Treatise on Simony
Tractatus de Simonia
Jean GersonTractatus de Simonia
Supra materia simoniacae labis in collatione Beneficiorum per Papam, resolvendo materiam ad radicem Scripturae Sacrae, qua dimissa, percurrere ramos opinionum particularium, fine caret; ponitur hic unica Conclusio: Simoniaca labes contra Jus divinum, vel de simoniaca specie suspectum, est in conferente Beneficium Ecclesiasticum (etiam si sit Papa) exigere, vel extorquere a beneficiando promptam pecuniam sub titulo primorum fructuum, ac impedire possessionem, & officiationem suam, quousque solverit illam pecuniam. Deducemus conclusionem hanc primo ex septem suppositionibus fundatis in Jure divino: dehinc respondebimus septem objectionibus: subinde septem considerationes, vel doctrinas, adjiciemus.
Supponitur primo pro probatione, quod in Beneficio, praesertim habente curam animarum, sunt haec duo, scilicet Officium, & Beneficium. Beneficium autem (sicut dici solet, & verum est) datur propter Officium. Unde ad jus, & obligationem officiandi, competit jus Beneficium recipiendi, sicut infra docebitur ex omni Jure. Propterea non debet obligari quis ad officiandum per traditionem Ordinis sacri, vel alias, nisi Beneficium, id est, jus recipiendi sustentationem vitae simul annectatur.
Supponitur praeterea, quod Officium Ecclesiasticum quandoque sumitur pro jure officiandi, quandoque pro obligatione ad officiandum, quandoque vero pro ipso actu officiandi. Est autem hujusmodi actus officiandi sic descriptibilis, quod est exercitium aliquod impensum ad utilitatem alterius, vel aliorum, pro consecutione felicitatis aeternae & damnationis evitatione. Unde per hanc ultimam clausulam differt Officium Ecclesiasticum ab Officio temporali, vel civili, videlicet ratione finis proximi, seu principaliter intenti; quoniam finis proximus Officii civilis est felicitas seu tranquillitas politica vitae praesentis; Officium autem Ecclesiasticum habet finem altiorem, videlicet salutem aeternam animarum.
Supponitur insuper, quod haec tria pure sunt spiritualia, scilicet jus ad officiandum, quod datur a Superiore vocante, vel eligente, quia nemo sumit sibi ho-
norem, secundum Apostolum, sed qui vocatur a Deo tanquam Aaron, Hebr. v. 4. Similiter obligatio ad officiandum consurgit ex consensu suscipientis hoc jus, vel honorem. Similiter actus officiandi spiritualis est ratione finis, vel objecti, &, ut frequenter, ratione ipsiusmet obsequii, sicut sunt, baptizare, praedicare, ordinare, celebrare Missam, absolvere, & ita de reliquis.
Supponitur amplius tanquam sufficienter, & expresse determinatum de Jure divino per Christum, & per Apostolum, quod ad Officium Ecclesiasticum, sic trifarie sumptum pro jure, pro obligatione, & pro ipso opere, correspondet Beneficium trifarie proportionabiliter sumptum, scilicet pro jure, & pro obligatione, & pro ipso opere. Unde Beneficium pro ipso jure sic potest describi, quod est jus recipiendi sustentationem vitae temporalis concedentem, ratione sui spiritualis officii. Obligatio autem ad Beneficium praestandum consurgit ex obligatione quae est ad officiandum. Unde illi qui pure sponte ministrant spiritualia, non semper obligantur illis quibus fit haec ministratio, quin habeant Curatos, vel Praelatos ad hoc ipsum eis ministrandum obligatos; alioquin duplici contritione, vel onere premerentur. Ceterum actus Beneficii, actui Officii, vel exercitio correspondet, & hoc utique de Jure divino, & inseparabili, sicut deducit Apostolus ex multiplici radice sumpta, nunc a Lege Scripturae, nunc a Lege naturae. Unde sic ait, ubi prius: Quis militat suis stipendiis unquam? Quis plantat vineam, & de fructu ejus non edit? Quis pascit gregem, & de lacte gregis non manducat? Nunquid secundum hominem hoc dico, an & Lex hoc non dicit? Scriptum est enim in Lege Moysi; Deut. xxv. 4. Non alligabis os bovi trituranti. Nunquid de bobus cura est Deo? An propter nos hoc dicit. Nam propter nos scripta sunt, quoniam debet in spe qui arat arare & qui triturat, in spe fructus percipiendi. Si nos vobis spiritualia seminamus, non magnum est si nos carnalia vestra metamus. Si alii potestatis vestrae participes sunt, quare non potius nos? Sed non usi sumus hac potestate, sed omnia sustinemus, ne quod offendiculum demus Evangelio Christi. Nescitis quoniam qui in sacrario operantur, quae de sacrario sunt edunt, & qui altario deserviunt, cum altari participant? Ita Dominus ordinavit his qui Evangelium enunciant de Evangelio vivere. Haec Apostolus, 1. Cor. IX. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. immo per Apostolum Dominus.
