsic labor or expense to be compensated, it is indubitable among Catholics that stipends, taxes, offerings, according to approved usages, can be given and received without the sin of simony, since the Church cannot err in those things which, pertaining to the order of faith or morals, she herself does or approves. And in c. 730 an express declaration is read: "Simony is not had when a temporal thing is given not for a spiritual thing but on its occasion, from a just title recognized by the sacred canons or by legitimate custom." In this canon the words "not for a spiritual thing" are to be understood as if you said, not by way of exchange with a spiritual thing, or, as St. Thomas says (2, 2, q. 100, art. 1, c.), not by compensating a spiritual thing with an earthly price (cf. Ball.-Palm. II, 401). Nor can intrinsic labor itself, or labor inseparable from the sacred action, be compensated by a price, because, since the work as such has not been hired, the labor itself is estimated only from the value of the fruit or work, which is spiritual.

Now there is a question concerning the better explanation of a thing which is established as honorable. Not a few judge the same to be laborious and difficult. We rather adhere to Ballerini-Palmieri saying, II, 403: "And the question, thus proposed, namely concerning the stipend which is owed to the worker, is sufficiently plain and free from difficulty."

We think that this question must be resolved thus.

By the witness of St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 9:7-14, even in the New Testament the Lord conferred upon one exercising sacred ministries a just title of sustenance: "Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and those who serve the altar share with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel to live from the Gospel." Therefore, just as civil society owes congruous sustenance to those who discharge public offices, not otherwise the spiritual society or Church must feed those whom she herself deputes to the exercise of sacred ministries. But the supreme civil power defines the mode by which congruous sustenance comes to its officials: to some, for instance judges, it pays from the treasury a just annual pension; to others, for instance notaries, it grants a right of exacting stipends for acts to which they add public faith. And in a not dissimilar ratio, the ecclesiastical Legislator, who confers sacred offices pertaining to the Church, orders the mode by which provision is made for the congruous sustenance of sacred ministers. This mode has varied historically. Today it provides for that sustenance both through revenues of benefices, and through stole fees and various offerings, if there is question of pastors, and through Mass stipends and taxes and mutual performances of this kind.

Moreover that every stain of simony is absent from those performances is thus easily demonstrated. The dominion of God is not violated, since God Himself permits that the minister share with the altar and live from the Gospel; nothing is done against gratuity commanded by God, since the Lord Himself permits the correlative obligation of ministries and stipends or offerings, as is made manifest from the same sacred text. Therefore of the three malices which above, n. 278, we said were present in simony, the third, i.e., equation of a spiritual and temporal thing, which alone remains, is itself removed if, as Suarez says, Rel. tr. 3, L. 4, c. 46, money is given not by reason of the thing but by reason of the subject, i.e., it is not given as a price to be commensurated or commensurable with the ministry or labor of the worker, but "to the condition of the person needing a congruous sustenance proportionate to himself and to the family belonging to him, as is sufficiently clear of itself" (ibid.).

The proposed explanation squares perfectly with the conditions of c. 730. Let us recall the words of the canon. "The temporal thing is not given for a spiritual thing," insofar as no exchange of thing with thing is made, no "convention for a temporal thing under the ratio of price" (Suarez, l. c.). "By comparison of thing to thing," the Eximious Doctor thus continues, ibidem n. 10, "each gives and receives gratuitously, because he does not give one thing for another." - "But on its occasion." Insofar as the obligation undertaken by the sacred minister, for example of saying Mass, is not the juridic cause of the offering (cf. below, in the treatise on justice, the notion of juridic cause); nor is the money given to the priest the juridic cause of the priest's obligation. The juridic cause of the obligation, on the part of the priest, is an office either simply to be exercised because of an office undertaken, for example of pastor, or conditionally to be exercised when a stipend has been received, when there is question of the application of a Mass not yet owed; and the juridic cause of the offering, on the part of the faithful offerer, is the prescribed or spontaneous fulfillment of the office of feeding the one ministering to him. "Each," says Suarez, l. c., "from the debt of justice exhibits that which is of his office; for the very equity of justice demands that if one, from office or convention or by reason of stipend, is obligated from justice to minister, the other from the same debt of justice is obligated to feed the one ministering to him." - "From a just title": i.e., of congruous sustenance, which St. Thomas and all indicate. - "Recognized by the sacred canons or by legitimate custom." For just as in civil society itself, the power which confers an office at the same time defines taxatively the mode of recompense, so it pertains to ecclesiastical law to define on what occasion, within what limits, a stipend of sustenance is to be paid. Hence St. Thomas permits a stipend for the sustenance of those "who minister the sacraments of Christ" according to the ordinance of the Church and approved customs.

Thus far concerning stipends properly so called. Moreover, the explanation of offerings is the same. Concerning the taxes themselves, this alone is specially to be noted: that they are demanded under a varied ratio: by way of sustenance of the burdens of the Pontificate, by way of a fine to be applied to a pious cause, by way of commutation, just as vows are commuted into alms (St. Alphonsus, L. 3, n. 96); and, we add this, so that a rich alms may supply a cause for dispensation which otherwise could be absent.

¹ Remuneration of service performed has the generic name of stipend, which was first used of military recompense. If the cause was not the value of the grace conferred or of the service performed, but the sustenance of the agent, it is called a stipend of sustenance (Suarez, De Relig., Tr. 3, L. 4, c. 46).

n. 280.

Corollaries. 1. Gratuity is twofold: one which excludes only price, the other which excludes even a stipend of sustenance. The former is commended by the Lord saying (St. Matt. 10:8), "Freely you have received, freely give"; and at the same time thus instructing the disciples whom He was sending: "Remain in the same house, eating and drinking the things that are with them: for the worker is worthy of his wage" (St. Luke 10:7). These words not obscurely signify a stipend of sustenance. We are taught by canon 730 that this gratuity can suffice for excluding simony. And the people themselves, in common speech, acknowledge this gratuity, when they call Mass stipends by the name of alms. The Apostle ascribes a fuller gratuity to himself in the place cited above, 1 Cor. 9:7, and also when, 2 Cor. 11:7, he says, "I have preached the Gospel to you freely"; and the Church commands the same, when she excludes every stipend from sacred ordination, or when c. 552, §2, orders that the will of a girl be explored freely before the novitiate and before profession.

Moreover, because a sacred minister as such has the right to live from the Gospel, even a rich man can exact stipends.

