SIMONY. - The term and the concept of s. derive their origin from the sacrilegious market proposed to the Apostles by Simon Magus, with the aim of obtaining from them the power to impose hands on Christians and to communicate to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12-24).
In moral theology and in canon law, by s. is meant the settled will to buy or sell for a temporal price a thing intrinsically spiritual, or a temporal thing necessarily connected with the spiritual, or a thing that forms the object of the contract (s. of divine right); or else it is any exchange of homogeneous things (a mutual exchange either of temporal things connected with spiritual things, e.g., benefices, or of temporal things), the latter being forbidden by the Church (s. of ecclesiastical right) on account of the danger of irreverence (can. 727). In matters of s., by contract is meant any agreement, even one not carried out or tacit, in which the simoniacal intent is inferred from the circumstances (can. 728). Leinz demonstrated that for the essence of s. a contract is not required, but that the simoniacal intention clearly manifested is sufficient (Zur Begriffsbestimmung der Simonie, in Arch. f. kath. Kirchenrecht, 77 [1897], pp. 26-55).
S. may be: a) mental, when it exists only in thought; b) conventional, when there is a mutual pact, express or tacit, without performance by one of the parties (mixed conventional) or without performance by both parties (pure conventional); c) real, when there is fulfillment of the pact, even if only just begun; d) confidential, when there is the temporary transfer to a third person of an ecclesiastical benefice, on condition, however, or under the condition that it be, at a later point, restored to the one who caused it to be obtained for him or to a family member.
I. HISTORY
1. From the origins to the Council of Trent
The Councils of Orléans in 533 and 549 and of Clermont in 535 inflicted the penalty of deposition on candidates guilty of having gathered the votes of electors at the price of money. St. Gregory the Great imposed the same penalty on those who exerted themselves in obligations, promises, services, or who made use of intermediaries (mediator). The evil worsened when the Merovingian kings meddled in the election of bishops. Gregory of Tours relates that the family of Apollinaris persuaded Quintianus, elected bishop of Clermont, to renounce the see: then it filled the court of Theodoric I with gifts and thus obtained the promotion of its relative. He further asserts that "the kings sold the priesthood and the clerics bought it at the weight of gold." According to the same Gregory, a Syrian, in 552, bought the see of Paris and loaded his compatriots with benefices. St. Gregory the Great testifies in his epistolary correspondence to the presence of glaring abuses, which not even the threat of deposition succeeded in eradicating; and he goes so far as to write "that in Gaul and in Germany no one attains the sacred Orders without the gift of some advantage" (Jaffé-Wattenbach, n. 1374; cf. E. Vacandard, Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse, Paris 1909, pp. 132, 144-45, 159-64).
In the 10th and 11th centuries simony took on a wider extent following the flourishing of the feudal regime and the disappearance of election. The lords, counts, dukes and kings, considered themselves the owners of everything that constituted a bishopric, and granted its enjoyment to a bishop by means of investiture, which consisted in the delivery of the ring (sign of the prelate's mystical marriage with his Church) and of the pastoral staff (symbol of jurisdiction). And just as lay vassals offered money or gifts to lords or kings, so too prelates obtained their offices by means of gifts of various kinds. It followed that, to repay themselves for the expenses incurred, bishops squeezed their flock and demanded burdensome payments from the priests whom they ordained and from the abbots to whom they granted the blessing: and metropolitans received money from the bishops whom they consecrated. Laymen did not seize only bishoprics, but laid their hands on the parish churches themselves and conferred them simoniacally on parish priests. It followed that these obliged the faithful to offer other gifts, besides the voluntary offerings, on the occasion of baptisms, marriages and burials.
The Holy See waged a meritorious struggle, marked also by grave incidents, against those who held investitures, the cause of simony, especially from the time of Leo IX and Gregory VII. At its impulse the councils defined the meaning of the term simony and decreed canonical sanctions. At first the consecrator and the consecrated were held to be simoniacs, and for this reason incurred deposition (Council of Reims, 1049); then all those who made use of an intermediary (simoniacs ordained by other simoniacs: Council of Rome, 1070); but not clerics in good faith (Council of Rome, 1060). There remained to be specified the nature of the prohibited gifts, other than money; and as such were considered "all gifts granted or promised, services, prayers, intrigues" and also words of praise, or flattering (Council of Amalfi [1089] and of Piacenza). The Councils of Rome (1099) and of Poitiers (1100) forbade even the gifts of carpets, of manuterges, of capes, made to the 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. 378-85).
