Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I ad Thess. II, non fuimus aliquando in occasione avaritiae. Sed hoc videtur ad occasionem avaritiae pertinere quod poena pecuniaria exigatur pro violatione rei sacrae. Ergo non videtur talis poena esse conveniens sacrilegii.
Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess 2:5): Neither have we taken an occasion of covetousness. But it seems to involve an occasion of covetousness that a pecuniary punishment should be exacted for the violation of a sacred thing. Therefore this does not seem to be a fitting punishment of sacrilege.
Sed contra est quod dicitur XVII, qu. IV, si quis contumax vel superbus fugitivum servum de atrio Ecclesiae per vim abstraxerit, nongentos solidos componat. Et ibidem postea dicitur, quisquis inventus fuerit reus sacrilegii, triginta libras argenti examinati purissimi componat.
On the contrary, It is written: If anyone contumaciously or arrogantly take away by force an escaped slave from the confines of a church he shall pay nine hundred soldi: and again further on (XVII, qu. iv, can. Quisquis inventus, can. 21): Whoever is found guilty of sacrilege shall pay thirty pounds of tried purest silver.
Respondeo dicendum quod in poenis infligendis duo sunt consideranda. Primo quidem, aequalitas, ad hoc quod poena sit iusta, ut scilicet in quo quis peccat, per hoc torqueatur, ut dicitur Sap. XI. Et hoc modo conveniens poena sacrilegi, qui sacris iniuriam infert est excommunicatio, per quam a sacris arcetur. Secundo autem consideratur utilitas, nam poenae quasi medicinae quaedam infliguntur, ut his territi homines a peccando desistant. Sacrilegus autem, qui sacra non reveretur, non sufficienter videtur a peccando arceri per hoc quod ei sacra interdicuntur, de quibus non curat. Et ideo secundum leges humanas adhibetur capitis poena; secundum vero Ecclesiae sententiam, quae mortem corporalem non infligit, adhibetur pecuniaria poena, ut saltem poenis temporalibus homines a sacrilegiis revocentur.
I answer that, In the award of punishments two points must be considered. First equality, in order that the punishment may be just, and that by what things a man sinneth by the same . . . he may be tormented (Wis 11:17). In this respect the fitting punishment of one guilty of sacrilege, since he has done an injury to a sacred thing, is excommunication whereby sacred things are withheld from him. The second point to be considered is utility. For punishments are inflicted as medicines, that men being deterred thereby may desist from sin. Now it would seem that the sacrilegious man, who reverences not sacred things, is not sufficiently deterred from sinning by sacred things being withheld from him, since he has no care for them. Wherefore according to human laws he is sentenced to capital punishment, and according to the statutes of the Church, which does not inflict the death of the body, a pecuniary punishment is inflicted, in order that men may be deterred from sacrilege, at least by temporal punishments.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ecclesia corporalem mortem non infligit, sed loco eius infligit excommunicationem.
Reply Obj. 1: The Church inflicts not the death of the body, but excommunication in its stead.
Ad secundum dicendum quod necesse est duas poenas adhiberi quando per unam non sufficienter revocatur aliquis a peccando. Et ideo oportuit, supra poenam excommunicationis, adhibere aliquam temporalem poenam, ad coercendum homines qui spiritualia contemnunt.
Reply Obj. 2: When one punishment is not sufficient to deter a man from sin, a double punishment must be inflicted. Wherefore it was necessary to inflict some kind of temporal punishment in addition to the punishment of excommunication, in order to coerce those who despise spiritual things.
Ad tertium dicendum quod si pecunia exigeretur sine rationabili causa, hoc videretur ad occasionem avaritiae pertinere. Sed quando exigitur ad hominum correctionem, habet manifestam utilitatem. Et ideo non pertinet ad occasionem avaritiae.
Reply Obj. 3: If money were exacted without a reasonable cause, this would seem to involve an occasion of covetousness. But when it is exacted for the purpose of man’s correction, it has a manifest utility, and consequently involves no occasion of avarice.
Deinde considerandum est de simonia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.
We must now consider simony, under which head there are six points of inquiry:
Primo, quid sit simonia.
(1) What is simony?
Secundo, utrum liceat pro sacramentis pecuniam accipere.
(2) Whether it is lawful to accept money for the sacraments?
Tertio, utrum liceat accipere pecuniam pro spiritualibus actibus.
(3) Whether it is lawful to accept money for spiritual actions?
Quarto, utrum liceat vendere ea quae sunt spiritualibus annexa.
(4) Whether it is lawful to sell things connected with spirituals?
