SIMULAZIONE

SIMULATION. — In general, it is any attitude that aims to create a false judgment in others. In legal language, simulation consists in performing an action, normally solemn, or in using a formula that, in common understanding, has a well-defined meaning, while the intention of the actor is entirely different. Simulation is also called fiction (*fictio*) and must be distinguished from dissimulation, which is the performance of an action under circumstances that may lead others into error, without the agent having the intention to deceive, though allowing it, and without the action employed having that specific meaning which is the basis of the other’s error. It must also be distinguished from jest or play (*iocus*), in which the fiction is made evident beforehand and, in normal circumstances, by the circumstances themselves; this is not the case in simulation, where the intention contrary to the act remains secret or known only to a few.

According to St. Thomas, every simulation, like every lie, is always a sin (*Sum. Theol.*, II-II, q. 110, art. 1, c.); yet not every simulation constitutes a mortal sin; indeed, according to a well-founded opinion, it may exceptionally be permissible to resort to simulation, for grave reasons, for example, in the case of marriage, without committing fault. Simulation is formal or material according as the deceit is positively intended or merely permitted. Even material simulation is distinguished from dissimulation, because the action or formula employed always has a single meaning, and thus the other’s error is inevitable, though only permitted. The theory of simulation has been developed especially in matters of contracts, as a defect of consent, but it has found application in various fields of theology, in matters of faith, of the Sacraments, etc.

**I. SIMULATION IN CONTRACTS AND IN CIVIL LAW.** — One of the essential elements of a contract is the consent or agreement between the parties, which must be externally manifested by a corresponding sign. Civil laws, to avoid litigation, often require a specific form, under pain of nullity, either by public deed or private writing (*Cod. civ. it.*, arts. 1325, 1350). If, however, one of the contracting parties inwardly does not intend to be bound, though pronouncing the words required by law, the contract is, by natural right, invalid on account of simulation of consent. If, instead, there is merely the intention not to fulfill the obligation, the contract is valid. In the case of invalidity due to simulation, damages must be repaired. Most often, the damage resulting from such fraud can be repaired only by fulfilling the contract (q.v.). To make a mere pretended promise, however, is a sin against truthfulness (a lie), but not against justice.

The civil lawyers’ conception of simulation does not coincide with that of theologians and canonists. For them, simulation is the declaration of a content of will that is not real, made knowingly and in agreement by the parties, to produce, with a view to deceit, the appearance of a transaction that does not exist and is different from the one actually performed (F. Ferrara, *Della simulazione nei negozi giuridici*, Rome 1922, p. 47); hence, for simulation to exist, the following are required: 1) a deliberate external declaration, differing from the intention; 2) awareness of such discrepancy on the part of the simulator; 3) agreement between the parties on such divergence; 4) an internal purpose. If the third of these requirements is lacking, there is no simulation, but merely mental reservation, in which the internal will, consciously differing from the declaration, is not contractually manifested. Here simulation is taken in the theological and canonical sense.

**II. SIMULATION OF FAITH.** — To simulate faith is equivalent to denying it: which is never lawful (Matt. 10:33; Luke 9:26; Rom. 10:10). There is, however, no denial of faith when it is merely dissimulated (q.V. FAITH).

**III. SIMULATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.** — This can occur either 1) by using matter and form without the intention of effecting the Sacrament, or 2) by pronouncing an invalid form, even though the matter is valid, or 3) by using matter that is invalid due to some hidden defect. The simulation of a Sacrament is always a sacrilege and can never be lawful, as appears from the proposition condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 (Denz.-U., 1179). The dissimulation of the Sacraments, however, may be lawful for a grave reason. It consists in performing a non-sacramental action under circumstances such as to lead others to believe that a Sacrament is being administered.

The *Codex Iuris Canonici* explicitly punishes only three cases of simulation: 1. The simulation of the celebration of the Holy Mass (q.V. MASS, and can. 2322, n. 1). This is the crime of one who, whether layman or cleric—though not having been ordained a priest, or despite

### Invalidly Received Ordination

This act is performed in such a way as to lead one to believe that the Holy Mass is being celebrated. Commonly, authors require that there be actual deception on the part of those attending such a celebration; others do not require actual deception. The crime is considered consummated (can. 2228) when the false celebration of the Holy Mass has begun, even if it is not brought to completion.

