SIMONIA. — The term and concept of s. derive their origin from the sacrilegious bargain proposed to the Apostles by Simon Magus, in order to obtain from them the power to lay hands upon Christians and communicate to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Act. 8, 12–24).
21. — CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. — XI.
In moral theology and canon law, s. means the deliberate will to buy or sell, for a temporal price, something intrinsically spiritual, or something temporal necessarily connected with the spiritual or constituting the object of the contract (s. of divine law); or it means any exchange of homogeneous things (mutual exchange, or the exchange of temporal things connected with spiritual things, e.g., benefices; or of temporal things), this being prohibited by the Church (s. of ecclesiastical law) because of the danger of irreverence (can. 727). In matters of s., “contract” means any agreement, even one not executed or tacit, in which the simoniacal intention is inferred from the circumstances (can. 728). Leinz demonstrated that a contract is not required for the essence of s., but that a 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 an express or tacit mutual agreement, without execution by either one of the parties (mixed conventional) or without execution by both parties (pure conventional); c) real, when the agreement is carried out, even if only begun; d) confidential, when an ecclesiastical benefice is temporarily transferred to a third person, provided, however, or on condition that it subsequently be returned to the person who had arranged for it to be obtained 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 imposed the penalty of deposition on candidates guilty of having solicited the electors’ votes at a price of money. St. Gregory the Great likewise imposed the same penalty on those who employed obligations, promises, or services, or made use of intermediaries (mediator). The evil worsened when the Merovingian kings interfered in the election of bishops. Gregory of Tours relates that the family of Apollinaris persuaded Quinzianus, elected bishop of Clermont, to renounce the see; then it showered the court of Theuderic I with gifts and thus secured the promotion of its kinsman. He further assures us that “the kings sold the priesthood and the clerics bought it at the price of gold.” According to the same Gregory, in 552 a Syrian bought the see of Paris and lavished benefices on his countrymen. St. Gregory the Great testifies in his correspondence to the presence of flagrant abuses, which not even the threat of deposition could eradicate; and he goes so far as to write “that in Gaul and Germany no one reaches Sacred Orders without the gift of some advantage” (Jaffé-Wattenbach, no. 1374; cf. E. Vacandard, Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse, Paris 1909, pp. 132, 144–45, 159–64).In the tenth and eleventh centuries simony spread more widely as a result of the flourishing of the feudal system and the disappearance of elections. 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 (a sign of the prelate’s mystical marriage with his Church) and the pastoral staff (a symbol of jurisdiction). And just as lay vassals offered money or gifts to lords or kings, so the prelates obtained their offices by means of gifts of various kinds. Consequently, in order to recover the expenses they had incurred, the bishops squeezed their flock and demanded burdensome payments from the priests whom they ordained and the abbots to whom they granted the blessing; and the metropolitans received money from the bishops whom they consecrated. Laymen did not seize only bishoprics, but also laid hands on the parish churches themselves and conferred them simoniacally upon parish priests. As a result, the latter obliged the faithful to offer further gifts, in addition to voluntary offerings, on the occasion of baptisms, marriages, and burials.
The Holy See engaged in a meritorious struggle, also marked by serious incidents, against those who held the investitures that were the cause of simony, especially from the time of Leo IX and Gregory VII. At its prompting, the councils clarified the meaning of the term simony and decreed canonical sanctions. At first, the consecrator and the consecrated were regarded as simoniacs and consequently incurred deposition (Council of Reims, 1049); then all those who made use of an intermediary (those ordained by other simoniacs: Council of Rome, 1070); but not clerics acting in good faith (Council of Rome, 1060). It remained to specify the nature of the gifts prohibited, which differed from money; these were held to include “all gifts granted or promised, services, prayers, intrigues,” as well as words of praise or flattery (Council of Amalfi [1089] and of Piacenza). The Councils of Rome (1099) and Poitiers (1100) even prohibited gifts of carpets, hand towels, and capes 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. 378–85).
