SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 100, Art. 6]

Whether Those Who Are Guilty of Simony Are Fittingly Punished by

Being Deprived of What They Have Acquired by Simony?

Objection 1: It would seem that those who are guilty of simony are

not fittingly punished by being deprived of what they have acquired

by simony. Simony is committed by acquiring spiritual things in

return for a remuneration. Now certain spiritual things cannot be

lost when once acquired, such as all characters that are imprinted by

a consecration. Therefore it is not a fitting punishment for a person

to be deprived of what he has acquired simoniacally.

Obj. 2: Further, it sometimes happens that one who has obtained the

episcopate by simony commands a subject of his to receive orders from

him: and apparently the subject should obey, so long as the Church

tolerates him. Yet no one ought to receive from him that has not the

power to give. Therefore a bishop does not lose his episcopal power,

if he has acquired it by simony.

Obj. 3: Further, no one should be punished for what was done without

his knowledge and consent, since punishment is due for sin which is

voluntary, as was shown above (I-II, Q. 74, AA. 1, 2; Q. 77, A. 7).

Now it happens sometimes that a person acquires something spiritual,

which others have procured for him without his knowledge and consent.

Therefore he should not be punished by being deprived of what has

been bestowed on him.

Obj. 4: Further, no one should profit by his own sin. Yet, if a

person who has acquired an ecclesiastical benefice by simony, were to

restore what he has received, this would sometimes turn to the profit

of those who had a share in his simony; for instance, when a prelate

and his entire chapter have consented to the simony. Therefore that

which has been acquired by simony ought not always to be restored.

Obj. 5: Further, sometimes a person obtains admission to a monastery

by simony, and there takes the solemn vow of profession. But no one

should be freed from the obligation of a vow on account of a fault he

has committed. Therefore he should not be expelled from the monastic

state which he has acquired by simony.

Obj. 6: Further, in this world external punishment is not inflicted

for the internal movements of the heart, whereof God alone is the

judge. Now simony is committed in the mere intention or will,

wherefore it is defined in reference to the will, as stated above (A.

1, ad 2). Therefore a person should not always be deprived of what he

has acquired by simony.

Obj. 7: Further, to be promoted to greater dignity is much less than

to retain that which one has already received. Now sometimes those

who are guilty of simony are, by dispensation, promoted to greater

dignity. Therefore they should not always be deprived of what they

have received.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (I, qu. i, cap. Si quis Episcopus):

"He that has been ordained shall profit nothing from his ordination

or promotion that he has acquired by the bargain, but shall forfeit

the dignity or cure that he has acquired with his money."

_I answer that,_ No one can lawfully retain that which he has

acquired against the owner's will. For instance, if a steward were to

give some of his lord's property to a person, against his lord's will

and orders, the recipient could not lawfully retain what he received.

Now Our Lord, Whose stewards and ministers are the prelates of

churches, ordered spiritual things to be given gratis, according to

Matt. 10:8, "Freely have you received, freely give." Wherefore

whosoever acquires spiritual things in return for a remuneration

cannot lawfully retain them. Moreover, those who are guilty of

simony, by either selling or buying spiritual things, as well as

those who act as go-between, are sentenced to other punishments,

namely, infamy and deposition, if they be clerics, and

excommunication if they be laymen, as stated qu. i, cap. Si quis

Episcopus [*Qu. iii, can. Si quis praebendas].

Reply Obj. 1: He that has received a sacred Order simoniacally,

receives the character of the Order on account of the efficacy of the

sacrament: but he does not receive the grace nor the exercise of the

Order, because he has received the character by stealth as it were,

and against the will of the Supreme Lord. Wherefore he is suspended,

by virtue of the law, both as regards himself, namely, that he should

not busy himself about exercising his Order, and as regards others,

namely, that no one may communicate with him in the exercise of his

Order, whether his sin be public or secret. Nor may he reclaim the

money which he basely gave, although the other party unjustly retains

it.

Again, a man who is guilty of simony, through having conferred Orders

simoniacally, or through having simoniacally granted or received a

benefice, or through having been a go-between in a simoniacal

transaction, if he has done so publicly, is suspended by virtue of

the law, as regards both himself and others; but if he has acted in

secret he is suspended by virtue of the law, as regards himself

alone, and not as regards others.

