SIMONY. - The term and concept of simony derive their origin from the sacrilegious market proposed to the Apostles by Simon Magus, with the aim of obtaining from them the power to lay hands on Christians and communicate to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12-24).
In moral theology and canon law, simony is understood as the deliberate will to buy or sell, for a temporal price, a thing intrinsically spiritual or a temporal thing necessarily connected with the spiritual, or which forms the object of the contract (simony of divine right); or else it is any exchange of homogeneous things (mutual exchange or of temporal things connected with spiritual ones, e.g., benefices; or of temporal things), this being prohibited by the Church (simony of ecclesiastical right) because of the danger of irreverence (can. 727). In matters of simony, any agreement—even one not executed or concealed—is considered a contract, in which the simoniacal intention is inferred from the circumstances (can. 728). Leinz demonstrated that a contract is not required for the essence of simony, but that a clearly manifested simoniacal intention is sufficient (*Zur Begriffsbestimlung der Simonie*, in *Arch. f. kath. Kirchenrecht*, 77 [1897], pp. 26-55).
Simony can be:
a) mental, when it exists only in thought;
b) conventional, when there is an expressed or tacit mutual agreement, without execution by one of the parties (mixed conventional) or without execution by both parties (pure conventional);
c) real, when the agreement is fulfilled, even if only partially;
d) confidential, when a temporal cession of an ecclesiastical benefice is made to a third party, under the condition or agreement that it be later returned to the person who procured it or to a relative.
I. HISTORY.
1. **From the Origins to the Council of Trent.** - The Councils of Orléans in 533 and 549 and of Clermont in 535 imposed the penalty of deposition on candidates guilty of having gathered votes from electors in exchange for money. St. Gregory the Great likewise threatened with deposition those who engaged in obligations, promises, services, or the service of intermediaries (*mediator*). As the evil worsened, the Merovingian kings interfered in the election of bishops. Gregory of Tours reports that the family of Apollinare persuaded Quintianus, elected bishop of Clermont, to renounce the see; then they lavished gifts upon the court of Theuderic I and thus obtained the promotion of their relative. He further assures that “kings sold the priesthood and clerics bought it by the weight of gold.” According to the same Gregory, a Syrian in 552 bought the see of Paris and recompensed his compatriots with benefices. St. Gregory the Great attests in his correspondence the presence of glaring abuses, which even the threat of deposition could not uproot; he even writes that “in Gaul and Germany no one reached the sacred Orders without the gift of some advantage” (Jaffé-Wattenbach, no. 1374; cf. E. Vacandard, *Études de critique et d'histoire religieuse*, Paris 1909, pp. 132, 144-145, 159-164).
In the 10th and 11th centuries, simony spread more widely due to the flourishing of the feudal system and the disappearance of elections. Lords, counts, dukes, and kings considered themselves the owners of everything constituting a bishopric and granted its enjoyment to a bishop through investiture, which consisted in the handing over of the ring (symbol of the mystical marriage of the prelate with his Church) and the crozier (symbol of jurisdiction). And just as lay vassals offered money or gifts to lords or kings, so too prelates obtained their offices through various kinds of gifts. Consequently, to recoup their expenses, bishops squeezed their flocks and exacted onerous payments from priests whom they ordained and from abbots whom they blessed; metropolitans in turn received money from the bishops they consecrated. Laymen not only seized bishoprics but also laid hands on parish churches and conferred them simoniacally upon parish priests. As a result, these priests compelled the faithful to offer other gifts, in addition to voluntary offerings, on the occasions of baptisms, marriages, and burials.
The Holy See waged a meritorious struggle, marked also by serious incidents, against those who held investitures, the cause of simony, especially from the time of Leo IX and Gregory VII. At their instigation, councils clarified the meaning of the term simony and decreed canonical sanctions. At first, both the consecrator and the consecrated were considered simoniacal and thus liable to deposition (Council of Reims, 1049); then all those who made use of an intermediary were held to be simoniacal (those ordained by other simoniacs: Council of Rome, 1070), but not clerics in good faith (Council of Rome, 1060). It remained to specify the nature of gifts prohibited, other than money; and these were considered to include “all gifts granted or promised, services, prayers, intrigues,” and even laudatory or flattering words (Council of Amalfi [1089] and of Piacenza). The Councils of Rome (1099) and of Poitiers (1100) even prohibited gifts of carpets, manutergia, and copes made to consecrating prelates (P. Imbart de la Tour, *Les élections épiscopales dans les Églises de France du IXe au XIIe siècle; étude sur la décadence du principe électif, 814-1150*, Paris 1891, pp. 378-385).