Quinto, utrum solum munus a manu faciat simoniacum, an etiam munus a lingua et ab obsequio.
(5) Whether real remuneration alone makes a man guilty of simony, or also oral remuneration or remuneration by service?
Sexto, de poena simoniaci.
(6) Of the punishment of simony.
Utrum simonia sit studiosa voluntas emendi et vendendi aliquid spirituale vel spirituali annexum
Whether simony is an intentional will to buy or sell something spiritual or connected with a spiritual thing?
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod simonia non sit studiosa voluntas emendi et vendendi aliquid spirituale vel spirituali annexum. Simonia enim est haeresis quaedam, dicitur enim I, qu. I, tolerabilior est Macedonii, et eorum qui circa ipsum sunt sancti spiritus impugnatorum, impia haeresis quam simoniacorum. Illi enim creaturam, et servum Dei patris et filii, spiritum sanctum delirando fatentur, isti vero eundem spiritum sanctum efficiunt servum suum. Omnis enim dominus quod habet, si vult, vendit, sive servum, sive quid aliud eorum quae possidet. Sed infidelitas non consistit in voluntate, sed magis in intellectu, sicut et fides, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo simonia non debet per voluntatem definiri.
Objection 1: It would seem that simony is not an express will to buy or sell something spiritual or connected with a spiritual thing. Simony is heresy, since it is written (I, qu. i ): The impious heresy of Macedonius and of those who with him impugned the Holy Spirit, is more endurable than that of those who are guilty of simony: since the former in their ravings maintained that the Holy Spirit of Father and Son is a creature and the slave of God, whereas the latter make the same Holy Spirit to be their own slave. For every master sells what he has just as he wills, whether it be his slave or any other of his possessions. But unbelief, like faith, is an act not of the will but of the intellect, as shown above (Q. 10, A. 2). Therefore simony should not be defined as an act of the will.
Praeterea, studiose peccare est ex malitia peccare, quod est peccare in spiritum sanctum. Si ergo simonia est studiosa voluntas peccandi, sequitur quod semper sit peccatum in spiritum sanctum.
Obj. 2: Further, to sin intentionally is to sin through malice, and this is to sin against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if simony is an intentional will to sin, it would seem that it is always a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Praeterea, nihil magis est spirituale quam regnum caelorum. Sed licet emere regnum caelorum, dicit enim Gregorius, in quadam homilia, regnum caelorum tantum valet quantum habes. Ergo non est simonia velle emere aliquid spirituale.
Obj. 3: Further, nothing is more spiritual than the kingdom of heaven. But it is lawful to buy the kingdom of heaven: for Gregory says in a homily (v, in Ev.): The kingdom of heaven is worth as much as you possess. Therefore simony does not consist in a will to buy something spiritual.
Praeterea, nomen simoniae a Simone mago acceptum est, de quo legitur Act. VIII, quod obtulit apostolis pecuniam ad spiritualem potestatem emendam, ut, scilicet, quibuscumque manus imponeret, reciperent spiritum sanctum. Non autem legitur quod aliquid voluit vendere. Ergo simonia non est voluntas vendendi aliquid spirituale.
Obj. 4: Further, simony takes its name from Simon the magician, of whom we read (Acts 8:18, 19) that he offered the apostles money that he might buy a spiritual power, in order, to wit, that on whomsoever he imposed his hand they might receive the Holy Spirit. But we do not read that he wished to sell anything. Therefore simony is not the will to sell a spiritual thing.
Praeterea, multae aliae sunt voluntariae commutationes praeter emptionem et venditionem, sicut permutatio, transactio. Ergo videtur quod insufficienter definiatur simonia.
Obj. 5: Further, there are many other voluntary commutations besides buying and selling, such as exchange and transaction. Therefore it would seem that simony is defined insufficiently.
Praeterea, omne quod est spirituali annexum est spirituale. Superflue igitur additur, vel spirituali annexum.
Obj. 6: Further, anything connected with spiritual things is itself spiritual. Therefore it is superfluous to add or connected with spiritual things.
Praeterea, Papa, secundum quosdam, non potest committere simoniam. Potest autem emere vel vendere aliquid spirituale. Ergo simonia non est voluntas emendi vel vendendi aliquid spirituale vel spirituali annexum.
Obj. 7: Further, according to some, the Pope cannot commit simony: yet he can buy or sell something spiritual. Therefore simony is not the will to buy or sell something spiritual or connected with a spiritual thing.
Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in registro, altare et decimas et spiritum sanctum emere vel vendere simoniacam haeresim esse nullus fidelium ignorat.
