|
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 (FS, Question 74,
Articles 1,2; FS, Question 77, Article 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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
(Article 1, ad 2). Therefore a person should not always be
deprived of what he has acquired by simony.
Objection 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
Mt. 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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.
|
|