Supponitur rursus, quod in his quae sunt simoniaca de Jure divino, & non solum quia prohibita Lege humana (ut ita loquamur more Juristarum) Papa potest committere simoniam; quoniam divinae Legi subjicitur sicut alius, & dum transgreditur illam gravius peccat, quanto major habetur. Constat autem, prohibitum esse Jure divino, ut illud quod est vere spirituale quaeratur emi, vel vendi, sicut de Giezi, de Simone Mago Scriptura sacra palam tradit. Et sicut Christus ad Discipulos loquens determinat: Gratis accepistis, gratis date. Matth. x. 8. Ubi in eodem capitulo determinaverat, quae dicta sunt de jure Beneficii respectu Officii, dum ait: Dignus est operarius cibo suo. $. 10. Et Luc. x. 7. dicitur: mercede sua.
Supponitur ulterius, quod licet Officio Papali, ratione juris, & obligationis, & operis spiritualis, competat Beneficium trifarie proportionaliter acceptum; nihilominus ipse Papa non potest, quibuscumque modis voluerit, Beneficium illud exigere, vel extorquere, sed juxta Legem divinam quod justum est, juste exequatur, & Ab omni specie mala (sicut jubet Apostolus 1. Thess. v. 22.) semet abstineat.
Supponitur consequenter, illud injustum esse, & tale quale nemo sibi fieri vellet, quod de Beneficio jure debito ipsi Petro, ipse det pecuniam, prius quam Beneficio utatur, ne forte usurarius sit. Sic autem est in casu conclusionis, cujus veritas ex his suppositionibus simul combinatis videtur esse sufficienter ostensa. Cujus deductionis applicationem omittimus, quæ virtualiter, & resolutive stat in hoc, quod jus suscipiendi temporalia, quantumcumque temporalia videantur, est pure spirituale ratione finis & objecti; propterea Beneficium Ecclesiasticum non magis potest vendi, quam Officium cui necessario connexum est; quale tamen Officium non esse vendibile, nemo nescit.
Sed opponitur ex radice multiplici. Primo, quia sicut ex antiqua Lege Decimæ Decimarum debebantur Summo Sacerdoti a Levitis. Num. XVIII. & Deut. XVI. sic non minus in Lege nova debetur hæc Decimatio, vel sufficiens recompensatio facienda per inferiores ipsi Papæ. Hæc autem recompensatio videtur rationabilis, quod fructus primi Anni a quolibet noviter beneficiato persolvantur; quoniam in hoc Papa servit Ecclesiæ, & ita propter hoc Officium in promovendo homines sibi debetur pro sustentatione condecenti status sui, & ad hoc tam personæ, quam Beneficia possunt onerari.
Amplius: Non minus potest Papa recipere, vel petere pecuniam a beneficiato, etiam prius quam sit in possessione, quam Canonici Ecclesiæ Cathedralis, qui tamen Canonici de consuetudine recipiunt tam pecunias numeratas, quam obligationem ante possessionis adeptionem.
Amplius: Non minus rationabiliter, immo rationabilius potest Papa recipere primas Annatas Beneficiorum, quam recipiunt vel Prælati inferiores, vel Ecclesiæ Cathedrales, vel aliquæ Religiones; quod tamen ita fieri frequentius invenitur.
Amplius: Beneficia multa traduntur ad firmam, seu pensionem annuam, vel in titulo, & recipitur quandoque pars pensionis, vel tota pensio, prius quam sit de redditibus aliquid acceptum.
Amplius: Quia non est probabile, quod per tot tempora tolerasset Ecclesia in promoventibus, & promotis talem exactionem pecuniarum, si fuisset simoniaca de Jure divino, quia non solum qui faciunt mala, sed qui consentiunt facientibus (secundum Apostolum, Rom. 1.32.) digni sunt morte.
Amplius: Videretur ex his, quod horribilis confusio fuisset hactenus in Ecclesia propter defectum tituli, seu juris in Beneficiis, & consequenter in defectu administrationis Sacramentorum ad populos, pro-
pter defectum, vel suspensionem Ecclesiasticæ potestatis in Ministris.
