Mass stipends and stole fees

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.

We do not propose to treat here of the capacity of religious to own property; that question will be best considered when we treat of the state of religious. Here we only inquire into the property rights of the secular clergy.

The property of the clergy is divided by theologians into four kinds. What they possess as private persons, whether it has been given or bequeathed to them or they have inherited it, is called their patrimony. Quasi-patrimony is what they have obtained by the exercise of their ministry in stole fees, stipends, and casual offerings. Ecclesiastical goods are derived from the revenue of benefices. Savings are what a cleric has acquired by living sparingly and which he might have spent by living according to the ordinary standard.

Of these different kinds of property, patrimony and quasi-patrimony belong to the cleric; they are his private property, of which he has the ownership just like anybody else, for he is not deprived of the right to possess property by becoming a cleric. What he saves also from what he might have spent lawfully on his support belongs to him, for the labourer is worthy of his hire; he has a strict right to a decent living from the revenues of the Church, and what he saves from the sum required for this belongs to him as his own.

There is a difficulty concerning the profits derived from his benefice if the cleric has one. He may, of course, use the income derived from this source for his maintenance according to his rank; but supposing that a balance remains over, what must he do with that? Ecclesiastical law prescribes that he must employ it for pious purposes, and must not squander it or enrich his relations with it. He is bound under pain of sin to give it to the support of religion, or to the poor, or for educational or other pious causes. If he does not do this, he certainly sins against obedience; but does he also sin against justice, and is he therefore bound to make restitution ? This is a disputed question among divines. The more probable opinion is that he does not sin against justice and so is not bound to restitution; for the income derived from his benefice is his own property, and he may do what he pleases with his own, unless there be some free disposal of his property. law which restricts his In this case there is such a law, which must be observed, but which for all that does not make an act which it prohibits unjust; it only makes it unlawful (Can. 1473). . 2. In English-speaking countries there are few well-endowed benefices, so that in general the clergy have to be supported by the offerings of the faithful. As Leo XIII says in his Constitution Romanos Pontifices, May 8, 1881, the offerings of the faithful were not regarded as ecclesiastical property where religion and the clergy were sufficiently provided for from other sources. In Britain, however, the offerings of the faithful are almost the only means available for the maintenance of divine worship, the building and repair of churches and schools, the support of charitable institutions and of the clergy. Hence it becomes a matter of importance to be able to decide what offerings belong to the clergy as their own property, and what constitute ecclesiastical property and belong to the Church. Of the latter property the clergy are only the administrators, and they are bound to render an account of their administration to their superiors and to God. Rules for settling what offerings are private and what ecclesiastical property were drawn up by the Second Provincial Synod of Westminster, approved in the year 1856; and Pope Leo XIII sanctioned those rules and ordered them to be observed wherever his Constitution Romanos Pontifices should be in force. I here give Father Guy’s version of the rules: “ (1) Offerings of the faithful for the propagation and ornament of religion, for the support of the clergy, the relief of the poor, and other pious uses, are considered as made to God and the Church, and the administrators or guardians of them, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, are to be deemed merely dispensers of them, under an obligation of rendering an account to God of their stewardship. As here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful in those things which concern the rightful administration of Church property, it seems proper that in this synod we should treat this matter more fully, inasmuch as having been occupied with matters more important in the First Provincial Council, we deferred the consideration of this subject to a more convenient opportunity. _“* (2) Every effort must be made to determine, if there be any doubt, the intention and purpose of the donor or testator of each fund, and that the proceeds of it may be rigidly applied to the use prescribed by him.

“‘(3) If this intention cannot be ascertained from any trustworthy document, rules or canons by which a safe judgement may be formed in such cases should be observed.

(4) Whenever a church or school or any other building intended for religious uses is erected or provided, either wholly or in part, from money contributed by the faithful, or granted by any society administering the alms of pious Catholics, every edifice of this kind is to be considered as belonging for ever to the place where it stands.