When an act of sacred ministry is not already owed from justice, for instance application of Mass, there is added a contract which, when there is question of Mass, or of a foundation (c. 1514, §2), takes on the form of a contract do ut facias, because first, formally or equivalently, the stipend is given before the obligation of applying the Mass is undertaken. With the just title of sustenance and the general obligation of justice of feeding the priest presupposed, that convention is lawful: an agreement is lawfully made concerning a thing owed from justice. But that agreement does not create a title of justice as to substance, but confirms it and makes it actually exigible, by more determining, within the limits permitted by the Church, the person of the celebrant, the person paying the stipend, time, mode, intention, and the very quantity of the stipend. As Suarez says, Rel. tr. 3, L. 4, c. 46, n. 10: "through the pact a new obligation is not added, but that which is present is explained and declared." Bonacina, De Simonia, Q. VI, Punct. 2, has similar things.
This is also the advantage of the given explanation: that, with every dissimulation or far-fetched subtlety removed, we can profess the true intentions of the one paying the stipend and of the priest receiving it, such as they are in reality, or are perceived to be at first sight. What does the faithful ask? the application of Mass. What does the priest promise? the application of Mass. What is the means of obtaining it? the given stipend. Is the stipend paid, is the application done, for money? Distinguish: as a price, I deny; as a stipend of sustenance, I concede. This distinction belongs to St. Thomas himself: "the priest does not receive money as a price of the consecration of the Eucharist... but as a stipend of his sustenance," 2, 2, q. 100, art. 2 ad 2. The same distinction is used by Bonacina, De Sacramentis, Disp. 4, Q. VIII, Punct. VIII, n. 2. And does not the sacred text itself, when it permits, l. c., that the one announcing the Gospel live from the Gospel, manifestly affirm that it is lawful that something temporal be received for the very Gospel by way of stipend of sustenance?
Why, although individual stipends of Masses are accustomed to be a modest sum of money, is there nevertheless a grave obligation of saying individual Masses? For us the ratio is at hand: the will of the Church, which obliges the priest under grave obligation so that, having accepted the stipend, he exercise his priestly office of offering the sacred rite.
Sacred ministries, which are in the dominion of God, are committed to the Church to be dispensed and administered. Therefore in ministries on whose occasion the Church does not permit a stipend, the condition divinely required is lacking so that stipends may be honestly sought. Wherefore, although even then the malice of equation of a temporal thing with a spiritual thing is absent, nevertheless the two other malices which enter into the sin of simony are not lacking: usurped dominion of God; violated gratuitous intention of Him. For this reason we judge a priest guilty of simony of divine law who accepts a stipend for a bination Mass, or for the administration of penance or of another ministry which he ought to perform altogether freely.

Therefore St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 100, art. 3 ad 2, logically distinguishing the poor from deputed ministers, attributes to these alone a right of stipend of sustenance; but he excuses the money which the poor accept so that they may pour forth prayers only because it is judged to have been given under title of gratuitous beneficence. "Those who give alms to the poor so that they may obtain the suffrages of prayers from them, do not give under that tenor as if intending to buy prayers; but through gratuitous beneficence they provoke the minds of the poor to this, that they may pray for them freely and from charity."

n. 281.

Scholia. 1. Concerning other opinions. The proposed opinion we have copied almost word for word from Suarez; it also perfectly agrees with the mind and words of St. Thomas. It is also contained in these few words of Lehmkuhl, I, 534: "Simony and indeed of divine law is to say Mass for money... Yet to accept stipends for Masses... is not simony, because a just title of sustenance is present. (For if something is given as a price, an equation of the thing performed with the price given is made; and this is absent if something is bestowed under title of sustenance; then, namely, the thing performed or the labor expended gives occasion of repaying something, which must in no way be taken as an equivalent.)"

Far otherwise, not a few, after Laymann, Theol. mor., L. IV, tr. X, c. ult., n. 13, who nevertheless, we wish this to be noted, does not impose that explanation as necessary but adds it to the opinion of Suarez by the words "Nevertheless it can be explained otherwise," thought that to excuse stipends they had subtly to seek in the very agreement with the priest or sacred minister something which can be bought by a price properly so called. That this was sought by them in vain seems to us to have been well demonstrated by R. P. de la Taille in Gregorianum, 1923, Les offrandes de messe^†, p. 358 ff. And even omitting this, an explanation of this kind cannot be approved by us: a) because it falsely supposes that money can be given only either gratuitously or as a price, and thus removes from the middle the title of sustenance, which, appealed to by the princes of theology, is not unknown even in civil society, as the distinction itself commonly used in vernacular languages between the words honorarium and salary proves; b) because in the case no exchange is present. For in exchange two things are compared with one another, whereas here the estimation is made from the common necessity of food (cf. Ball.-Palm., II, 461, end); c) because that fictitious commutative contract limps ¹, since the grave obligation of one application of Mass is not fitted to the light matter of one stipend. Wherefore not a few supporters of the opinion which we disapprove denied the very gravity of the obligation. Palmieri, in the note to IV, 1012, admits the difficulty; and, no otherwise than Bucceroni, Theol. mor., III, 621, finally and at last has recourse to the precept of the Church, so that in some way they come near to our opinion; d) because it is with difficulty composed with c. 730. The canon requires a title approved by the Church. But if in reality in the promise of the priest there is present an element which, according to itself, is exchangeable for a price, the positive recognition of the title by the Church becomes superfluous, which recognition nevertheless the canon requires. And it would have to be said in like manner in every sacred performance, whether it is promised by a deputed minister or by a private person. But this would lead us to conclusions practically impossible.

The things which we have said above suffice so that the stain of simony is absent from every stipend. Yet our explanation by no means excludes a special explanation concerning some performance of a sacred thing, for instance concerning the application of Mass. R. P. de la Taille, calling upon the historical view of sacrifices, thought a special and not inelegant explanation concerning Mass stipends should be proposed both in the recent and already celebrated work Mysterium Fidei, and in Gregorianum, 1923: that modern stipends perform the role of the offerings which formerly the faithful brought to the altar, and which, since at least in part they were converted into the Body and Blood of Christ and sustained the priest, no otherwise than the victims of the Old Testament, were judged to be offered to God by the priest as the mandatary of the offerer, and by God were given to the priests. This solution of the question was received with great applause by R. P. Beauduin, O.S.B., in Les Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, 1922, pp. 178-195; and indeed, far from every simony, it best preserves the ratio of the title of sustenance. We abstain here from a historical examination of the matter, since it is not necessary for our end. We observe only that this explanation cannot be proposed as universal, since through it the ratio cannot be given of a stipend which a non-Catholic offers to obtain the application of Mass, since not even through a priest can an infidel offer the sacrifice of the Mass; or of stole fees, which today nevertheless do not seem capable of being denied to be owed from justice, with attention to c. 463, §1, and c. 1410, by which they can also constitute the dowry of a benefice.

Through the faithful who pay a stipend, the ecclesiastical Legislator fulfills, at least in part, the obligation of justice of sustaining sacred ministers. Therefore under this respect those faithful can be said to be as it were mandataries of the Church in paying stipends. Things stand thus as if the Church receives stipends or other offerings, and then gives them to priests or sacred ministers. Therefore just as formerly she divided the common mass of goods through the hands of bishops among priests or sacred ministers, the poor, and churches, so now, even by means of stipends, she permits sacred ministers the direct reception of a congruous part of sustenance. And just as habitual reception of revenues is often connected with the obligation of saying several Masses, so accidental reception of money is connected with the accidental office of feeding, through the celebration of Mass, him or those for whom the Mass is to be offered. "Therefore the priest accepting a separate stipend represents the Church, which assigns to him the office of applying from justice, just as she permits Ordinaries, by accepting perpetual foundations, to constitute in the name of the Church a more stable office of applying Masses."