Amplius: qualiter provideretur sic promotis a Papa, vel altero promovente simoniam committente.
Respondendo talibus objectis dicimus primo, quod inferunt, & includunt aliquas veritates. Ut quod Officio Papæ debeatur Beneficium sufficiens, & condecens. Et quod ab inferioribus sibi debetur subsidium. Et quod illud subsidium potest, vel potuit, debitis circumstantiis observatis, accipi super fructibus inferiorum Beneficiorum, ubi non est aliter facta Papæ sufficiens provisio: sicut prima ratio satis hoc concludit, tam ex Jure divino, quam naturali, præsupposito divino. Sed quod fiat exactio, vel extorsio, sicut conclusio loquitur, ratio non concludit.
Deinde cum videtur oppositum concludi per secundam Rationem de Canonicis. Respondetur, quod lata est differentia, quoniam tales pecuniæ non exiguntur a Canonicis pro Beneficio, vel Officio, sed pro communibus oneribus supportandis, in quibus Canonicus ille particeps erit quoad emolumentum commune, sicut pro fabrica, pro pane, pro pueris de Choro, pro clientibus, pro cappa, & similibus. Non negamus tamen, quin apud aliquos modus exigendi non sit usquequaque purus, & decens, licet non proprie simoniacus.
Deinde tertia ratio concludit conformiter ad primam. Deberet ergo similis esse conformitas de non exigendo fructus ante perceptionem eorum; sicut nec exiguntur ab illis de quibus est argumentum.
Deinde possumus de quarta ratione, sicut de secunda dicere, & similiter de sequentibus quoad hoc, quod valde multa (proh dolor) fiunt, & facta sunt habentia malam speciem turpis quæstus, & in multis simoniacam pravitatem, sicut & alia vitia regnare videmus passim apud homines; virtutes autem raro: propterea dicit Lex Antiqua: Non sequeris multitudinem ad faciendum malum; Exod. XXIII. 2. hæc enim est argumentatio pessima: Multitudo facit hoc, igitur est licitum; quoniam oppositum, consequentis frequenter, & quasi semper, stat cum antecedente.
Deinde respondetur per hoc ad quintam. Addendo, quod apud bonos, conscientiosos, & eruditos, quos non excæcavit malitia, vel superbiæ, vel adulationis, vel avaritiæ, talis simoniaca pestis reprobata est per prædicationes, & doctrinas, verbis & scriptis; & novissime per hoc sacrum Concilium, scilicet Constantiense, judiciali severitate damnata fuit in Capite.
Denique per præmissa patet ad sextam aliqualis responsio: addendo quod aliqui, etsi non omnes, potuerunt habere verum titulum in suis Beneficiis, & verum Ordinem sicut constat; & hoc propter excusationes aliquas probabiles apud aliquos, tam Prælatos, quam subditos. Subditos enim excusare potuit ignorantia Juris & facti, in quibus supremus Papa Christus supplevit, & supplet in talibus defectum Prælatorum, stante bona fide subditorum. Rursus promotos per simoniacam hanc exactionem potuit fortassis excusare respectus redemptionis propriæ vexationis; quemadmodum dicunt etiam in simili Theologi quod ubi Presbyter nollet baptizare puerum positum in articulo mortis, nisi pecunia præaccepta, nec apparet alius potens, vel sciens baptizare propter defectum aquæ vel instructionis, parentes pueri dare possunt pecuniam; non quidem intentione emendi Baptisma, sed redimendi vexationem suam & puero providendi. Neque per hoc dicendi sunt consentire peccato simoniæ hujus Curati; sicut in materia de usuris potest aliquis accipere ad usuram licite in casibus certis, quamvis alteri nullo modo liceat dare. Unde redemptio vexationis videtur habere locum, non quidem in acquirendo Jus novum ad Officium vel Beneficium hujusmodi spirituale, præsertim apud conferentem; sed invenitur habere locum dum tolli quæritur impedimentum quod apponitur, ne quis jure suo vel re sua pacifice potiatur vel utatur. Sic fortassis excusabiles essent subditi respectu Curatorum vel Prælatorum: dum compelluntur pecuniam ante tradere, quam res spirituales eis debite conferantur; sicut in exemplo priori de Baptismo parvulorum, de Sepulturis, de ministratione Corporis Christi, de Absolutione Sacramentali, de collatione Ordinum, Matrimoniorum, & similium. Denique pro responsione ad septimam rationem; Consideratio sextuplex notabitur satis conformiter ad præmissa.