“‘(5) The same judgement must be passed on buildings erected by any benefactor, unless it is clearly proved that he made a declaration that in erecting such an edifice he did not intend it for the advantage of the faithful of that place, but that he wished to confer a benefit on some particular order. The rules laid down in this and the preceding number as to rights in foundations are in the case of Regulars to be applied to new foundations only. ** (6) But the Bishop shall not be allowed on this account to take away a mission lawfully entrusted to any religious order. These rules regard merely a case in which a religious body either cannot or will not retain the care of a mission—for example, if a superior remove it to some other place, or for any other reason it there cease to exist altogether, and not for a time only. “ (7) If, however, any mission be founded altogether or for the most part by funds belonging to any religious body, which for good reasons may wish to leave entirely and go elsewhere, we recommend that a distinct agreement be made between the Bishop and the superiors of the order as to what has to be done; so that on the one hand just rights may not suffer, and on the other no scandal may arise nor grievous loss of souls ensue. (8) Much less is it lawful for any cleric, or even for the Bishop himself, to alienate Church property, as is evident from almost numberless decrees of canon law. If, however, on account of reasons approved of by the canons, such an alienation become necessary, the priest can never act in this matter without the authority of the Bishop, nor the Bishop without the precautions required by canon law.

“‘(9) In every mission where money is contributed by the faithful in the ways hereafter described it is to be accounted Church property, and not a donation to the priest. For from this money he must provide not only for his own decent support, but for the expense of religious worship, for the maintenance of the fabric, for payment of debts, where there are any, and for other wants. Wherefore, if any priest leave a mission during the course of the year, he has not a right to his proportion of the yearly income until the amount justly due for expenses be deducted. In like manner, what he has provided for the use of the church from the income of the - church—for example, wax candles, wine for the most holy Sacrifice, sacred furniture—these he should leave behind him, without any compensation, unless he can clearly show that the supply is excessive. “

(10) All are aware that there are now in operation different methods of raising money for the support of missions. The following in particular we do not disapprove of, till the charity of the faithful shall provide in a better way. They are:

(a) Letting of seats or places in the church to certain persons or families at a fixed rent to be paid to the church.

(b) Church collections made at the Offertory. (c) According to a custom prevailing generally in England, payment of a fixed sum, according to the part of the church which they occupy, by those who do not rent seats, yet are not content to occupy what is called the free space. (d) Sermons by some distinguished preacher of the word of God, after which the alms of the congregation, whose number is often swelled by a concourse of strangers, are collected for the general or particular use of the church or for some special purpose. (e) Collections which are either made from house to house, by persons appointed for the purpose, or by societies and confraternities lawfully appointed, or which are gathered from tens or hundreds as is done in the excellent society called the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, or contributions made by the more wealthy portion of the congregation at fixed times or yearly. “

(11) Although it is certainly much to be desired that many of these methods of maintaining the Church were done away with, yet experience has taught that it is as yet impossible altogether to dispense with them. Wherefore, in those places where one or more of these methods prevail, they ought to be so kept on that no innovations be introduced without the authority of the Bishop. Especially the free space should not be diminished nor narrowed without consulting him. But whatever money comes to the mission by these means, it should be considered as belonging not to the priest personally, but to the general wants of the mission. Therefore, whatever furniture, either sacred or domestic, he acquires from these sources, or whatever he expends in keeping in repair the church or other buildings in any way belonging to it, in this expenditure he is not making provision for himself, but is providing for the mission from mission property. ‘

(12) As soon, therefore, as any priest enters on a mission, an inventory of all property belonging to the mission should be placed in his hands by the dean or by someone deputed by the Bishop. The missionary is bound to keep the furniture and buildings in good repair, yea, rather to improve them, that he may deliver to his successor as much at least as he received himself. Should he provide for the renewing of what is grown old and mean, or procure something new and more elegant to ornament the place, a distinction must be made as regards the sources from which the expense is defrayed.

(a) If the priest has procured these things from his own property, or from the gifts of friends well disposed towards him, or in fine, from that portion of the income of the church which he might have expended on his own decent maintenance, they are to be considered as his own property, provided he has kept all that he received in good order. (b) But if these things were procured out of the general revenues of the church, or by gifts and collections from the congregation, or by money granted by the Bishop or the administrators of the temporalities of the diocese, they are to be deemed entirely the property of the mission, nor is it lawful for the priest on any account to claim them. “*

(13) It is also to be generally understood according to a rule of canon law that things adapted for ecclesiastical purposes given to a missionary are, unless there is proof to the contrary, given to the mission; but things adapted for personal use are presumed to be given to the priest personally, as are also such church things as are given by a flock to a priest as tokens of gratitude or affection. ‘

(14) Retributions for Masses are the property of the priest. In like manner, where it is the custom, which is a very ancient one in England, of making presents to each priest at Easter and Christmas, these gifts of right belong to them. But the priest should be on his guard lest he incur the suspicion of avarice, by receiving anything on account of his administering the sacrament of Penance.