The Holy See rigorously applied to simoniacs the penalty of deposition or suspension; it forbade attendance at their Mass; it tolerated refusals of obedience to their orders; it admitted denunciations from any person, reserving to itself the task of verifying and safeguarding the innocence of prelates falsely accused through the system of contests.
Public opinion also aided in firmly eradicating the evil; in both Gaul and Germany the people detested bishops tainted with simony (P. Imbart de la Tour, *op. cit.*, pp. 387-391). The popes replaced lay investiture with the election of bishops by cathedral chapters and the regime of private churches with that of patronage. The assumption of the right of collation of benefices allowed them to strike a more telling blow against simony. Nevertheless, from the end of the 12th century, those hostile to the reforms introduced by the popes reproached them with practicing simony in regard to common and minor services paid by bishops and abbots at their appointment and confirmation of election; likewise in regard to the “annates” demanded of small beneficiaries (A. Gottlob, *Die Servitientaxen im XIII. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Gebühren*, Stuttgart 1903, p. 147). Accusations of simony intensified at the time of the Great Western Schism (cf. the treatise of Nicholas of Clamanges, *De corrupto Ecclesiae statu*, ed. A. Coville, Paris 1936, pp. 148 and 190). The University of Paris reported to the Council of Constance that John XXIII was selling prelatures, ecclesiastical dignities, and benefices to the highest bidders (cf. H. Finke, *Acta concilii Constantiensis*, I, Münster 1896, p. 146). There was in all this a complete misunderstanding: the services and “annates” were merely fees collected by the clergy on behalf of the Roman pontiff, who possessed full and complete disposal of the goods of the Church and used them to provide for his own maintenance and that of his court. Had this collection been tainted with simony, the Council of Trent would certainly have abolished it (cf. A. Clergeac, *op. cit.* in bibliography, pp. 253-40). At the time of the Renaissance, some popes incurred reproach for having acquired the tiara by illicit means; but Alexander VI, the most incriminated of them, was able to impose himself by his eminent abilities (cf. Pastor, III, pp. 329 ff.).
2. From the Council of Trent to the Code of Canon Law
New decrees against simony were enacted at the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, chs. 14, 18, de ref.; Session XXV, ch. 9 de ref.) concerning the conferral of any order, not excepting the first tonsure, dimissory and testimonial letters, and the conferral of benefices, etc., for which transactions it is not lawful for a bishop to accept any kind of gifts, lest the ordinands incur ipso facto, in addition to divine vengeance, the penalties established by law (Session XXI, can. 1 de ref.; Session XXIV, ch. 14 de ref.). It is also forbidden to accept gifts on the occasion of examination for competitions, under penalty of disqualification from obtaining any future benefices (Session XXIV, ch. 18 de ref.), and the nullity of simoniacal sale of the right of patronage is sanctioned (Session XXV, c. 9 de ref.). Above all, in the 16th century, secret simony was severely punished; first of all by Pius IV, with the constitution *Romanum Pontificem* of 17 October 1564 (Fontes, CIC, I, Rome 1925, p. 188), which imposed a major excommunication *latae sententiae*, from which, except in danger of death, no one could be absolved except by the Roman Pontiff. It also declared void all provisions made through such simony, reserving them to the Holy See, and imposed the obligation to restore the fruits to the Apostolic Chamber. These sanctions did not even spare cardinals (loc. cit.).Pius V, with the constitution *Intollerabilis* of 19 June 1569 (ibid., p. 231), not only confirmed what had been decided by his predecessor but also enjoined ordinaries, whenever such cases arose, to seek the intervention of the secular arm against the rebels (loc. cit.). Sixtus V, with the constitution *Sanctorum et salutare* of 19 January 1589 (ibid., p. 314), severely punished both the ordinands and the ordained (not excepting the first tonsure) with excommunication, even if they were competent and suitable persons. Worthy of mention from the 17th century is the so-called “Innocentian Tax” (Innocent XI, 1676–89) against covert and idle exactions, and the constitution *In sublimi* of Benedict XIV of 29 August 1741 (ibid., p. 693), against simoniacal conferral of benefices; this, albeit with some amendments, was preserved in the constitution *Apostolica Sedi* of Pius IX of 12 October 1869 (ibid., III, 1938, p. 27), which, while abrogating some *latae sententiae* penalties, for example against simoniacal ordinations, imposed an excommunication *latae sententiae* reserved to the Pope: a) upon those who are guilty of real simony together with accomplices, for the conferral of any benefice (n. 8); b) upon those of whatever dignity who are guilty of secret simony for any benefice (n. 9); c) upon those who are guilty of real simony for entry into a religious order (n. 10). In the matter of the trafficking in Masses, the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 25 May 1893 *Vigilanti*, renewed with harsher penalties in the other decrees of the same Sacred Congregation, namely of 11 May 1904 *Ut debita* and of 22 May 1907 *Recentis*, is of great importance.