### 2. The simulation of sacramental confession

This occurs when the penitent is deceived into believing that his confession is sacramental because: 1) he has confessed even a single true or putative sin in order to receive absolution; 2) he has believed that the person hearing his confession was a true confessor. The Church, from the earliest times, has punished the exercise of an Order not actually received. Thus, for example, from the 4th century onward, priests who usurped the exercise of episcopal power were punished with deposition (Council of Sardica [343-44], cap. 19: Hefele-Leclercq, I, pp. 860-862). From the 8th century, special penalties were imposed against those who simulated the celebration of the Holy Mass and sacramental absolution (cf. F. X. Wernz, *Ius decretalium*, VI, Prato 1913, n. 459). Several papal constitutions prescribe, for this crime, the penalty of degradation and delivery to the secular arm, which punished such priests with the death penalty (P. Gasparri, *Fontes*, I, Rome 1926, pp. 256, 357, 393, 813; ibid., II, 1932, p. 555).

For the crimes mentioned above, the *Codex Iuris Canonici* (can. 2322) prescribes: 1) communion in a special manner reserved to the Holy See; 2) if the offender is a layperson, deprivation of pension or office, along with other congruous penalties; 3) if the offender is a cleric, also deposition. The penalty of *communicatio sententiae latae* is a penalty not found in ancient law.

Criminal cases concerning the simulation of the Mass and sacramental confession fall under the jurisdiction of the Holy Office due to the suspicion of heresy that they entail (P. Gasparri, *Fontes*, cit., I, p. 255).

### 3. The absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin

(v. COMPLICE IN PECCATO TURPE. TURPE)

### The simulation of consent in marriage

(v. MATRIMONIO, IV, I, 5) occurs when a contracting party pretends to an extreme degree to wish to contract marriage, expressing in a serious and ritual manner a consent that is instead interrupted. Whether it is a case of bilateral or unilateral simulation, when its existence is proven, the marriage is invalid. Jurisprudence and doctrine commonly distinguish between total simulation, which occurs when the very contract is excluded, and partial simulation, which takes place when the parties, while intending to contract marriage, do not wish to be bound, or exclude one of the essential properties (can. 1013).

In any case, however, it must involve a true positive act of the will; simple error regarding the unity and indissolubility of the sacramental bond is not sufficient, even if such error is the cause of the contract (can. 1084; *S. R. Rotae decisiones...*, decis. XIII, n. 32: vol. XXXV, Vatican City 1943, p. 114).

Regarding proof, causes of simulation, especially if it is total, are extremely difficult, as the Rotal jurisprudence repeatedly states; it is indeed a matter of an internal act, for the evaluation of which two principles must be considered that favor the validity of the marriage: 1) the marriage enjoys the favor of the law (can. 1014); 2) the internal consent of the will is always presumed to conform to the words and signs used in the celebration of the marriage (can. 1086 § 2: *S. R. Rotae decisiones...*, decis. XXXVIII, n. 12: vol. XXXV, p. 368 and passim).

On the other hand, the confession of the party concerned does not constitute a proof (loc. cit., decis. XXXIX, n. 3: vol. XXXII, 1941, p. 435), because confession in one's own favor is suspect (Wernz-Vidal, VI, p. 309).

For the correct evaluation of simulation, one must also carefully examine its cause, which must be distinguished from the mere motives that may have led to the marriage (loc. cit., decis. XCI, n. 16: vol. XXXV, p. 1007), keeping in mind the circumstances that preceded, accompanied, and followed the celebration of the marriage (loc. cit., decis. XXXIX, n. 3, vol. XXXII, p. 436).

In the moral sphere, according to common opinion, those who pretend to contract marriage under the influence of grave fear do not sin mortally nor commit sacrilege, since voluntary consent is lacking; hence there is no matter or form, and thus there would be no simulation of the sacrament, but only of the contract (T. Jorio, *Theologia moralis*, III, Naples 1947, p. 17).

The dissimulation of the sacraments may be licit only if there is an urgent and grave cause, provided that there is no contempt or scandal on the part of the faithful. Thus, for example, it is licit for a priest, instead of reciting the formula of absolution, to say only a prayer and give a blessing to an indisposed penitent so that those present do not notice that he is being sent away without absolution (v. SACRAMENTI).

In addition to what has been said regarding simulation, Italian penal law is concerned with the simulation of a crime (*Codice penale italiano*, art. 367); both penal law and legal medicine are concerned with the simulation of illness, which falls within the realm of mental illness.

**

---

SIN

The name of three biblical localities.

### 1. Desert (Heb. *Sîn*)

Crossed by the Israelites on their journey from Elim and the Red Sea to Rephidim (v.) and Mount Sinai (Ex. 16:1; 17:1; Num. 33:11). It probably corresponds to the sandy plain of Debbet er-Ramleh, which extends within the Sinai peninsula at the foot of Gebel et-Tih. The identification with the plain of el-Markhah on the western coast or with the desert of el-Qa'ah along the southern coast of the Sinai peninsula, suggested by ancient and even modern pilgrims, does not seem to satisfy the topographical requirements of the text, which places Sin between Elim (= Wadi Garandel) and Sinai.