¹ In his learned and very useful historical-juridical study whose title is Stipendia Missarum, Prof. Vincentius Del Giudice, in c. 5, n. 5 ff., nevertheless weighing the matter more juridically than morally, demonstrates that every contract of exchange is impossible. He himself, however, n. 10, has recourse to mandate.

n. 282.

Applications. 1. In our opinion, simony of divine law is committed by exacting some temporal price for a sacred ministry if the title has not been recognized by the Church, even if the cause of sustenance is alleged.

Admission into religion is a spiritual performance, which therefore excludes a temporal price. Yet the Church in a universal mode permits that in Congregations of religious women a dowry of sustenance be exacted; indeed, in Monasteries of Nuns, the dowry must be exacted (c. 547). That the expenses of postulancy and novitiate can be compensated is clear of itself, since postulants or novices have acquired no right to the goods of the religion. A needy religion can also exact that from which a new professed can be fed. But if it has been opulent, the religious themselves have a right to be fed, so that by exacting compensation for food at least simony of ecclesiastical law would be committed; indeed, according to St. Thomas (4 S. d. 25, q. 3, art. 2, quaestiuncula 2 ad 7), simony of divine law. Yet this is controverted.
Mass legacies and foundations themselves cannot, contrary to what Wernz thought, Ius Decret. VI, 344, be made honest through a donation under a mode or condition. For that mode, considered in itself, as Del Giudice, Stipendia Missarum, c. 5, n. 9, very well observes, does not differ at all from the ordinary obligation. Therefore when it is constituted in favor of the giver or of another person and by the one burdened himself, the necessary gratuity for avoiding simony would be lacking, unless the explanation by the title of sustenance of sacred ministers, permitted by God and recognized by the Church, could be appealed to here also.

He is not simoniacal who is moved by a stipend to celebrate; - who redeems relics lest they perish or be profaned; - who removes by money an unjust vexation contrary to his own election, unless at the same time he wishes to obtain the positive help of the same person; - who by money entices another to exercise acts of piety or religion or of another virtue.

Yet, unless there is danger in delay, the Ordinary must be admonished concerning relics which stand for sale, so that he himself may provide. Cf. decree of Dec. 21, 1878, apud Ball.-Palm., Op. theol. II, n. 475, and c. 1289.

What must be said about poor persons who pour forth certain prayers for a fixed price, perform novena devotions for the intention of those paying?

Although neither here is there a properly so called equation of spiritual and temporal thing, nevertheless, because the poor exercise no spiritual ministry which confers upon them a title of sustenance, that usage, as is said in the place already alleged, 2, 2, q. 100, art. 3 ad 2, must be made honest by attributing to the donors the intention of gratuitous beneficence, under hope of the spiritual assistance of prayers. The promise of the poor person then can oblige only his fidelity.

But those who judge that the burden of an undertaken obligation can be compensated by money will not be alien from admitting a true agreement.

n. 283.

You ask to whom it pertains to define stipends and taxes.

a) The stipend of Masses is defined by the local Ordinary or, in the absence of his decree, by the custom of the diocese (c. 831). No priest, even an exempt religious, can exact more; yet more spontaneously offered can be accepted, and, unless the Ordinary has prohibited it, even less (c. 832).

b) Bishops, not Capitular Vicars nor, without mandate, Vicars General, define, even for exempt religious, the stipend which a poor church can exact from priests celebrating in it for their own advantage because of utensils and the other things necessary for Mass. The definition must be made in synod, or the chapter must be heard (cf. c. 1303).

a) Local Ordinaries compose for their territory, by counsel of the cathedral chapter, a list of funeral taxes or alms; nor can anything be exacted beyond it (cc. 1234, 1235).

b) For various acts of voluntary jurisdiction, or for the execution of rescripts of the Apostolic See, or on the occasion of the ministration of sacraments or sacramentals, the taxes to be paid in the whole ecclesiastical province are defined by the provincial Council or meeting of the bishops of the province; but these predefinitions are not valid unless they have first been approved by the Apostolic See (c. 1507).

Yet the tax for execution of a rescript which the Holy See itself is accustomed to establish in rescripts given in commissory form can always be exacted. But can this tax be accumulated with the tax of the provincial Council? Of itself, negatively; but the more useful can be chosen. Yet this must be gathered from the very tenor of the approved provincial taxation.

c) The taxation for judicial acts is defined by the provincial Council or meeting of the bishops of the province (c. 1909).

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. II, Art. IV, § 4. Sanctions Laid Against Simony

n. 284.

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.
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.
"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).

Those making gain from indulgences are punished by the fact itself with excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See (c. 2327).
Those variously delinquent concerning Mass stipends are said to be punished in c. 2321. Cf. III, 302.
Besides the obligation of restitution for taxes unjustly received, those who increase them are said to be punished in c. 2408.

n. 285.

Summary

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.

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.
Vain usurpation of the name of God is of itself a venial sin, graver or lighter according to the adjuncts.
Imprecations against men are often excused from grave sin when a serious will is lacking.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 14 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. I, Ch. III, Art. II, § 3. On Simony

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

1. On the Nature and Gravity of Simony

n. ¶584.

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶585.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He cannot be excused from mental simony who serves a Bishop gratis, with the intention of obliging him, even if only from gratitude and not from justice, to repay him with a benefice (III, 51, 53).
A fortiori, he would be simoniacal who should draw into a pact an antidoral obligation, or an obligation of donation from gratitude; for such a pact introduces at least an obligation of fidelity, which, since it is estimable by some price, certainly renders the pact simoniacal (III, 53 and 764; l. El. qq. ref., n. 18).

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

n. ¶586.

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

n. ¶587.

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

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

2. On the Causes on Account of Which Simony Ceases

n. ¶588.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. On the More Frequent Cases of Simony

n. ¶589.

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

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

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

It is simony to sell more dearly a temporal thing antecedently annexed to a spiritual thing: for example, a consecrated chalice, a blessed rosary, a farm to which the right of patronage inheres, etc. It is said more dearly, because these can licitly be bought or sold by reason of intrinsic value, unless this is prohibited by the Church (III, 71; H. Ap., IV, 47; Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 207).
It is simony to sell a thing concomitantly and intrinsically annexed to a spiritual thing: for example, the labor intrinsically necessary for celebrating Mass.¹
It is simony, according to the more common and more probable opinion, to sell a thing consequently annexed to a spiritual thing, for example the right of perceiving ecclesiastical revenues. The reason is that this thing cannot be acquired except by reason of a spiritual office; therefore neither can it be sold unless the spiritual thing necessarily presupposed to it is sold (III, 70).

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

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

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

n. ¶590.