Simoniaca labes sicut de per se non est hæresis, sic non aufert a Papa necessario suam potestatem vel Ecclesiasticæ potestatis plenitudinem, immo nec executionem. Prima pars ideo manifesta est, quia stat aliquem esse simoniacum ex sola depravatione affectus per avaritiam, remanente judicio recto intellectus quod sic agere peccatum est. Non est autem hæresis sine depravatione intellectus per errorem de his quæ recta Fides tradit. Potest nihilominus præsumptione Juris, vel operis, simoniacus omnis haberi in Fide suspectus. Patet altera pars, quoniam positivis Legibus suis non est Papa subjectus; ut tales sunt. Quod autem simoniacus suspendatur ab omni exercitio tanquam excommunicatus ipso facto, positivum est quod non ligat Papam, cum par in parem non habeat imperium: cum præterea sit hoc modo solutus Legibus, intellige pure positivis pœnalibus, ut supra jus hoc modo sumptum. Sic intelligenda est (prout arbitror) distinctio Dominorum Juristarum; dum dicunt aliquid esse simoniacum, quia prohibitum; & in illo tali non posse Papam committere simoniam, plane nulla est proprie simonia; nisi quia prohibita Jure divino, ubi scilicet convenit contractus iste rerum spiritualium pro re commensurabili numismate; Do si des; vel Do ut des. Nihilominus apponitur in aliquibus contractibus non de se simoniacis pœna simoniæ, ubi verum est quod hoc ideo dicitur simoniacum, quia Lege humana prohibitum, sicut aliquis punitur tanquam hæreticus præsumptione Juris positivi vel operis, qui veraciter est Catholicus.
Simoniaca labes in Papa conferente Prælaturam, vel Beneficium, non tollit necessario jus ad Beneficium neque potestatis Ecclesiasticæ suspendit executionem. Hæc consideratio sequitur ex antecedenti, quoniam potest Papa velle taliter promotum non incurrere Sententiam Juris positivi, etiam ubi veram simoniam committeret consentiendo simoniacæ promotioni suæ, quamvis apud Deum non evaderet omnem pœnam. Patet aliunde consideratio juxta ea quæ dicta sunt circa sextam objectionem de redemptione vexationis; vel etiam, ubi bona fides & simplex in promoto esset, ipsumque salvaret.
Simoniaca labes periculosior est, etsi non quoad Deum, tamen quoad Forum Ecclesiasticum, in promotis per Prælatos inferiores, quam per Papam. Hoc perspicuum est ex præcedenti consideratione: attento quod omnis simoniacus ipso Jure excommunicatus est, cum reliquis pœnis, a quibus non liberatur per Ordinarium, quemadmodum de Papa tactum est.
Simoniaca labes quamvis posset excusari, vel non inveniri circa receptionem pecuniarum, vel eorum quæ sunt numismate mensurabilia (quemadmodum sunt obsequia vel favores & obligatoriæ promissiones circa spiritualium administrationem, in literis testimonialibus conferendis & similibus) Nihilominus expedit in his omnibus, ut observetur Apostolica regula: Quantum fieri potest, ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. 1. Thess. v. 22. Posset de prima parte deductio fieri per plurima circa diversos Ordines & status, circa Religiosos Conventus, & seculares Ecclesias: circa Prælatos & Officiarios suos, circa Curatos & eorum Vicarios vel subditos. Fiunt itaque plurima per tales hujusmodi, quæ rectam habere possunt intentionem, licet modus faciendi scandalizet, ut quia videtur fieri pactio de temporalibus, vel negatio spiritualium, seu dilatio propter temporalia; vel ex adverso fieri videtur propter temporalia spiritualium collatio, exercitium vel frequentatio, ut in Missis dicendis, ut in Horis lucrosis, non aliis frequentandis. Caveatur igitur hæc multiplex mali species per boni speciem appositam quantum fieri dabitur, quia non est nostrum, posse scandalis omnibus acceptis occurrere.
Simoniaca labes commodius evitari potest per rectificationem intentionis, desiderando scilicet, vel accipiendo temporalia, non ut sunt pretium spiritualium vel cupiditatis nutrimentum; sed necessariæ sustentationis corporalis adjumentum. Sic itaque salvabitur illic non esse commutationem simoniacam, ubi tamen concurrit hoc, Do si des vel Do ut des; quoniam hæ dictiones conditionales & causales, si, ut, propter, & similes, non notabunt causam principalem, sed consecutivam, & minus principalem, seu motivam, vel adminiculativam, seu meritoriam, ut ibi: Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas justificationes tuas in æternum propter retributionem. Ps. CVIII. 112. Quæ utique retributio referebatur ad Deum per Prophetam, sicut finis sub fine. Ubi autem unum propter aliud (ut dicit Philosophus) utrobique unum.