The Holy See rigorously applied to simoniacs the penalty of deposition or suspension; it did not permit attendance at their Mass; it tolerated refusals to obey their Orders; it admitted denunciations coming from any person, reserving to itself the task of investigating and safeguarding the innocence of prelates falsely accused by means of the system of contumacy.
Public opinion also helped it to eradicate the evil with firmness; in both Gaul and Germany the people detested bishops tainted by simony (P. Imbart de la Tour, op. cit., pp. 387–91). The popes replaced investiture by laymen with the election of bishops by the Cathedral Chapters, and the system of the private church with that of patronage. Their assumption of the right of collation of benefices enabled them to strike an even more telling blow against simony. Nevertheless, from the end of the twelfth century, persons hostile to the reforms introduced by the popes reproached them with practicing simony with regard to the common and minor services paid by bishops and abbots upon their appointment and the confirmation of their election; likewise with regard to the “annates” demanded from holders of minor benefices (A. Gottlob, Die Servizientaxes im XIII. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Gebührwesen, Stuttgart 1903, p. 147). Accusations of simony became more serious at the time of the great Western schism (v. the treatise of Niccolò da Clamanges, De corrupto Ecclesiae statu, ed. A. Coville, Paris 1936, pp. 148 and 190). The University of Paris informed the Council of Constance that John XXIII sold prelatures, ecclesiastical dignities, and benefices to the highest bidders (v. H. Finke, Actu concilii Constanciensis, I, Münster 1896, p. 146). There was a complete misunderstanding in all this: the services and the “annates” were merely taxes collected from the clergy by the Roman pontiff, who possessed full and complete disposal of the Church’s goods and used them to provide for his own maintenance and that of his court. If that collection had been tainted by simony, the Council of Trent would certainly have abolished it (v. A. Clergeac, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 255–40). During the Renaissance, some popes incurred the reproach of having acquired the tiara by illicit means; but Alexander VI, against whom the accusation was made most strongly, knew how to assert himself through his eminent abilities (cf. Pastor, III, p. 329 ff.).
BIBL. : V. below.
Guglielmo Mollat
2. From the Council of Trent to the CIC. — New decrees against simony were enacted at the Council of Trent (sess. XXIV, chaps. 14, 18, de ref.; sess. XXV, chap. 9 de ref.), concerning the conferral of any order, including the first tonsure, dimissorial and testimonial letters, the conferral of benefices, etc.; for these transactions the bishop may not accept gifts of any kind, if the ordaining parties 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.). At the same time, the acceptance of gifts on the occasion of examinations for competitions was prohibited, under penalty of incapacity to obtain any benefices in the future (sess. XXIV, chap. 18 de ref.), and the nullity of the simoniacal sale of the right of patronage was decreed (sess. XXV, c. 9 de ref.). Above all, in the sixteenth century, confidential simony was struck down; before all others, Pius IV, by the constitution Romanum Pontificum of 17 October 1564 (Fontes, CIC, I, Rome 1925, p. 188), punished it with major excommunication latae sententiae, from which, except in danger of death, no one could be absolved except by the Roman Pontiff. At the same time, provisions made through the aforementioned simony were declared void, thus being reserved to the Holy See, and the obligation was imposed of returning the fruits to the Apostolic Camera. These sanctions did not spare even the cardinals (loc. cit.).