II. Against ECCLESIASTICAL LAW simony is committed:

By exchanging ecclesiastical benefices, resigning them in favor of another, transacting concerning them, reserving a pension, or bargaining in any way, even for imposing a spiritual burden, without legitimate permission (III, 60, 69-90, where there are many things).
By selling or buying temporal offices canonically instituted for sacred things, as the offices of procurator, steward, sacristan, treasurer, etc. (H. Ap., IV, 42).
By selling part of a sacred cemetery; and this is simony of divine law, if it is sold as a sacred place. Yet the right of a grave can be bought by reason of the burden of not burying others there (III, 71).
By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; but cf. n. 588, 6. Likewise, by selling or exposing as venal blessed rosaries, medals, and other things of this sort blessed with application of indulgences; in which case even the indulgences themselves, from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, are lost (S. C. Ind. et Reliq., July 12, 1847).² Yet the seller can take the care upon himself that the thing be blessed, and afterward accept the price (S. C. Ind., 1896).
By accepting something, even spontaneously offered, indeed by title of gratitude, on the occasion of collation of an order, or even of first tonsure, from the Tridentine Council, Sess. 21, c. 1, on Reform. But the S. C. of the Council, Oct. 9, 1678, permitted that Bishops receive a candle from those to be ordained, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests. Indeed, the same Congregation deputed by Innocent XI fixed the emoluments which can be exacted for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc.
By giving or accepting something, even trifling, for example some flowers, a few fruits, modest foods, on the occasion of an examination for a parish priest to be elected by competition, whether before or after the examination; for this is wholly forbidden by the Tridentine Council, Sess. 24, c. 18, on Reform, under penalties to be incurred after sentence, to remove every danger of human affection in the examiners. Indeed, if someone should give for the examination itself, namely that it proceed prosperously, he would commit simony of divine law, as is evident.
By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of confraternities, against the Bull Quaecumque of Clement VIII, in which there are decreed both invalidity of the act and privation of offices and inability to obtain those and others in the future. This penalty can be remitted by the Roman Pontiff alone, but it seems not to be incurred except by means of a declaratory sentence of the crime.
By committing to others the celebration of a Mass owed from a stipend, part being retained from mutual pact (Noldin, II, n. 185, 7).

4. On the Penalties Enacted Against Simoniacs, and Also on the Obligation of Restoring What Has Been Accepted

n. ¶591.

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

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

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

IN ENTRANCE INTO RELIGION strictly so called, through profession. Real simony is punished with excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, in those presuming to give or accept. - Those accepting were formerly suspended from capitular offices and every act of jurisdiction. But this penalty seems abrogated from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (cf. n. 1337). But the professed one, whose profession indeed is valid, must after sentence be transferred into a stricter monastery (III, 108; H. Ap., IV, 50).
IN MASS STIPENDS AND INDULGENCES. They are struck with the same reserved excommunication: a) Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses and capturing profit from them, by causing them to be celebrated by reason of a lesser stipend. b) All who, whether by conceding, publishing, or ordering publication, make profit from indulgences and other spiritual graces (cf. n. 1338, 1339). To these add the things which we said n. 590, 7, concerning the erection of confraternities.
IN THE SIMONIACAL ELECTION OF A POPE; see n. 1312, 3.

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

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

n. ¶592.

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

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

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

If, a temporal price having been accepted, the spiritual thing has not been handed over or furnished, the price must be restored to the one who gave, since he gave from a false title.
If delivery has followed on both sides, in this case, according to some, the price must still be returned to the giver, on account of the nullity of the contract; according to others, to the church where the benefice is, as a penalty of both exchanging parties; finally, according to others, it can also be given to the poor. These three opinions are probable, but the second and third are more probable (H. Ap., IV, 53; Conf. dir., IV, 28).

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 10 passages

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. II, Art. II, § III. On Simony

n. ¶350.

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

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

n. ¶351.

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

Division. Simony is distinguished as:

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶352.

Principles. - I. For Simony it is required that the temporal thing be given or accepted, either formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself and in exchange for it, so that an equating of the spiritual thing with the temporal thing is made, or a commutation, from the primary motive of having one thing for the other as a price or just compensation. The reason is clear from the very definition of Simony. Hence if some honest motive intervenes, by force of which the temporal thing is given, and in turn the spiritual, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impelling cause, and therefore it would not be Simony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶353.

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

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

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

Resp. Negatively, if the primary intention is of giving the temporal thing gratuitously; because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the Superior. But otherwise if the spiritual thing is intended as a due recompense, not, however, as the effect of gratitude of soul. This intention, unless the opposite either is established or can be gathered from adjuncts, for example from the smallness of the gift, etc., is to be presumed to exist virtually, if another title is lacking, for example of removing an unjust vexation, etc.¹

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

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

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

n. ¶354.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶355.

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

Resp. Negatively of itself, because by this reason a spiritual thing is not properly equated with a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which would otherwise have to be handed over. For he does not sin who offers to a creditor 100 Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he remit a debt of $100; therefore by parity neither does he sin who promises a Mass for the outcome of a game, while the other puts up $1. - Thus Voit² against others. - Besides, a game of this sort rarely lacks some scandal, and therefore must always be dissuaded from.

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

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

n. ¶356.

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) Eucharist, nothing is customarily accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

Resp. 4° Around burial it has been established:

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶357.

You will resolve. - 1° He does not commit Simony who exchanges Relics with Relics;¹ because thus the spiritual is not given for the temporal. The same must be said of other sacred things, if you except benefices, whose exchange, lest it be done by proper authority, is prohibited by the Church.

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

3° He does not commit Simony who pays money to a heretical prince, lest he be impeded from entrance to the Church or from frequenting religious assemblies of Catholics; or to a malevolent man, lest he be unjustly defamed by him and barred from a benefice to which he has or can have a right. The reason is that in this way the temporal thing is not given for a spiritual right, but for removing or impeding injury, which is something temporal.

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

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

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

n. ¶358.

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

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

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

Quaer. 2° Must the price accepted simoniacally for a spiritual thing be restored?

Resp. 1° If only the crime of simony intervened, but no injury of justice, there is no obligation of restoring the simoniacal price before a condemnatory sentence of a judge, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred with the spiritual thing to another. Thus Suarez, Lessius, Laymann, Reiffenstuel apud Schmalzgr.¹

Resp. 2° But where the simoniacal pact is also opposed to commutative justice, the price must be restored before every sentence of a judge. Thus the common opinion. The reason is that, from the injury of commutative justice, the obligation of restoring arises by the very law of nature.

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

Resp. 1° If the price has been given, but the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, the common opinion teaches that the price must be restored to him who gave it, unless the judge shall have decreed otherwise. The reason is that laws establish vindicatory penalties only against real simony.

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

ON THE SECOND PRECEPT OF THE DECALOGUE.

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

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

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. I, Ch. III, Article X. On Simony

n. ¶65.

For the sake of clarity, we divide this article into four paragraphs: 1. on the nature, division, and malice of simony; 2. on simony of divine law; 3. on simony of ecclesiastical law; 4. on the penalties of simoniacs.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 4 passages

Vol. II, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Cardinal …, Fifth Part: On the Virtues…, Sect. C, Ch. II, Question Four: On Simony

n. 810.

