Sinfulness 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

560. Moral and specific malice. a) Simony of divine law is a mortal sin against religion in its whole genus; b) simony of ecclesiastical law alone is a mortal sin from its genus.

a) The first part of this proposition is admitted by almost all authors⁸⁹⁴ and is also easily proved. For that simony is against the virtue of religion is evident of itself, since it is an unworthy treatment of sacred things⁸⁹⁵ and is reduced to real sacrilege. That simony of divine law is a mortal sin in its whole genus, so that it does not admit slightness of matter, is deduced from the fact that it imports the greatest injury inflicted upon sacred things, and consequently upon God Himself. Is it not an enormous contempt of sacred things conducive to eternal salvation if someone equates them with a temporal price? But this contempt is present whether there is question of a great or a small spiritual thing, for the reason and disorder are always the same. Hence St. Peter also reproached Simon Magus most vehemently for this, saying: "Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."⁸⁹⁶ The most grave malice of simony can also be surmised from the grave penalties which the Church imposes upon simoniacs.⁸⁹⁷ Furthermore, its malice appears from the calamitous effects which it has always produced; for which reason it is called "a pest surpassing all other diseases,"⁸⁹⁸ "a cancerous wound,"⁸⁹⁹ and "leprosy."⁹⁰⁰

b) The second part of the proposition is commonly admitted by authors, provided there is question of simony of ecclesiastical law alone. For not rarely simony of ecclesiastical law is joined with simony of divine law, and then it certainly is a mortal sin in its whole genus, as has been proved; but by itself it is nothing other than the transgression of an ecclesiastical precept. Now the transgression of an ecclesiastical precept gravely binding in itself admits slightness of matter. Therefore simony of ecclesiastical law alone is indeed a mortal sin if there is question of grave matter; otherwise it is a venial sin. Ecclesiastical law, however, has gravely prohibited simony of this kind because of the urgent danger of simony of divine law joined with it.

Authors commonly teach that simony of divine law and of ecclesiastical law are sins of the same species, since simony of ecclesiastical law is also true simony injuring the virtue of religion. For although in ecclesiastical simony the purchase of a spiritual thing for a temporal price is not always present, nevertheless the proximate danger of simony of divine law is always present. But he who culpably commits himself to the proximate danger of sinning and he who actually commits the same sin perpetrate a sin of the same species.

⁸⁹⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 50.

⁸⁹⁵ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 100, a. 1.

⁸⁹⁶ Acts 8:20.

⁸⁹⁷ Cf. below, n. 565.

⁸⁹⁸ c. 6, X 3, 5.

⁸⁹⁹ c. 7, C. 1, q. 1.

⁹⁰⁰ Ib. c. 14.