The Holy See rigorously applied to simoniacs the penalty of deposition or of suspension; it did not permit attendance at their Mass; it tolerated refusals of obedience to their Orders; it admitted denunciations coming from any person, reserving to itself the task of checking and safeguarding the innocence of falsely accused prelates by means of the system of contestationes.
Public opinion too was of help to it in firmly extirpating the evil; both in Gaul and in Germany the people detested bishops stained with simony (P. Imbart de la Tour, op. cit., pp. 387-91). To investiture given by laymen the popes substituted the election of bishops made by the Cathedral Chapters, and to the regime of the private church the regime of patronage. The appropriation to themselves of the right of collation of benefices allowed them to deal simony an even more telling blow. Nevertheless, from the end of the 12th century, persons hostile to the reforms introduced by the popes reproached them with practising simony with regard to the common and minute services paid by bishops and abbots at their appointment and at the confirmation of their election; likewise with regard to the "annates" demanded of the holders of small benefices (A. Gottlob, Die Servizientaxes im XIII. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Gebührwesen, Stuttgart 1903, p. 147). The accusations of simony grew more serious at the time of the great Western Schism (v. the treatise of Nicholas of Clamanges, De corrupto Ecclesiae statu, ed. A. Coville, Paris 1936, pp. 148 and 190). The University of Paris pointed out to the Council of Constance that John XXIII was selling prelatures, ecclesiastical dignities and benefices to the highest bidders (v. H. Finke, Actu concilii Constanciensis, I, Münster 1896, p. 146). There was in all this a complete misunderstanding: the services and the "annates" were merely taxes collected from the clergy by the Roman pontiff, who possessed the full and entire disposal of the goods of the Church and used them to provide for his own maintenance and that of his court. If that collection had been stained with simony, the Council of Trent would certainly have abolished it (v. A. Clergeac, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 255-40). At the time of the Renaissance some popes incurred the reproach of having acquired the tiara by illicit means; but Alexander VI, who is the most incriminated for it, knew how to impose himself by his eminent abilities (cf. Pastor, III, p. 329 ff.).
Bibliography
Guglielmo Mollat
2. From the Council of Trent to the CIC
New decrees against simony were made in the Council of Trent (sess. XXIV, chaps. 14, 18, de ref.; sess. XXV, chap. 9 de ref.) concerning the conferral of any order, not excepting first tonsure, dimissory and testimonial letters, the conferral of benefices, etc., for which transactions it is not lawful for the bishop to accept gifts of any kind, if the ordinands are not to incur ipso facto ultra divina ultionem also the penalties established by law (sess. XXI, can. 1 de ref.; sess. XXIV, chap. 14 de ref.), while it is forbidden to accept gifts on the occasion of competitive examinations, under penalty of ineligibility to obtain, in the future, benefices of any kind (sess. XXIV, chap. 18 de ref.) and the nullity of the simoniacal sale of the right of patronage is sanctioned (sess. XXV, c. 9 de ref.). Especially in the 16th century confidential simony was struck, which before all others Pius IV, with the constitution Romanum Pontificum of 17 Oct. 1564 (Fontes, CIC, I, Rome 1925, p. 188), struck with major excommunication latae sententiae, from which, except in danger of death, one could not be absolved except by the Roman Pontiff, while the provisions effected by means of the aforesaid simony were declared invalid, thus remaining reserved to the Holy See, and the obligation to restore the fruits to the Apostolic Camera was enjoined. Such sanctions did not spare even the cardinals (loc. cit.).