810. Simony is a sin against religion, because, by buying or selling a spiritual thing, it exhibits irreverence to divine things and to God (Prov. III, 15; Acts VIII, 20): 1) because a spiritual thing exceeds every temporal price; 2) because we are not masters of spiritual things (I Cor. IV, 1); 3) because sale is repugnant to the origin of spiritual things, since they proceed from the gratuitous will of God, and therefore are to be granted gratis according as Christ commanded (Mt. X, 8): Freely you have received, freely give (a. 1).

n. 810.

Simony, which makes a sacred thing equal to profane things, differs from real sacrilege, by which a sacred thing is treated irreverently: for just as against justice someone can sin in diverse ways in voluntary commutation or contract, and by involuntary commutation, so also against religion, in voluntary commutation of a sacred thing through simony, and in involuntary commutation through sacrilege.¹

¹ Thus Cajetan, on this place; Suarez, on the contrary, o. c., l. 3, c. 1, n. 4.

n. 811.

811. Simony properly so called, of natural law, is a mortal sin from its whole genus, both on the part of the spiritual thing, because it is always a grave irreverence to equate a temporal thing to a spiritual thing, even the least, which is above every price; and on the part of the price: for the less is given for a spiritual thing, the more the spiritual thing is cheapened, whence the vileness of the price offered for it more increases the malice. Hence Acts VIII, 20: Thy money be with thee unto perdition, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be possessed by money.

n. 811.

Simony improperly so called, of ecclesiastical law, is a mortal sin from its genus, because the Church prohibits it under grave obligation, while nevertheless admitting lightness of matter: for by this there is not per se irreverence toward a sacred thing, because a temporal thing is not received as the price of a spiritual thing, but only a precept of the Church is violated, which prohibits the appearance and danger of simony, in which smallness of matter can be given.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 13 passages

Vol. I, Tr. VI, On the First Precept of th…, Ch. II, Art. II, § III. On Simony

Simony, so called from Simon Magus, is the studious will of selling or buying for a temporal price something spiritual, or something temporal annexed to the spiritual. It is called studious will not only because, not otherwise than other sins, it requires deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that a pact be completed by mutual consent, or in reality, but an interior or one-sided simoniacal affection suffices, namely the will of bargaining or of obliging.

n. 215.

Questions

Question 1. What is simony of divine law?

Response. § 1. The studious will of buying or selling for a temporal price a thing intrinsically spiritual, for example, Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, indulgences, etc., or a temporal thing annexed to a spiritual thing in such a way that the temporal thing can in no way exist without the spiritual, for example, an ecclesiastical benefice, etc., or that the spiritual thing is the object, even partial, of the contract, for example, consecration in the sale of a consecrated chalice, is simony of divine law (Can. 727).

Question 2. What is simony of ecclesiastical law?

Response. § 2. But to give temporal things annexed to the spiritual for temporal things annexed to the spiritual, or spiritual things for spiritual things, or even temporal things for temporal things, if this is prohibited by the Church on account of the danger of irreverence toward spiritual things, is simony of ecclesiastical law (Can. 727).

n. 216.

A temporal price is distinguished in canon law as of three kinds, namely: 1st, a gift from the hand, or recompense of any temporal thing estimable by price; 2nd, a gift from the tongue, or patronage, under which name come praises, recommendations, prayers, etc., to be interposed from a pact in favor of the one conferring the spiritual thing; 3rd, a gift from service, or any service or duties furnished to another, for example, service as a servant or any similar office.

Likewise there is a threefold temporal thing annexed to the spiritual: 1st, antecedently, as are sacred vessels, blessed oil, a prayer crown; 2nd, consequently, what depends on the spiritual as on a cause or root, as the right of receiving tithes; 3rd, concomitantly, as labor in sacred functions.

When simony is treated, buying-selling, exchange, etc., are to be taken broadly for any convention, although not brought to effect, even tacit, in which namely the simoniacal intention is not expressly manifested, but is gathered from the circumstances (Can. 728).

A threefold simony is distinguished: 1st, mental, if, with no pact intervening, the temporal or spiritual is conferred with simoniacal intention, that is, with the intention of obliging the other to return a spiritual or temporal thing; 2nd, conventional, if a pact indeed intervenes, but has been commanded to execution either in no way or only on one side. If the first, it is called pure conventional; if the other, mixed; 3rd, real, if the pact is fulfilled on both sides, at least inchoatively.

There is added confidential simony, whose matter is only ecclesiastical benefices. This is then had when someone, in election or presentation to benefices, or in the resignation of these, from confidence, or from an express or tacit pact and by his own authority, reserves something for himself or for another concerning the fruits of the benefice, or concerning the benefice itself.

n. 217.

I Say 1st. For simony there is required that the temporal be given or received, whether expressly and formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself and in exchange for it, so that an equalization of the spiritual thing with the temporal, or an exchange from the primary motive of having one for the other as price or just compensation, is made. The reason is clear from the very definition of simony. Hence if some honorable motive intervenes, by virtue of which the temporal thing and in turn the spiritual thing is bestowed, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impulsive cause, and therefore there would not be simony.

I Say 2nd. Simony is not had when the temporal is given not for the spiritual thing, but on its occasion from a just title recognized by the sacred canons or by legitimate custom; likewise when a temporal thing is given for a temporal thing which as a subject has something spiritual annexed, for example, a consecrated chalice, provided the price is not increased because of the annexed spiritual thing (Can. 730).

Something can licitly be received for a sacred ministry by reason of stipend or support, as is clear from the practice of the Church. For natural equity demands that honorable support be conceded to those who are occupied for the utility of others. Hence Christ says, Luke x, 7: "The workman is worthy of his wage." - And the Apostle, I Cor. ix, 13: "Know you not that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel, to live from the Gospel."

I Say 3rd. Simony is a most grave sin; and if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter. But if the simony is of ecclesiastical law, it can admit smallness of matter, according to St. Alphonsus. The reason is that any spiritual thing whatsoever, from comparison with a temporal thing, is vilified with great injury to God himself. This is clear also from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts viii, 20: "Let thy money be with thee unto perdition, because thou hast thought that the gift of God is possessed with money." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 50.

I Say 4th. Renunciation of an ecclesiastical office made simoniacally is invalid by the law itself. - Cf. Can. 185.

§ 2. Presentation infected by a simoniacal stain is invalid by the law itself, and even renders a subsequent institution perhaps invalid (Can. 1465). - Cf. Can. 1441.

n. 218.

Questions

Question 1. Is it simony to give a temporal thing principally indeed on account of a spiritual thing, but not uniquely?

Response. Affirmatively, and the reason is that then comparison of the temporal thing with the spiritual thing is also present. For the added motive, however honorable it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the prior motive, because a temporal thing is principally given. This is clear also from proposition 45 condemned by Innocent XI, which is as follows: "To give a temporal thing for a spiritual thing is not simony, if the temporal is not given as a price, but as a motive for conferring or effecting the spiritual." - Cf. Viva on this proposition. - St. Alphonsus, n. 54.

n. 218, Q. 2.