Pius V, in the constitution Intollerabilis of 1 June 1569 (ibid., p. 231), not only confirmed what had been decided by his predecessor, but also enjoined the Ordinaries that, should cases of this kind occur, they should seek the intervention of the secular arm against the rebels (loc. cit.). Sixtus V, in the constitution Sanctorum et salutare of 1 January 1589 (ibid., p. 314), punished with great severity those conferring and those receiving orders (including the first tonsure) by means of simony, even when they were capable and suitable persons. Worthy of mention, from the seventeenth century onward, is the so-called “Innocentian Tax” (Innocent XI, 1676–89) against underhanded and unjustified exactions, as well as the constitution of Benedict XIV In sublimi of 29 August 1741 (ibid., 693), against the simoniacal conferral of benefices; this constitution, albeit with certain amendments, was retained in the constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, of 12 October 1869 (ibid., III, there 1938, p. 27), which, although it abolished certain latae sententiae penalties, for example against simoniacal ordinations, imposed excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope upon: a) those who make themselves guilty of real simony, together with their accomplices, in the conferral of any benefice (no. 8); b) those cuiuscunque sint dignitatis who make themselves guilty of confidential simony in connection with any benefice (no. 9); c) those who make themselves guilty of real simony ab ingressum in religionem (no. 10). With regard to the trading of Masses, the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 25 May 1893, Vigilanti, is of great importance; it was renewed, with more severe censures, in the other decrees of the same Sacred Congregation, dated respectively 11 May 1904: Ut debita, and 22 May 1907: Recenti.
II. CURRENT LAW
The CIC declares every simoniacal contract null, declaring null the resulting appointments to offices, benefices, or dignities, even if the simony proceeds from a third party, without the knowledge of the person appointed, unless it occurs through his fraud or over his opposition; it also establishes the obligation first of all to restore, if possible, the object of the simony, and to resign the benefice, office, or dignity. One who has been appointed through simony does not acquire the fruits; those received in good faith, however, may be remitted by the judge or the Ordinary (can. 729). Simony therefore prevents the acquisition, admitted notwithstanding the invalid title on account of good faith, of a benefice possessed through peaceful possession for three years (can. 1446); it renders null a presentation by the patron (can. 1465 § 2) and null a resignation from office by the incumbent (can. 185).In the penal sphere, simony in the administration or reception of Orders or of the other Sacraments is punished, as is simony concerning benefices, offices, and dignities. For simony concerning Orders and all the Sacraments, everyone, including bishops, is deemed suspect of heresy; clerics also incur suspension reserved to the Holy See (can. 2371). Only cardinals are excluded from suspicion of heresy (2227 § 2); bishops, on the other hand, are also excluded from suspension (can. 2227 § 2), since this is a suspension imposed on clerics, who are to be understood in the broadest sense, thus including even those who have received the tonsure (can. 950). For simony concerning offices, benefices, or dignities, 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 will also be suspended. Before the Code, the constitution Apostolicae Sedis punished the crime of simony only in benefices; now its object explicitly extends also to offices (can. 145) and dignities (can. 393). Among the latter must also be counted nullius abbeys, etc., when they are major dignities; archdeaconries, provostships, etc., depending on particular statutes and customs, when they are minor dignities. The dignities and offices of religious Orders are not, however, included, except those dignities and offices that display
the conditions specified in can. 145 (F. M. Cappello, De censuris, Roma 1925, p. 313).
To incur the penalties referred to in the cited canon, the offense must have been consummated, in accordance with can. 2228. Moreover, deductions, compensations, or concessions made by the incumbent in the appointment to the patron collator or to others are considered simoniacal (can. 1441). It is disputed whether the sanctions established by cann. 729 and 2392 also concern simony under ecclesiastical law. Creusen and Cappello, among others, answer in the affirmative, on the grounds that the legislator does not distinguish between one kind of simony and the other. If the simony referred to in cann. 2371 and 2392 is of divine law, the matter falls within the competence of the Holy Office. The Code also punishes two other offenses when they involve knowledge of simony: the commerce in Holy Masses (v. MESSA) and that in indulgences. In the case of indulgences, whoever traffics in indulgences is excommunicated, and the excommunication is simpliciter reserved to the Holy See (can. 2327). The offense consists in the profit obtained either by granting indulgences or by publishing them and having them published, or by applying them with delegated authority, or finally by selling devotional objects at a higher price precisely because they have been enriched with indulgences. Poverty or the pretext of subsidizing a charitable work does not excuse from the aforementioned penalty, nor does any other motive. Only cardinals are excluded from the excommunication (2227 § 2).