On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Regist. ): None of the faithful is ignorant that buying or selling altars, tithes, or the Holy Spirit is the heresy of simony.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, actus aliquis est malus ex genere ex eo quod cadit super materiam indebitam. Emptionis autem et venditionis est materia indebita res spiritualis, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia res spiritualis non potest aliquo terreno pretio compensari, sicut de sapientia dicitur Prov. III, pretiosior est cunctis opibus, et omnia quae desiderantur huic non valent comparari. Et ideo Petrus, in ipsa sui radice Simonis pravitatem condemnans, dixit, pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem, quoniam donum Dei existimasti pecunia possidere.
I answer that, As stated above (I-II, Q. 18, A. 2) an act is evil generically when it bears on undue matter. Now a spiritual thing is undue matter for buying and selling for three reasons. First, because a spiritual thing cannot be appraised at any earthly price, even as it is said concerning wisdom (Prov 3:15), she is more precious than all riches, and all things that are desired, are not to be compared with her: and for this reason Peter, in condemning the wickedness of Simon in its very source, said (Acts 8:20): Keep thy money to thyself to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Secundo, quia illud potest esse debita venditionis materia cuius venditor est dominus, ut patet in auctoritate supra inducta. Praelatus autem Ecclesiae non est dominus spiritualium rerum, sed dispensator, secundum illud I ad Cor. IV. Sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi, et dispensatores ministeriorum Dei.
Second, because a thing cannot be due matter for sale if the vendor is not the owner thereof, as appears from the authority quoted (Obj. 1). Now ecclesiastical superiors are not owners, but dispensers of spiritual things, according to 1 Cor. 4:1, Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the ministers of God.
Tertio, quia venditio repugnat spiritualium origini, quae ex gratuita Dei voluntate proveniunt. Unde et dominus dicit, Matth. X, gratis accepistis, gratis date.
Third, because sale is opposed to the source of spiritual things, since they flow from the gratuitous will of God. Wherefore Our Lord said (Matt 10:8): Freely have you received, freely give.
Et ideo aliquis, vendendo vel emendo rem spiritualem, irreverentiam exhibet Deo et rebus divinis. Propter quod, peccat peccato irreligiositatis.
Therefore by buying or selling a spiritual thing, a man treats God and divine things with irreverence, and consequently commits a sin of irreligion.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut religio consistit in quadam fidei protestatione, quam tamen interdum aliquis non habet in corde; ita etiam vitia opposita religioni habent quandam protestationem infidelitatis, licet quandoque non sit infidelitas in mente. Secundum hoc ergo, simonia haeresis dicitur secundum exteriorem protestationem, quia in hoc quod aliquis vendit donum spiritus sancti, quodammodo se protestatur esse dominum spiritualis doni; quod est haereticum. Sciendum tamen quod Simon magus, praeter hoc quod ab apostolis spiritus sancti gratiam pecunia emere voluit, dixit quod mundus non erat a Deo creatus, sed a quadam superna virtute, ut dicit Isidorus, in libro Etymol. Et secundum hoc, inter alios haereticos simoniaci computantur, ut patet in libro Augustini de haeresibus.
Reply Obj. 1: Just as religion consists in a kind of protestation of faith, without, sometimes, faith being in one’s heart, so too the vices opposed to religion include a certain protestation of unbelief without, sometimes, unbelief being in the mind. Accordingly simony is said to be a heresy, as regards the outward protestation, since by selling a gift of the Holy Spirit a man declares, in a way, that he is the owner of a spiritual gift; and this is heretical. It must, however, be observed that Simon Magus, besides wishing the apostles to sell him a grace of the Holy Spirit for money, said that the world was not created by God, but by some heavenly power, as Isidore states (Etym. viii, 5): and so for this reason simoniacs are reckoned with other heretics, as appears from Augustine’s book on heretics.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, iustitia et omnes partes eius, et per consequens omnia vitia opposita, sunt in voluntate sicut in subiecto. Et ideo convenienter simonia per voluntatem definitur. Additur autem studiosa, ad designandum electionem, quae principaliter pertinet ad virtutem et vitium. Non autem omnis qui peccat electione peccat peccato in spiritum sanctum, sed solum qui peccatum eligit per contemptum eorum quae homines solent retrahere a peccando, ut supra dictum est.
Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 58, A. 4), justice, with all its parts, and consequently all the opposite vices, is in the will as its subject. Hence simony is fittingly defined from its relation to the will. This act is furthermore described as express, in order to signify that it proceeds from choice, which takes the principal part in virtue and vice. Nor does everyone sin against the Holy Spirit that sins from choice, but only he who chooses sin through contempt of those things whereby man is wont to be withdrawn from sin, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 1).