Question 2. Is it simony to redeem oneself with money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, for example, sacraments, etc.?

Response. Negatively, at least more probably, because liberation from vexation, which alone is directly intended, is something temporal. - Hence you can give money to your enemy if he attempts by fraud to impede the electors lest they favor you. The Doctors agree in the same, even if he should wish to impede only by prayers. But you cannot give money to those who can harm or benefit by electing or presenting to a benefice; for to offer money to them lest they harm would be the same as to offer it so that they benefit, namely so that they do not deny consent. Nor is it licit for you to give money to your competitor so that he desist from competing for the benefice, because there is no unjust vexation to be redeemed by you, and you would directly prepare for yourself the way to the benefice through money, which is simoniacal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 99 and following.

Not every condition added to the conferral of a spiritual thing induces simony, but only that which brings a new burden or a new obligation of justice by way of exchange. Therefore it is not simony if I give the spiritual thing in order that I may obtain a temporal thing which is owed to me by title of justice but is denied by injustice alone. Baller., note (a), p. 284.

n. 218, Q. 3.

Question 3. Is it simony to give or receive something for entrance into Religion?

Response. § 1. Unless it is provided in the constitutions or by express agreement that something is to be paid for food and religious habit upon entering postulancy or novitiate, nothing can be exacted for the expenses of postulancy or novitiate (Can. 570).

Finally, it is certain that it is licit for Nuns to exact a dowry from those about to enter, as is clear from the usage received everywhere and from several decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in Benedict XIV, de Synodo, lib. 11, chap. 6. Yet they must take care not to receive unsuitable persons solely on account of the dowry or some other temporal emolument; for that would be simoniacal. Cf. Can. 547.

n. 218, Q. 4.

Question 4. Does a priest commit simony who exacts for a Mass a stipend above the customary tax or the tax established by the Bishop?

Response. Negatively, as regards the internal forum and before God, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind; because, since he has a title for exacting remuneration, comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. He would indeed sin against obedience or justice by exacting more than is fair, but not at all against religion. Nevertheless in the external forum he would be held as simoniacal, because an increase of this kind would be presumed to be exacted not for support, but as the price of a spiritual thing; for this reason several theologians and canonists affirm absolutely that in that case true simony is committed. - Cf. Voit, n. 497. - Baller., note (a), p. 276.

n. 218, Q. 5.

Question 5. What is especially to be said concerning the tax of Masses for this our region?

Response. Concerning this matter the Baltimore Fathers speak thus: "... The quantity of a just stipend can scarcely be determined universally. The Sacred Congregation of the Council, having been asked, 'how great the alms of manual Masses ought to be,' on Nov. 15, 1698 responded: 'the custom of the place, or the synodal law insofar as it is present, is to be attended to; but if not, a competent alms is to be established by the Bishop according to his judgment.' But in that which pertains to the quantity of the alms to be determined by the Bishop, the same and universal rule cannot be established for all places in these provinces so extended far and wide, since, regard having been had to the circumstances of places and times, in diverse places it ought to be lesser or greater. Whence, leaving it to the individual Ordinaries, that with the circumstances of things well considered, they determine for their clergy the quantity of stipend which seems just to them, we establish this only, that no one exact more nor regularly less than shall have seemed opportune and just to his Bishop." - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 369.

n. 218, Q. 6.

Question 6. Whether and what can be received, without stain of simony, for the administration of sacraments and for other ecclesiastical functions, especially in this region?

Response 1st. For the administration of Sacraments let the minister exact or ask nothing for any cause or occasion, whether directly or indirectly, except the offerings concerning which in can. 1507, §1 (Can. 736).

§ 1. With the prescription of can. 1056 and can. 1234 saved, to fix beforehand taxes to be paid in the whole ecclesiastical province for various acts of voluntary jurisdiction, or for the execution of rescripts of the Apostolic See, or on the occasion of the ministration of Sacraments or Sacramentals, belongs to the provincial Council or the meeting of the Bishops of the province; but no such prefixed determination has force unless it has first been approved by the Apostolic See (Can. 1507). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 55. - Reiff., lib. 5, tit. 3, nn. 186 and following.

Therefore in this region the following statute of the Baltimore Fathers must be attended to: "Since, by command of Christ the Lord, spiritual gifts received freely are to be given freely, and since, according to the witness of the Apostle, avarice is a certain service of idols, which indeed in a Christian man is a grave harm, but in a minister of the Sacred Things of the true God is a most shameful crime, we declare that no one should dare to exact, ask, or bargain for anything for the administration of the sacraments." - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 221.

Response 2nd. For which sacraments and functions in particular, according to the custom received among us, some alms can be received, we add in the following:

1st. For Baptism and Matrimony, if anything is offered, it is received with impunity. "Those things which from the zeal of piety," say the Baltimore Fathers, n. 221, "after Baptism or Matrimony has been conferred, are spontaneously offered by the faithful in the name of alms, the priest, if he wishes, may receive; for custom tolerates this among us, nor does the Church disapprove."

2nd. For Confirmation, Kenrick, tract. 12, n. 63, has these things: "On the occasion of administering Confirmation nothing is accustomed to be given; but provisions are to be furnished to a Bishop making visitation of his diocese. ... In the Mexican Provinces the individual faithful who have been confirmed are accustomed to contribute a half silver coin for the expenses of the Bishop; which custom displays an evil appearance. Among us the pastor supplies food."

3rd. For the Eucharist, nothing at all is accustomed or able to be received.

4th. For Penance, it is strictly forbidden that anything be received under any title whatsoever; indeed confessors should not permit even the Mass alms to be offered to themselves in the sacred tribunal of penance. - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 289.

5th. For Extreme Unction, if the priest has made a long journey, nothing forbids the necessary expenses of the journey to be received. Cf. Kenrick, tract. 12, n. 66.

6th. For Order, according to the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, "let Bishops receive nothing even spontaneously offered, under any pretext whatsoever." - But those who must undertake a journey are not held by this prohibition, because then they can receive its expenses. - Cf. Kenrick, n. 67.

7th. For ecclesiastical burial the Baltimore Fathers have the following:

"We earnestly exhort and beseech Ordinaries of places in the Lord that they take care that the discipline concerning burials be exacted as soon as possible, and as much as can be done, according to the norm established by the Most Holy Canons. 'The poor, to whom when dead nothing or so little remains that they cannot be buried at their own expense, are to be buried altogether gratis.' But if someone wishes some place in a cemetery reserved for himself and his heirs in perpetuity, so that no one else, if they are unwilling, can ever be buried there, a price can be paid for a right of this kind, as they say, exclusive. From moneys procured in this way there is no doubt that a sum is had which suffices for preserving, restoring, and adorning cemeteries. If anything remains over, let it be applied, by judgment of the Ordinary, for promoting works of charity or religion. But we strictly forbid that ecclesiastical men should ever dare, under any pretext whatsoever, without permission of the Ordinary, to make their own the moneys which are derived from cemeteries; but if they attempt this, let them be struck with most severe penalties." - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 393. - Kenrick, n. 69.

n. 218, Q. 7.