Simoniaca labes potest quoad praeterita suscipere provisionem & medelam, per hoc sacrum Concilium, propter serenationem conscientiarum & animarum salutem, taliter quod aboleantur Edicto generali quaelibet poenae vel Sententiae Juris positivi, contra simoniacos editae, cum habilitatibus ad Beneficia jam obtenta, dando licentiam insuper pro praeterito, ut quilibet possit eligere Confessorem idoneum, qui eum super omnibus dubiis vel scrupulis, in Foro conscientiae absolvat. Videtur fortassis haec provisio nimis lata, vel laxa, juxta severitatem Ecclesiasticae disciplinae; sed habeatur respectus ad immensitatem misericordiae Dei, & humanam fragilitatem, quae mallet saepe saluti propriae, quam Beneficio vel statui renuntiare, & tolerabilis apparebit ista provisio: aut si de necessitate puniendi sunt aliqui nimis notorie scandalosi; nihilominus de salute communitatis atque plurimorum, cogitetur.
Simoniaca labes poterit pro futuro praeservationem habere. Cogitetur per hoc sacrum Concilium, ne Leges debitas vel jam institutas renovando, mutando, vel interpretando circa collationem omnium spiritualium, tam a capite quam a membris, cum tali moderamine, quod neque fiat strictior prohibitio temporalium quam oportet, in capite vel in membris, sicut factum esse plures existimant in quibusdam. Neque rursus permittatur talis laxatio, quae vel veram simoniam vel scandalosam simoniae speciem introducat; haec autem particulariter aperire, sit eorum qui ad hoc particulariter commissi sunt. Ceterum generale Concilium in qua potestate possit Leges hujusmodi praescribere; praesertim Summo Pontifici, sine laesione plenitudinis suae potestatis, utilis est practicatio, de qua si annuerit Deus, alias & alibi videbitur, concordando plenitudinem potestatis Papalis, cum ipsa plenitudine potestatis Concilii generalis.
Treatise on Simony
Concerning the matter of the simoniacal stain in the conferral of benefices by the Pope: resolving the matter down to the root of Sacred Scripture—since, if that is set aside, to run through the branches of particular opinions has no end—a single Conclusion is here set down: It is a simoniacal stain contrary to the divine Law, or at least suspect of the simoniacal species, when the one conferring an ecclesiastical benefice (even if he be the Pope) demands or extorts from the one to be beneficed ready money under the title of first-fruits, and hinders his taking possession and exercising his office until he has paid that money. We shall deduce this conclusion first from seven suppositions founded in divine Law; then we shall reply to seven objections; thereafter we shall add seven considerations or teachings.
It is supposed, first, for the sake of proof, that in a benefice—especially one having the cure of souls—there are these two things, namely Office and Benefice. The Benefice, moreover (as is commonly said, and rightly), is given on account of the Office. Hence to the right and obligation of officiating there corresponds the right of receiving the Benefice, as will be shown below from every branch of law. For this reason no one ought to be bound to officiate by the conferral of a sacred Order, or otherwise, unless the Benefice—that is, the right of receiving sustenance for life—is annexed to it at the same time.
It is further supposed that an ecclesiastical Office is sometimes taken for the right to officiate, sometimes for the obligation to officiate, and sometimes for the very act of officiating. Now the act of officiating in this sense may be described as some exercise expended for the benefit of another or of others, for the attainment of eternal happiness and the avoidance of damnation. Hence by this last clause the ecclesiastical Office differs from a temporal or civil office, namely by reason of its proximate or principally intended end; for the proximate end of a civil office is the happiness or political tranquility of the present life, whereas an ecclesiastical Office has a higher end, namely the eternal salvation of souls.
It is supposed, moreover, that these three things are purely spiritual: namely, the right to officiate, which is given by the Superior who calls or elects, because no one takes this ho[nor]
[nor] upon himself, according to the Apostle, but he who is called by God as Aaron was (Hebrews 5:4). Likewise the obligation to officiate arises from the consent of the one who receives this right or honor. Likewise the act of officiating is spiritual by reason of its end or object, and frequently by reason of the service itself, as are baptizing, preaching, ordaining, celebrating the Mass, absolving, and so on with the rest.