### 2. City, fortress of Egypt

Mentioned only in Ezek. 30:15-16; located in the Delta, but of uncertain identification. The Septuagint in V. 15 transcribed *Zúq*, a city northwest of Bubaste, but which was never an important stronghold. In V. 16 they identified it with *Συγγνών*, perhaps having read *Sán*, an abbreviation of *Sévénéh*, i.e., Syene, on the borders of Ethiopia, today Aswan at the first cataract, and which could therefore be called a fortress of Egypt. The Vulgate transcribed *Pelusium*, a fortified port at the eastern end of the Delta, whose capture was necessary for invaders coming from the northeast desert.

### 3. Desert (Heb. *Sîn*)

Which marked the southern border of Canaan, crossed by the spies in the Promised Land (Num. 13:21). Kadesh-Barnea was included within the borders on the southwestern edge of the desert (Num. 20:1; 27:14; 33:36; Deut. 32:51), bordered Edom to the west and the tribe of Judah to the southeast (Josh. 15:1-3). The name seems to have been preserved in the southern region of Palestine, in Wadi es-Sînî and Ard es-Sînî.

**

---

SYNAGOGUE

Place of "assembly" for prayer and sacred reading in post-exilic Judaism. The Greek term συναγωγή ("assembly") in the Septuagint mostly translates the Hebrew words *'edhâh* and *qâhâl*, which have no relation to a place of prayer, which only in later times came to be called a synagogue. In New Testament times, the term περσευχή (= oratory) was used in this sense (cf. Acts 16:13; Philo, *Legatio ad Caium*, 165; Juvenal, *Satires*, III, 269; Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Iudaicae*, XIV, 258), while συναγωγή was used to denote a group of Jews organized for particular purposes, similar to a collegium. In a single city, there could be several synagogues (cf. Acts 6:9); in the Jewish community of Rome at the beginning of the common era, at least 13 are counted, each

marked by a special name with reference to benefactors, the district, ethnic characteristics, etc. Each of these synagogues had its own place of prayer (προσευχή), to which the term initially generic of synagogue (Heb. bēth kēnēsēth; Aramaic bēth kēnēstā) or simply kēnēstā was later reserved.

The rise of the synagogues marked a notable revolution in Judaism. To the single Temple of Jerusalem were added these centers of more individual and more inward piety. Since it was impossible to offer sacrifices outside the Temple, there prayer was made, the Law was studied, and love for a life ever more perfect was fostered. The origin of the synagogues is unknown; but they must already have been functioning during the Babylonian exile (587–538 B.C.). At Schedia near Alexandria the presence of such a building is attested already in the time of Ptolemy II Evergete (264–221 B.C.), and doubtless several existed in Egypt (cf. Enoch 46, 8; 53, 6). But the oldest known archaeological remains do not go back beyond the 2nd century. Among the oldest and most representative are those of the synagogues of Sejḥ Abrēq, Capernaum, Dura-Eúropos, Bejt Alfah, Beth-shan, Jericho, 'Ajn Dūq, Gerasa, Chorazin, Hamath, Kefr Bir'im, and Aleppo.

From the architectural point of view, there is no uniform type nor a specifically synagogal style. Originally the synagogue did not differ from an ordinary room or hall; the only distinctive feature was an ark (Heb. 'ārōn haq-ōdēhēs) for the custody of the scrolls of Scripture. In the 3rd century, the ark was replaced by a chest or cabinet (Heb. tēbhāh), fixed in a wall or in the apse. Under the influence of Christian architecture, the synagogue often took the form of a basilica, in which in place of the altar stood the cabinet for the sacred scrolls. The entire apse was often separated from the rest by a curtain. For ornamentation, near the cabinet were usually two seven-branched candelabra and, sometimes, decorations of animals or plants. The rest was generally very simple; but examples have been found of paintings and mosaics not only with motifs drawn from nature (animals, plants, signs of the zodiac, etc.) but also with representations of celebrated figures in Judaism, as happened in the synagogue of Dura-Eúropos (q.v.). Later, however, every figure was avoided. The orientation of the building toward Jerusalem, although very frequent, cannot be considered an absolute rule. The podium or pulpit for the reading of the Bible, the stone seats or benches for the choir and for persons of distinction, are common to Christian churches and synagogues. The first, called bēmah with a Greek term, seems to have been the “chair of Moses” in New Testament times (cf. Mt. 23, 2); the second constituted the places of honor (Greek πρωτοκλεοδόξα; Mt. 23, 6), while those along the walls were for all. The women’s gallery, reserved for women, is fairly common; whereas the presence of the narthex is much rarer.