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).

n. 218, Q. 8.

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).

n. 218, Q. 9.

Question 9. Is it licit to sell sacred things?

Response. What is annexed to the spiritual in such a way that it is presupposed to the spiritual and to which the spiritual afterward comes, if a special prohibition of the Church is absent, can be sold by reason of the material or workmanship, even if the consecration or blessing is inseparable from it, provided it is not therefore sold more dearly, but only according to the value which it has independently of those things. - Lacroix, l. III, p. 1, n. 153. - And therefore chalices, Agnus Dei, sacred vestments can of themselves be sold, provided they are sold at the price of the material.

§ 1. In the sale or exchange of sacred things, no account of consecration or blessing is to be had in the estimation of the price (Can. 1539).

Nevertheless sacred furnishings blessed or consecrated lose blessing or consecration ... if they have been exposed for public sale. Cf. Can. 1305.

Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V

Gaudentius Bontempi of Brescia, O.F.M. Cap. — 1 passage

Tr. IV, Disputation XII: On Simony

Diss. II, Chapter I — The definition of simony, its various species: and what things have the character of a price for contracting simony · Diss. II, Chapter II — How simony is committed while a temporal thing is delivered either as a price, or as a motive, or as a gratuitous compensation

SINCE the gifts and benefits of God are conferred on us freely, it is justly held an abomination to seek base gain from them; for the Divine goodness wills that what we have received freely, we should likewise give freely, nor does it suffer that, while we are enriched by its beneficent bounty, we should exact anything from others who know how to use the talents given them. Hence D. Peter first repelled, with the sharpest rebuke, Simon Magus attempting this crime with horrible daring: act. 8. thy money be with thee unto perdition, because thou hast thought the gift of God to be possessed for money; doubtless because that which surpasses all price is unworthy to be claimed for a price.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 46 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Diss. II, Chapter I — The definition of simony, its various species: and what things have the character of a price for contracting simony

n. I.

I. QUESTION I. What is simony? ANSWER. Simony, named from Simon Magus, is a studious will of buying or selling something spiritual or annexed to a spiritual thing, as St. Thomas says, II-II, q. 100, art. 1. The first particle studious will betrays a deliberate action of the will. The other, of buying or selling, sets forth every onerous and not gratuitous contract, by which a spiritual thing is bought, sold, let out, exchanged, or transacted for some temporal price, or for some thing appraisable at a price. The last particles signify something proceeding from God as supernatural author, or directed to God as author of salvation.

n. II.

II. This spiritual thing is threefold. 1. One is spiritual in itself, as grace, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost given gratis, the working of miracles, the interpretation of tongues, and so forth. 2. Another is spiritual as effecting, as the sacraments. 3. There is the spiritual produced by a spiritual cause, as dispensations in vows and oaths, absolution from censures, to bury the dead, to sing in choir, and so forth. Annexed to a spiritual thing happens in two ways: either because it is antecedently conjoined with a spiritual thing, as are ecclesiastical benefices, which suppose the clerical Order; or because it accompanies, or follows, a spiritual thing, or is ordained to a spiritual thing, as are sacred vestments, sacred vessels, temples, the relics of Saints, and the right of patronage of presenting to benefices.

n. III.

III. QUESTION II. Of how many kinds is simony? ANSWER. Twofold. One of natural and divine right, which is by its own nature evil, and which is committed while those things which are spiritual, or annexed to spiritual things — as graces, sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, gifts, virtues, and so forth — are sold or bought. The other is of ecclesiastical right, which is evil because forbidden: this is set in the exchange and resignation of benefices, and so forth.

n. IV.

IV. Simony is further divided into mental, conventional, real, and confidential. That is called mental which stops within the mind, which can happen in two ways: 1. When someone by an internal purpose deliberates to commit simony; 2. When he indicates it outwardly. Conventional arises from the mental; and it is an express or tacit convention of giving a temporal for a spiritual thing, or the contrary: but on neither side is it committed to execution, or only on one. Real follows upon both, and is committed to execution, either in part or in whole, of that which had been conceived in mind and outwardly agreed upon. Confidential is when someone procures a benefice by electing, presenting, resigning, or by another way, with a confidence or agreement, express or tacit, that he for whom it is procured shall resign it either to the procurer or to another, or shall render a pension or the fruits from it.

n. V.

V. QUESTION III. Whether a feigned simoniac commits true simony? ANSWER. A feigned simoniac is he who promises a price for a benefice, with the mind of not obliging himself nor of delivering it. That this man sins most gravely all affirm. But several deny that he is a simoniac. The opposite opinion is to me true. The exterior promise of giving a price collides with the interior intention. The former opinion opens a most broad way of obtaining and retaining benefices by these feigned simonies. For the rest the case is rare, because sellers of spiritual things are not wont to be less crafty and cunning than buyers; and unless they be secure and rely upon the price, they do not sell.

n. VI.

VI. QUESTION IV. What things have the character of a price in simony? ANSWER. A gift from service, from the hand, from the tongue. A gift from service is a subjection offered, as to serve the collator of a spiritual thing, to sit by him, to attend him, to teach and instruct, and so forth. A gift from the hand is money, and whatever comes under the name of money, whether delivered or promised. A gift from the tongue is favour, praise, encomiums, prayers, supplications, adulations, and other things of this kind. A general and precise rule cannot be designated as to when simony is perpetrated in a gift from service and from the tongue. The delivery or promise of money is almost never a gratuitous gift. If a bishop should confer a benefice upon a minister on account of services rendered or to be rendered without salary, he commonly commits simony, even if no agreement intervene: since the deed speaks, and obtains the place of an agreement.

n. VII.

VII. Commonly gifts from the tongue and from service, if they be gratuitous, do not bring it about that the collation of a benefice is simoniacal. But rarely are they gratuitous and sincere testimonies of an ingenuous mind. Some distinguish between offering principally and less principally. The distinction is absolutely true. But in practice it is most difficult to distinguish the confines of the primary and secondary of this distinction, and a crafty mind transforms itself and puts on a mask. Wherefore both candidates and collators ought to abstain from gifts of this kind. Those who are worthy do not need these prestiges.

n. VIII.

VIII. A gift imposed under an obligation contains simony, since such an obligation is appraisable at a price. If a loan be delivered from an agreement or convention of attaining a spiritual thing, similarly it is simony.

n. IX.

IX. Those who under the title of consanguinity or affinity confer benefices, and prefer a blood-relation or kinsman to the worthier, sin most gravely against justice, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 100, art. 5, reply 1, and all theologians subscribe to him. A bishop perpetrates simony if he agrees concerning a pension to be paid to himself or to another, or confers a benefice on condition that otherwise he would not have imposed the pension. Guilty of simony also are candidates who in the Roman Curia promise a pension to be paid, or something else appraisable at a price, to courtiers or to any others whatsoever, that they may afford help or favour for attaining a benefice. Those who impose upon a benefice a burden in no way annexed to it commit simony. Wherefore it is simony to renounce or to exchange benefices with any agreements, conditions, or modes added in favour of another. Guilty of simony also are those who exchange or renounce benefices with a pension by the Pope's leave, but with the condition added that the resignee pay the bulls of the pension. Similarly they perpetrate simony who confer a benefice with the care of souls upon the burden that he freely resign the benefice which he has, because they would append a condition in the collation of the benefice which is not of right.