Ad tertium dicendum quod regnum caelorum dicitur emi, dum quis dat quod habet propter Deum, large sumpto nomine emptionis, secundum quod accipitur pro merito. Quod tamen non pertingit ad perfectam rationem emptionis. Tum quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis, nec aliqua nostra dona vel opera, ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Tum quia meritum non consistit principaliter in exteriori dono vel actu vel passione, sed in interiori affectu.
Reply Obj. 3: The kingdom of heaven is said to be bought when a man gives what he has for God’s sake. But this is to employ the term buying in a wide sense, and as synonymous with merit: nor does it reach to the perfect signification of buying, both because neither the sufferings of this time, nor any gift or deed of ours, are worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us (Rom 8:18), and because merit consists chiefly, not in an outward gift, action or passion, but in an inward affection.
Ad quartum dicendum quod Simon magus ad hoc emere voluit spiritualem potestatem ut eam postea venderet, dicitur enim I, qu. III, quod Simon magus donum spiritus sancti emere voluit ut ex venditione signorum quae per eum fierent, multiplicatam pecuniam lucraretur. Et sic illi qui spiritualia vendunt, conformantur Simoni mago in intentione, in actu vero, illi qui emere volunt. Illi autem qui vendunt, in actu imitantur Giezi, discipulum Elisaei, de quo legitur IV Reg. V, quod accepit pecuniam a leproso mundato. Unde venditores spiritualium possunt dici non solum simoniaci, sed etiam Giezitae.
Reply Obj. 4: Simon the magician wished to buy a spiritual power in order that afterwards he might sell it. For it is written (I, qu. iii ), that Simon the magician wished to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, in order that he might make money by selling the signs to be wrought by him. Hence those who sell spiritual things are likened in intention to Simon the magician: while those who wish to buy them are likened to him in act. Those who sell them imitate, in act, Giezi the disciple of Eliseus, of whom we read (4 Kgs 5:20–24) that he received money from the leper who was healed: wherefore the sellers of spiritual things may be called not only simoniacs but also giezites.
Ad quintum dicendum quod nomine emptionis et venditionis intelligitur omnis contractus non gratuitus. Unde nec permutatio praebendarum vel ecclesiasticorum beneficiorum fieri potest, auctoritate partium absque periculo simoniae, sicut nec transactio, ut iura determinant. Potest tamen praelatus, ex officio suo. Permutationes huiusmodi facere pro causa utili vel necessaria.
Reply Obj. 5: The terms buying and selling cover all kinds of non-gratuitous contracts. Wherefore it is impossible for the exchange or agency of prebends or ecclesiastical benefices to be made by authority of the parties concerned without danger of committing simony, as laid down by law. Nevertheless the superior, in virtue of his office, can cause these exchanges to be made for useful or necessary reasons.
Ad sextum dicendum quod sicut anima vivit secundum seipsam, corpus vero vivit ex unione animae; ita etiam quaedam sunt spiritualia secundum seipsa, sicut sacramenta et alia huiusmodi; quaedam autem dicuntur spiritualia ex hoc quod talibus adhaerent. Unde I, qu. III, dicitur, cap. si quis obiecerit, quod spiritualia sine corporalibus rebus non proficiunt, sicut nec anima sine corpore corporaliter vivit.
Reply Obj. 6: Even as the soul lives by itself, while the body lives through being united to the soul; so, too, certain things are spiritual by themselves, such as the sacraments and the like, while others are called spiritual, through adhering to those others. Hence (I, qu. iii, cap. Siquis objecerit) it is stated that spiritual things do not progress without corporal things, even as the soul has no bodily life without the body.
Ad septimum dicendum quod Papa potest incurrere vitium simoniae, sicut et quilibet alius homo, peccatum enim tanto in aliqua persona est gravius quanto maiorem obtinet locum. Quamvis enim res Ecclesiae sint eius ut principalis dispensatoris, non tamen sunt eius ut domini et possessoris. Et ideo si reciperet pro aliqua re spirituali pecuniam de redditibus alicuius Ecclesiae, non careret vitio simoniae. Et similiter etiam posset simoniam committere recipiendo pecuniam ab aliquo laico non de bonis Ecclesiae.
Reply Obj. 7: The Pope can be guilty of the vice of simony, like any other man, since the higher a man’s position the more grievous is his sin. For although the possessions of the Church belong to him as dispenser in chief, they are not his as master and owner. Therefore, were he to accept money from the income of any church in exchange for a spiritual thing, he would not escape being guilty of the vice of simony. In like manner he might commit simony by accepting from a layman moneys not belonging to the goods of the Church.