II. CURRENT LAW
The Code of Canon Law declares null every simoniacal contract, declaring void the resulting provisions of offices, benefices, or dignities, even if the simony comes from a third party without the knowledge of the provisioned person, unless it occurs to his fraud or with his consent, and it also establishes the obligation to restore, if possible, the object of the simony and to divest the benefice, office, or dignity. One who has been provided through simony does not acquire its fruits; however, those received in good faith may be condoned by the judge or the ordinary (can. 729). Simony therefore prevents the acquisition, admitted despite the invalid title, by virtue of good faith, of a benefice held by peaceful possession for three years (can. 1446); it renders void the presentation by the patron (can. 1465 § 2) and void the renunciation of the office by the incumbent (can. 185).In penal law, simony is punished in the administration or reception of Orders or other Sacraments and in simony concerning benefices, offices, and dignities. For simony concerning Orders and Sacraments, all, including bishops, are suspected of heresy; clerics moreover incur suspension reserved to the Holy See (can. 2371). The suspicion of heresy is excluded only for cardinals (can. 2227 § 2); suspension, however, is also excluded for bishops (can. 2227 § 2), since this suspension pertains to clerics in the broadest sense, including therefore even those in minor orders (can. 950). For simony concerning offices, benefices, or dignities, simoniacs incur excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; they are perpetually deprived of the right of election, presentation, or appointment, and, if clerics, they are also suspended. Before the Code, the constitution *Apostolica Sedi* punished the crime of simony only in regard to benefices; now the object is explicitly extended also to offices (can. 145) and dignities (can. 393), among which must be numbered also the abbacies *nullius*, etc., if they are major dignities; archdeacons, provosts, etc., according to particular statutes and customs, if they are minor dignities. However, the dignities and offices of religious orders are not included, except for those dignities and offices that present the requisites mentioned in can. 145 (F. M. Cappello, *De censuris*, Rome 1925, p. 313).
To incur the penalties mentioned in the cited canon, the delict must be consummated, according to can. 2228. Moreover, deductions, compensations, or releases made by the incumbent in the provision to the collator, patron, or others are considered simoniacal (can. 1441). It is disputed whether the penalties established by cann. 729 and 2392 also pertain to ecclesiastical law simony. Among others, Creusen and Cappello affirm this, on the grounds that the legislator does not distinguish between one kind and the other. If the simony referred to in cann. 2371 and 2392 is of divine law, the matter falls under the competence of the Holy Office. The Code also punishes two other crimes that savor of simony: trafficking in Holy Masses (v. MESSA) and trafficking in indulgences. For the latter, whoever traffics in indulgences is excommunicated, and the excommunication is simply reserved to the Holy See (can. 2327). The crime consists in the gain obtained either by granting indulgences or by publishing and causing them to be published, or by applying them with delegated faculty, or finally by selling at a higher price objects of piety precisely because they are enriched with indulgences. Poverty or the pretext of aiding a pious work does not excuse from the aforesaid penalty, nor does any other motive. The excommunication excludes only cardinals (can. 2227 § 2).