It is further supposed, as being sufficiently and expressly determined by divine Law through Christ and through the Apostle, that to an ecclesiastical Office—taken in the threefold manner just described, for right, for obligation, and for the work itself—there corresponds a Benefice taken proportionately in a threefold manner, namely for right, for obligation, and for the work itself. Hence the Benefice, taken for the right itself, may be described as the right of receiving sustenance for temporal life from the one granting it, by reason of one’s spiritual office. The obligation of providing the Benefice arises from the obligation to officiate. Hence those who minister spiritual things purely of their own accord are not always under obligation to those to whom this ministration is made; rather, the latter have Curates or Prelates obligated to minister this very thing to them, for otherwise they would be pressed by a twofold crushing or burden. Furthermore, the act of the Benefice corresponds to the act or exercise of the Office, and this indeed by divine Law, and inseparably, as the Apostle deduces from a manifold root drawn now from the Law of Scripture, now from the Law of nature. Hence he speaks thus in the passage already cited: “Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk of the flock? Do I say these things according to man, or does not the Law also say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:4), ‘You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain.’ Is it for the oxen that God is concerned? Or does he say it for our sake? For our sake it was written, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes, in the hope of receiving fruit. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? If others partake of this power over you, why not rather we? But we have not used this power; we bear all things, lest we give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat of the things of the sanctuary, and those who serve at the altar share with the altar? So the Lord has ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.” Thus the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 9:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14—indeed, the Lord through the Apostle.
It is further supposed that, in those matters which are simoniacal by divine Law—and not only because forbidden by human Law (to speak in the manner of the Jurists)—the Pope can commit simony; for he is subject to the divine Law like any other, and when he transgresses it he sins the more gravely, the greater he is held to be. Now it is established that it is forbidden by divine Law for that which is truly spiritual to be sought out for buying or selling, as Sacred Scripture openly hands down concerning Gehazi and Simon Magus. And as Christ, speaking to the Disciples, determines: “Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8). Where in the same chapter he had determined what has been said concerning the right of the Benefice with respect to the Office, when he says: “The laborer is worthy of his food” (verse 10). And in Luke 10:7 it is said: “of his wages.”
It is further supposed that, although to the Papal Office—by reason of right, of obligation, and of spiritual work—there corresponds a Benefice taken proportionately in a threefold way; nevertheless the Pope himself cannot demand or extort that Benefice in whatever ways he pleases, but must justly carry out, according to the divine Law, what is just, and must abstain “from every evil appearance” (as the Apostle commands in 1 Thessalonians 5:22).
It is further supposed that this is unjust, and such as no one would wish done to himself: namely, that in regard to a benefice rightfully owed to Peter himself, he should pay money before he enjoys the benefice, lest perchance he become a usurer. Now this is just the case in the conclusion, whose truth seems sufficiently established from these suppositions taken together. We omit the application of this deduction, which, virtually and by way of resolution, comes down to this: that the right of receiving temporal goods, however temporal they may appear, is purely spiritual by reason of its end and its object; and therefore an ecclesiastical benefice can no more be sold than the office to which it is necessarily connected; and that such an office is not saleable, no one is unaware.
But it is objected on several grounds. First: just as under the old Law the tithes of tithes were owed to the High Priest by the Levites (Num. 18; Deut. 16), so no less under the new Law is this tithing, or sufficient recompense, owed to the Pope by those beneath him. Now this recompense seems reasonable, namely that the fruits of the first year be paid by every newly beneficed person; since in this the Pope serves the Church, and therefore, on account of this office of promoting men, there is owed to him [a payment] for the fitting sustenance of his state; and for this both persons and benefices can be charged.
Further: the Pope can no less receive or request money from a beneficed person, even before he is in possession, than can the canons of a cathedral church, who nevertheless by custom receive both money paid down and a bond of obligation before possession is taken.
Further: no less reasonably, indeed more reasonably, can the Pope receive the first annates of benefices than is received by lesser prelates, or by cathedral churches, or by certain religious orders — and yet this is found to be done quite frequently.
Further: many benefices are handed over at farm, or for an annual pension, or on title, and sometimes part of the pension, or the whole pension, is received before anything has been taken from the revenues.
Further: because it is not probable that the Church would have tolerated for so long a time, among those promoting and those promoted, such an exaction of money, if it had been simoniacal by divine law; for not only those who commit evil deeds, but also those who consent to those who commit them (according to the Apostle, Rom. 1:32) are worthy of death.
Further: from these considerations it would seem that a dreadful confusion would have existed hitherto in the Church, owing to a defect of title, or of right, in benefices, and consequently to a defect in the administration of the sacraments to the people, on account
of the defect or suspension of ecclesiastical power in its ministers.
Further: how would provision be made for those thus promoted by the Pope, or by any other promoter who commits simony?