The community was responsible for the liturgy and the synagogue prayer. Lacking a priestly body with official function, individuals specially prepared served as leaders of worship, called rabbis (q.v.) from the Middle Ages onward, since it was not easy to find among ordinary faithful persons qualified for the reading or the chanting of Hebrew texts. In antiquity only an archisynagogue is mentioned (Mk. 5, 22; Lk. 13, 14; Acts 13, 15; 18, 8), called in Hebrew rōb bēth hak-kēnēsēth, who was to direct the assemblies, and a minister or attendant (Lk. 4, 20), called in Hebrew ḥazzān and in Greek ὀντιστής, who not rarely also took charge of the school for children, almost always annexed to the sacred building. The synagogue was a place of prayer and of instruction. The first aim was achieved by the recitation of formulas, which soon were fixed with precision, such as the Sēma' and the Sēmōneh 'ešrēh, and by the chanting of the Psalms. The reading of biblical passages, which in the earliest period seems to have been left to the choice of the archisynagogue or the reader (Lk. 4, 16), but which later was determined in a pericope from the Pentateuch (pārāšāh) and one from the “Prophets” (ḥaphtārāh), offered points for elevating the mind to God or instructed about the moral conduct to be followed. This latter characteristic was often emphasized by some doctor of the Law or by a simple listener, who commented on the text read or exhorted the congregation in general. Both Jesus (cf. Mt. 4, 23; Lk. 4, 16 ff.; 13, 10) and his disciples (Acts 9, 20; 13, 5.14; 14, 1; 17, 1.17; 18, 4.19.26; 19, 8) took advantage of this custom to spread the new doctrine. The assemblies took place on the Sabbath (Lk. 13, 10; Acts 18, 4) and on feast days; but later there were meetings

makah, on Mount Carmel. In the synagogue of Noarah some inscriptions in Hebrew-Aramaic recall the collaborators, for example: “To the good memory of Benjamin Phineas son of Joseph. May those also be in happy memory who have associated themselves, have collaborated with gifts, or have taken part in the work for this holy place; fortunate people, people of good will, people of every condition; may it be granted them, if it please God, their share in this holy place. Amen”; again: “To the good memory of the presbyter Pinchas, son of Josbah, who with his money gave the price of the mosaic and the roof” (Revue biblique, 30 [1921], p. 581); “To the good memory of Khalifon daughter of the rabbi Safrah who collaborated for this holy place. Amen” (loc. cit.). “May all those be in happy memory who have associated themselves and have given or will give for this holy place, whether gold, silver, or whatever value. May they not lose their contribution in this holy place. Amen” (ibid., 28 [1919], p. 540).

The synagogue of Bejt-Alfah, in the valley west of the Jordan and south of Mount Tabor, was discovered in 1929; the building as a whole measures 27.70 m. x 14.20 m.; the assembly hall of 10.75 m. x 12.40 m. is divided into three naves by two rows of quadrilateral pillars. The ark containing the scroll of the Law and the seven-branched candelabrum stood in the apse. At the second column to the east was the bema, raised up, where the rabbi gave the reading of the Law. The entire floor of the central nave was decorated with mosaic. In the part near the apse was represented the holy cabinet (ἀρθόν ἠαώ-ἀθάδες) between two seven-branched candelabra and the symbols of Jewish worship, namely the lulab, the etrog, the sacred horn, and the case containing the scroll of the Law. The ἀρθόν is surmounted by a triangular pediment and at the two corners are perched two birds; two lions with gaping jaws guard the ark. In the center of the mosaic are represented the twelve signs of the zodiac, with their names in Hebrew, around the solar chariot; at the corners are the symbols of the four seasons. Below is represented the sacrifice of Abraham, according to the biblical text with the two servants (Gen. 22, 3), the ass, a ram tied to the tree, and the words in Hebrew “and behold a ram” (ibid. 22, 12); above Abraham, distinguished by the name in Greek, is the hand of God that stays him and the words also in Hebrew “lay not thy hand upon” (ibid. 22, 13); nearby is Isaac with the name in Hebrew and the altar lit for the sacrifice. The mosaic border surrounding the representations mentioned contains birds and animals; a basket of fruit, clusters of grapes, geometric decorations, and two inscriptions, one in Greek and the other in Aramaic.

In the synagogue of Noarah a mosaic was found with Daniel in the lions’ den; in that of Gerasa in Transjordan the exit of the animals from the ark; there were represented Shem and Japheth with their names in Greek and doubtless the other members of Noah’s family.

As for the synagogue of Dura: see DURA EÚROPOS.

(see J. B. Frey, Une ancienne synagogue de Gaillte récemment détournée, in Riv. di arch. crist., 10 [1919], p. 540).