Reply Obj. 2: One ought not to receive Orders from a bishop one knows

to have been promoted simoniacally, either on account of his command

or for fear of his excommunication: and such as receive Orders from

him do not receive the exercise of their Orders, even though they are

ignorant of his being guilty of simony; and they need to receive a

dispensation. Some, however, maintain that one ought to receive

Orders in obedience to his command unless one can prove him to be

guilty of simony, but that one ought not to exercise the Order

without a dispensation. But this is an unreasonable statement,

because no one should obey a man to the extent of communicating with

him in an unlawful action. Now he that is, by virtue of the law,

suspended as regards both himself and others, confers Orders

unlawfully: wherefore no one should communicate with him, by

receiving Orders from him for any cause whatever. If, however, one be

not certain on the point, one ought not to give credence to another's

sin, and so one ought with a good conscience to receive Orders from

him. And if the bishop has been guilty of simony otherwise than by a

simoniacal promotion, and the fact be a secret, one can receive

Orders from him because he is not suspended as regards others, but

only as regards himself, as stated above (ad 1).

Reply Obj. 3: To be deprived of what one has received is not only the

punishment of a sin, but is also sometimes the effect of acquiring

unjustly, as when one buys a thing of a person who cannot sell it.

Wherefore if a man, knowingly and spontaneously, receives Orders or

an ecclesiastical benefice simoniacally, not only is he deprived of

what he has received, by forfeiting the exercise of his order, and

resigning the benefice and the fruits acquired therefrom, but also in

addition to this he is punished by being marked with infamy.

Moreover, he is bound to restore not only the fruit actually

acquired, but also such as could have been acquired by a careful

possessor (which, however, is to be understood of the net fruits,

allowance being made for expenses incurred on account of the fruits),

excepting those fruits that have been expended for the good of the

Church.

On the other hand, if a man's promotion be procured simoniacally by

others, without his knowledge and consent, he forfeits the exercise

of his Order, and is bound to resign the benefice obtained together

with fruits still extant; but he is not bound to restore the fruits

which he has consumed, since he possessed them in good faith.

Exception must be made in the case when his promotion has been

deceitfully procured by an enemy of his; or when he expressly opposes

the transaction, for then he is not bound to resign, unless

subsequently he agree to the transaction, by paying what was promised.

Reply Obj. 4: Money, property, or fruits simoniacally received, must

be restored to the Church that has incurred loss by their transfer,

notwithstanding the fact that the prelate or a member of the chapter

of that church was at fault, since others ought not to be the losers

by his sin: in suchwise, however, that, as far as possible, the

guilty parties be not the gainers. But if the prelate and the entire

chapter be at fault, restitution must be made, with the consent of

superior authority, either to the poor or to some other church.

Reply Obj. 5: If there are any persons who have been simoniacally

admitted into a monastery, they must quit: and if the simony was

committed with their knowledge since the holding of the General

Council [*Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, held by Innocent III],

they must be expelled from their monastery without hope of return,

and do perpetual penance under a stricter rule, or in some house of

the same order, if a stricter one be not found. If, however, this

took place before the Council, they must be placed in other houses of

the same order. If this cannot be done, they must be received into

monasteries of the same order, by way of compensation, lest they

wander about the world, but they must not be admitted to their former

rank, and must be assigned a lower place.

On the other hand, if they were received simoniacally, without their

knowledge, whether before or after the Council, then after quitting

they may be received again, their rank being changed as stated.

Reply Obj. 6: In God's sight the mere will makes a man guilty of

simony; but as regards the external ecclesiastical punishment he is

not punished as a simoniac, by being obliged to resign, but is bound

to repent of his evil intention.

Reply Obj. 7: The Pope alone can grant a dispensation to one who has

knowingly received a benefice (simoniacally). In other cases the

bishop also can dispense, provided the beneficiary first of all

renounce what he has received simoniacally, so that he will receive

either the lesser dispensation allowing him to communicate with the

laity, or a greater dispensation, allowing him after doing penance to

retain his order in some other Church; or again a greater

dispensation, allowing him to remain in the same Church, but in minor

orders; or a full dispensation allowing him to exercise even the

major orders in the same Church, but not to accept a prelacy.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 654 / 1128 题