“‘(15) As to the application of money derived from stole fees, there is no uniform practice throughout the whole Church. For though the Church detests all filthy lucre in extorting or exacting money for the administration of the sacraments, yet the Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III in the year 1215, prescribed that the laudable customs in accordance with which offerings were made by the faithful to the ministers of the altar, on occasion of the administration of the sacraments, should be observed. The proceeds derived from this source should be ordinarily considered as belonging to the priests; though they are distributed in different ways in different places. That distribution seems to be the best which is most conducive to alleviate the burthens of the mission. “

(16) Whilst, therefore, we forbid anything to be asked for and much more anything to be exacted before the celebration of baptism and matrimony, and even after the celebration as a right, we leave it to the prudence of Bishops to determine in their diocesan synods what seems best adapted to the customs and state of places. Especially should they most vigilantly correct all abuses, if any exist, as to the amount or to the exaction of these offerings, by enforcing everywhere an equitable arrangement.”

These provisions seem to be in harmony with Canons 1182, 1519-1528, etc., of the new Code, and so it would seem that they are still in force.

I. The goods of clerics are distinguished into beneficial or ecclesiastical goods and non-beneficial goods.

1. Beneficial goods are those which come to them from the endowment of a benefice. Moreover, the endowment of a benefice is constituted either by goods whose ownership is in the juridic entity itself, or by certain and due payments of some family or moral person, or by certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful which belong to the rector of the benefice, or by stole fees, as they are called, within the limits of the diocesan tax or legitimate custom, or by choral distributions, with a third part of them excluded, if all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions (can. 1410).

To beneficial goods are to be counted pensions or annual salaries which in Belgium and in those districts of Holland which, at the time of the Concordat of 1801, belonged to France, that is, in the whole diocese of Roermond, in part of Gelderland and Staats-Vlaanderen, are paid by the Government to Bishops, canons, and pastors.¹ The reason is that they represent the fruits formerly received from the endowment of benefices.² The same, for the same reason, seems to be said of annual payments which are sometimes stably assigned by the Government to some pastors under the name of competencies.³

2. Non-beneficial goods are all other goods of clerics. They are customarily divided into patrimonial and quasi-patrimonial goods. Patrimonial goods are those which fall to them by a profane title, for example by contract, inheritance, testament, labor, or industry, that is, profane labor or industry. Quasi-patrimonial goods are stipends which are received for sacred functions and, according to what has been said, do not pertain to the endowment of the benefice. To this class belong, for example, Mass stipends; likewise the third part of choral distributions, if all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions (can. 1410).

To non-beneficial goods are counted: 1. supplements which are sometimes paid to pastors by municipalities or from the treasury of the Church; 2. annual pensions which in our country are paid by the Government to priests, except in the places enumerated above; 3. retirement pensions. The reason for all these is that they are not, or not necessarily, to be considered as representing fruits formerly received from the endowment of benefices. 4. Payments by whatever name which are assigned to vicars, because, since vicars lack a benefice, they neither are nor represent fruits of a benefice.

3. As regards offerings, I note:

a) Offerings handed over in boxes or collected for a certain end must be used for that end.

b) Certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful made in a place subject to a pastor are considered to have been granted to the pastor, unless the intention of the faithful to cede them to others is clear. If they are granted to the pastor, they pertain to the endowment of the benefice, and therefore are counted among ecclesiastical goods.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1819 and August 19, 1821, collected response of January 9, 1823, apud Carriere, I, 194.

² Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1819 and August 19, 1821, collected response of January 9, 1823, apud Carriere, I, 194.

³ Sweens, n. 79.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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).

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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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."

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.

3. 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.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

1. 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).

2. 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).

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

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

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

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

For thus it is connected with the spiritual thing so that with it in moral estimation it constitutes one thing, and therefore one without the other by private authority can in no way be bought or sold, for example, the right to the revenues of a benefice, which is founded in the spiritual right to pastoral offices as in its root and cannot be separated from it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.