In reply to such objections we say first that they imply and include certain truths: namely, that a sufficient and fitting benefice is owed to the office of the Pope; and that support is owed to him by his inferiors; and that such support can, or could, with the due circumstances observed, be taken from the fruits of lesser benefices, where no other sufficient provision has been made for the Pope — as the first argument sufficiently concludes, both by divine law and by natural law, the divine being presupposed. But that there should be exaction or extortion, as the conclusion speaks of, the argument does not establish.
Next, where the opposite seems to be concluded by the second argument concerning canons, the reply is that there is a great difference: for such monies are not exacted from canons for a benefice or an office, but for the supporting of common burdens, in which that canon will share as to the common emolument — such as for the fabric, for bread, for the choir-boys, for retainers, for the cope, and the like. We do not deny, however, that among some persons the manner of exacting is not altogether pure and becoming, though not properly simoniacal.
Next, the third argument concludes in conformity with the first. Therefore a like conformity ought to hold as to not exacting the fruits before they have been received, just as they are not exacted from those of whom the argument speaks.
Next, concerning the fourth argument we can speak as we did of the second, and likewise of those that follow, to this effect: that very many things (alas!) are done, and have been done, bearing the evil appearance of shameful gain, and in many cases simoniacal depravity, just as we see other vices also reigning everywhere among men, while virtues rarely do. Therefore the old Law says: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exod. 23:2); for this is a most wicked form of argument: “The multitude does this, therefore it is lawful”; since the opposite of the consequent frequently, and almost always, stands together with the antecedent.
Next, reply is made by this also to the fifth. Adding that among the good, the conscientious, and the learned, whom malice — whether of pride, or of flattery, or of avarice — has not blinded, this simoniacal plague has been reproved by preachings and teachings, by words and by writings; and most recently, by this sacred Council, namely the Council of Constance, it was condemned with judicial severity in the Head.
Finally, from what has been said above, some answer to the sixth [objection] becomes apparent: adding that some, though not all, could have held a true title to their benefices and a true Order, as is evident; and this on account of certain excuses probable in the eyes of some, both prelates and subjects. For ignorance of law and of fact could excuse the subjects, in which cases the supreme Pope Christ supplied, and still supplies, the defect of the prelates, so long as the good faith of the subjects stands. Again, those promoted through this simoniacal exaction could perhaps be excused on the ground of redeeming their own harassment; just as the theologians likewise say in a parallel case, that where a priest would refuse to baptize a child at the point of death unless money were first received, and no other person capable or knowledgeable in baptizing appears, because of a lack of water or of instruction, the parents of the child may give the money — not, indeed, with the intention of buying Baptism, but of redeeming their own harassment and providing for the child. Nor are they on this account to be said to consent to the sin of simony of that curate; just as in the matter of usury one may lawfully borrow at usury in certain cases, even though it is in no way lawful for the other party to lend. Hence redemption of harassment seems to have its place — not indeed in acquiring a new right to an office or benefice of this spiritual sort, particularly with respect to the conferrer; but it is found to have its place when one seeks to remove an impediment that is placed [in the way], so that one may not peaceably possess or use his own right or his own property. Thus perhaps the subjects would be excusable with respect to curates or prelates, when they are compelled to hand over money before spiritual things are duly conferred upon them; as in the earlier example concerning the Baptism of infants, concerning burials, concerning the ministration of the Body of Christ, concerning sacramental Absolution, concerning the conferral of Orders, of Matrimony, and the like. Finally, by way of answer to the seventh argument, a sixfold Consideration will be set down, sufficiently in conformity with what has gone before.
The stain of simony, just as of itself it is not heresy, likewise does not necessarily take away from the Pope his power or the plenitude of ecclesiastical power, nor indeed the exercise of it. The first part is therefore manifest, because it stands that someone may be a simoniac from a mere depravation of affection through avarice, while the right judgment of the intellect remains — namely, that to act thus is a sin. But there is no heresy without a depravation of the intellect through error concerning those things which the right Faith delivers. Nevertheless, by presumption of law or of the deed, every simoniac may be held suspect in the Faith. The other part is clear, since the Pope is not subject to his own positive laws, insofar as they are such. But that the simoniac be suspended from all exercise as one excommunicated ipso facto is a positive [matter] which does not bind the Pope, since an equal has no authority over an equal: since, moreover, he is in this way loosed from the laws — understand, purely positive penal laws, as above — taking law in this sense. Thus (as I judge) the distinction of the lords Jurists is to be understood, when they say that something is simoniacal because it is prohibited, and that in such a matter the Pope cannot commit simony — plainly there is properly no simony there; except insofar as it is prohibited by divine law, that is to say, where there takes place that contract of spiritual things for something commensurable with money: “I give if you give,” or “I give that you may give.” Nevertheless, in some contracts which are not of themselves simoniacal, the penalty of simony is attached, where it is true that the thing is called simoniacal for this reason, that it is prohibited by human law — just as someone may be punished as a heretic by presumption of positive law or of the deed, who is truly a Catholic.