Pius V, with the constitution Intollerabilis of 1 June 1569 (ibid., p. 231), not only confirmed what had been decided by his predecessor, but also enjoined upon the Ordinaries that, should cases of the sort occur, the intervention of the secular arm be sought against the rebels (loc. cit.). Sixtus V, with the constitution Sanctorum et salutare of 1 Jan. 1589 (ibid., p. 314), struck with great severity at those ordaining and those ordained (not excepting the first tonsure) through simony, even where the persons were able and suitable. Worthy of mention, from the 17th century, is the so-called "Innocentian Tax" (Innocent XI, 1676-89) against underhand and idle exactions, and the constitution of Benedict XIV In sublimi of 29 Aug. 1741 (ibid., 693), against the simoniacal conferral of benefices; which, albeit with certain amendments, was retained in the constitution of Pius IX Apostolicae Sedis of 12 Oct. 1869 (ibid., III, ibid. 1938, p. 27), which, although it abrogated certain latae sententiae penalties, for example against simoniacal ordinations, strikes with excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope: a) those who render themselves guilty of real simony together with their accomplices, for the conferral of any benefice (no. 8); b) those who, cuiuscunque sint dignitatis, render themselves guilty of confidential simony for any benefice (no. 9); c) those who render themselves guilty of real simony ab ingressum in religionem (no. 10). On the matter of the traffic in Masses, very important is the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 25 May 1893 Vigilanti, renewed with more severe censures in the other decrees of the same Sacred Congregation, respectively of 11 May 1904: Ut debita, and of 22 May 1907: Recenti.
II. LAW IN FORCE
The CIC establishes the nullity of every simoniacal contract, declaring null the consequent provisions to offices, benefices or dignities, even if the simony comes from a third person, without the knowledge of the one provided, unless it is done to his fraud or with him objecting, also establishing the obligation to restore first of all, if possible, the object of the simony and to resign the benefice, office or dignity. He who has been provided through simony does not acquire the fruits as his own; however, those received in good faith may be condoned by the judge or by the Ordinary (can. 729). Simony, therefore, prevents the acquisition, admitted despite the invalid title, given good faith, of a benefice possessed by peaceful three-year possession (can. 1446); it renders null the presentation by the patron (can. 1465 § 2) and null the resignation from office by the one invested (can. 185).
In the penal sphere, simony is struck in the administration or reception of Orders or the other Sacraments and simony in matters of benefices, offices and dignities. For simony in matters of Orders and all Sacraments, even bishops remain suspected of heresy; clerics moreover incur the suspension reserved to the Holy See (can. 2371). From the suspicion of heresy only cardinals are excluded (2227 § 2); from the suspension, however, bishops too are excluded (can. 2227 § 2), since it is a suspension for clerics, which must be understood in the broadest sense, thus including also those tonsured (can. 950). For simony in matters of offices, benefices or dignities, the simoniacs incur excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; they are deprived in perpetuity of the right of election, presentation or nomination, and, if clerics, they shall moreover be suspended. Before the Code, the constitution Apostolicae Sedis struck the crime of simony only in benefices; now the object is explicitly extended also to offices (can. 145) and dignities (can. 393), among which must also be numbered the abbacies nullus etc., if they are major dignities; archdeaconries, prepositures etc., according to particular statutes and customs, if they are minor dignities. However, the dignities and offices of religious Orders are not included, except those dignities and offices that present the characteristics referred to in can. 145 (F. M. Cappello, De censuris, Rome 1925, p. 313).
To incur the penalties referred to in the cited canon, the crime must be consummated, in accordance with can. 2228. Moreover, the deductions, compensations or releases made by the one invested in the provision to the patron collator or others are held to be simoniacal (can. 1441). It is disputed whether the sanctions established by cann. 729 and 2392 also concern simony of ecclesiastical law. Among others, Creusen and Cappello answer affirmatively, on the ground that the legislator does not distinguish between the one and the other species of simony. If the simony referred to in cann. 2371 and 2392 is of divine law, the matter falls within the competence of the Holy Office. Two other crimes are also punished by the code, because they smack of simony: the commerce of Holy Masses (v. MESSA) and that of indulgences. For the latter, whoever traffics in indulgences is excommunicated and the excommunication is simpliciter reserved to the Holy See (can. 2327). The crime consists in the gain that is received either by granting indulgences or by publishing them and having them published, or by applying them with delegated faculty or finally by selling objects of piety at a higher price, precisely because they are enriched with indulgences. From the aforesaid penalty neither poverty nor the pretext of subsidizing a pious work excuses: nor any other motive. From the excommunication only cardinals are excluded (2227 § 2).