Diss. II, Chapter II — How simony is committed while a temporal thing is delivered either as a price, or as a motive, or as a gratuitous compensation

n. I.

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.

n. II.

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.

n. III.

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.

n. IV.

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.

n. V.

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.

n. VI.

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.

n. VII.

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.

n. VIII.

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.

n. IX.

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.”

n. X.

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.

n. XI.

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.

n. XII.

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.

n. XIII.

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.

n. XIV.

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.

n. XV.

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.

n. XVI.

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.

n. XVII.

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.

n. XVIII.

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.

n. XIX.

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.

n. XX.

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.

n. XXI.

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.

n. XXII.

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.

n. XXIII.

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.

n. XXIV.

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.

n. XXV.

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.

n. XXVI.

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.

n. XXVII.

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.

n. XXVIII.

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.

n. XXIX.

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.

n. XXX.

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.

n. XXXI.

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.

…and 6 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Slater, Cases I

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 12 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases I, The Seventh Commandment—Ju…, Case 4. An Avaricious Priest

Titius, a missionary in England and not exempt from every suspicion of avarice, is in no way content with the sum of money which, according to a custom of the diocese approved by the bishop, is offered by the faithful in consideration of the administration of the sacraments and other functions. Indeed, unless at least the richer persons pay a sum twice as large as that assessed, he reproaches them most harshly, saying that they defraud him and the Church of God. Therefore he exacts from the richer persons two shillings instead of one for a baptism, and in a similar manner increases the other stole fees. During the time of spiritual exercises, however, he begins to doubt whether he has thereby contracted any guilt, and even a burden of restitution, or not, and therefore questions the Father who gives the exercises concerning his doubts. It is asked:

How are the goods of clerics divided, and what right regarding them belongs to clerics in England?

Can stole fees in England be exacted under the title of commutative justice?

Does anyone sin against commutative justice who exacts something beyond the diocesan assessment by reason of stole fees?

What is to be said of the case?

n. ¶6.

Solution

How is the property of clerics divided and what rights have clerics therein in England ? Clerics have property rights like other people, and what they have inherited as private persons or what has been given to them personally is called their patrimony. Quasi-patrimony is what they have acquired by their own labor, either in their clerical capacity as stole fees, stipends for Masses, etc., or otherwise. Savings are what they might have spent on their own support by living up to the ordinary standard, but which they have saved by living frugally. What is derived from all these sources is the private property of the cleric, and like other people he may dispose of it as he chooses. What the cleric derives from his benefice, if he has one, is called ecclesiastical property in the narrower sense. This the cleric may spend on his decent support, but what remains over must by ecclesiastical law be spent on pious causes. In England there are very few benefices; the clergy live on the income of their churches, and besides their support they are paid a small salary from the same or some other source.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 361 and following.

n. ¶7.

May stole fees be demanded in England on the title of commutative justice ?

n. ¶8.

Yes, for stole fees form part of their means of support, to which the clergy have a strict right in justice, as St. Thomas teaches.²

2 Summa, II–II, q. 100, a. 3.

n. ¶9.

Does he sin against commutative justice who exacts a stole fee higher than what is fixed by the bishop?

n. ¶10.

Yes; because the regulations of the bishop constitute his title to demand a stole fee; he has no title to demand one higher than what the bishop has fixed ; and so if he does this, he takes what does not belong to him, unless it is given freely.

n. ¶11.

The case. Titius was not justified in demanding more for stole fees than the custom of the diocese warranted.

n. ¶12.

If by his manner he forced the faithful to give double of what the bishop had sanctioned, he sinned against commutative justice and is bound to make restitution of what he has taken in excess of the usual sum. He may be excused from making restitution to such as gave the larger sums grudgingly indeed, but still not altogether forced against their will.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 5 passages

Vol. IV, Case XXXVIII: Partiality in Bishop’s Appointment Not Simony

The priest Fabius asked his Bishop for his release, which was promised if he could produce evidence of having been accepted in another diocese. In a conversation with Fabius the Bishop offered him the pastorship at a certain place. Several other priests were anxious to obtain this pastorship, all of them more worthy than Fabius, but nevertheless the Bishop selected Fabius. We are asked to decide whether this preference is to be regarded as simony inasmuch as the Bishop, knowing Fabius to be the least suitable candidate for the rectorship, promised it to Fabius in order to retain the roving priest in his diocese. In this case, therefore, the studiosa voluntas would be the Bishop's word pledged to Fabius, the pretium temporale would be Fabius himself, whom the Bishop desired to keep in his diocese, and the rectorate is the spirituale, or rather the spirituali annexum.

Against this proposition the following remarks may be made: The assumption that Fabius is the price for which the Bishop has given the position to the same Fabius, is obviously too farfetched. We may more properly regard Fabius, or rather his continued residence in the diocese, as the object which the ordinary. wishes to secure at the price of the position. This continued residence in the diocese is not a temporale, in the sense of the definition of simony accepted by theologians, and certainly it is no obsequium, taking the place of money payment, but it is simply a matter of continuing the canonical connection between a priest and the diocese. This connection is not of a private, but of a public nature; it is not temporal, but spiritual, and may fittingly be termed a spirituali annexum. Hence it follows that to promise a priest admittance to the ranks of the clergy in a diocese, in return for payment of money, would be simony; but no simony is involved if a priest is induced simply to remain a member of the diocesan clergy by a promise of money or by other means to which a money value can be assigned. Still less can there be any suggestion of simony if the means employed to induce a priest to remain in the diocese are altogether of an ecclesiastical nature, even a spirituali annexum, especially a benefice or some similar position in the Church.

The common practise is in harmony with this view, for a Bishop is free to refuse to accept the resignation of a priest, who has not yet received a pastorship, and to give as excuse that a suitable benefice will shortly be conferred upon him. It is true that this must not be understood as meaning that the ordinary may give a binding promise to confer upon him some particular place not yet vacant. To promise a position held by some one else would be to confer an unlawful privilege. The only thing that the Bishop can do is to promise a priest who wants to leave the diocese to do what he can to further his interests. It would be a mistake to lay it down as a principle that the Bishop would in every case be right in retaining his clergy by means of such promises. The matter is left to the discretion of the ordinary to act as he thinks best. He will do well to make no promise when there is any reason to think that the priest, by tendering his resignation, is bringing pressure to bear upon the Bishop.

Although now and then a Bishop may go too far in showing partiality to a priest, and may even give support to one unworthy of it, there can still be no suggestion of simony. We ought not to forget that the meaning of Simonia juris divini must be interpreted strictly, as must also the laws concerning Simonia juris ecclesiastici, and they may not be extended to other cases not mentioned in the law. There is no law in existence which declares partiality or favoritism on part of a Bishop to be in simony.