The stain of simony in a Pope conferring a prelacy or a benefice does not necessarily take away the right to the benefice, nor does it suspend the exercise of ecclesiastical power. This consideration follows from the preceding, since the Pope can will that one so promoted does not incur the sentence of positive law, even where he would commit true simony by consenting to his own simoniacal promotion — although in God’s sight he would not escape every penalty. The consideration is also clear from another angle, in line with what has been said concerning the sixth objection about the redemption of harassment; or likewise, where there is good and simple faith in the one promoted, this would save him.
The stain of simony is more perilous — even if not with respect to God, yet with respect to the ecclesiastical forum — in those promoted by lower prelates than by the Pope. This is plain from the preceding consideration: attending to the fact that every simoniac is ipso jure excommunicated, with the other penalties, from which he is not freed by the Ordinary, as has been touched upon concerning the Pope.
Although the stain of simony may be excused, or may not be found in the receiving of monies, or of those things which are measurable in money (such as services or favors and binding promises concerning the administration of spiritual things, in the conferring of letters testimonial and the like) — nevertheless it is expedient in all these matters that the apostolic rule be observed: “As far as can be done, abstain from every appearance of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:22. On the first part a deduction could be made through many [examples] concerning the various Orders and estates, concerning religious convents and secular churches, concerning prelates and their officers, concerning curates and their vicars or subjects. Many things, then, are done by such persons in this way, which can have a right intention, although the manner of doing them gives scandal — as when a bargain seems to be made concerning temporal things, or a denial of spiritual things, or a delay of them on account of temporal things; or conversely, the conferral, exercise, or frequenting of spiritual things seems to be done for the sake of temporal things, as in Masses to be said, as in the profitable Hours being frequented while others are not. Let this manifold appearance of evil therefore be guarded against by the appearance of good set against it, so far as it shall be granted to do so — for it is not within our power to meet all possible scandals.
The stain of simony can more conveniently be avoided by the rectification of intention, namely, by desiring or accepting temporal things not as the price of spiritual things or as nourishment of cupidity, but as the necessary support of bodily sustenance. Thus it will be preserved that there is no simoniacal exchange there, even where this concurs: “I give if you give” or “I give that you may give”; since these conditional and causal expressions — “if,” “that,” “on account of,” and the like — will not denote the principal cause, but a consequent and less principal one, or a motive, auxiliary, or meritorious [cause], as in that passage: “I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes for ever, for the reward.” Psalm 119:112. Which reward was indeed referred by the Prophet to God, as an end under [a higher] end. For where one thing is for the sake of another (as the Philosopher says), both are one.
The stain of simony can, as regards the past, admit of provision and remedy through this sacred Council, for the calming of consciences and the salvation of souls, in such a way that by a general edict any penalties or sentences of positive law enacted against simoniacs be abolished, together with a restoration of eligibility for benefices already obtained, granting in addition a license for the past whereby anyone may choose a suitable confessor who shall absolve him, in the forum of conscience, from all doubts or scruples. This provision may perhaps seem too broad or lax when measured against the severity of ecclesiastical discipline; but if regard is had to the immensity of God’s mercy and to human frailty — which would often prefer to renounce its own salvation rather than its benefice or status — this provision will appear tolerable. Or if of necessity some who are too notoriously scandalous must be punished, let thought nonetheless be given to the welfare of the community and of the many.
The stain of simony will be able to have a safeguard for the future. Let care be taken by this sacred Council, in renewing, altering, or interpreting the due laws or those already instituted concerning the collation of all spiritual things — whether by the head or by the members — that it be done with such moderation that there be neither a stricter prohibition of temporal things than is fitting, in the head or in the members (as many judge has been made in certain matters), nor again such a relaxation permitted as would introduce either true simony or a scandalous appearance of simony. But to set these matters forth in particular belongs to those who have been specifically commissioned for this purpose. As for the further question, by what authority a general Council may prescribe laws of this sort — especially to the Supreme Pontiff, without injury to the plenitude of his power — the practical working out of this is useful, and, if God grant it, will be examined elsewhere and at another time, harmonizing the plenitude of papal power with the very plenitude of power of the general Council.