Last week’s post examined bribery in acts of office according to the norms of Canon 1377 §2. Today’s post focuses on the delict of simony.
Canon 727 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law provided that simony means the “will to buy or sell for a temporal price an intrinsically spiritual thing, for example, Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, indulgences, and so forth, or temporal things so connected with spiritual things that without the spiritual they cannot exist, for example, ecclesiastical benefices, and so on, or a spiritual thing that is, even in part, the object of a contract, for example, the consecration of a chalice consecrated in sale.” The 1983 Code does not define simony.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines simony “as the buying or selling of spiritual things” (CCC, 2121). The term ‘simony’ emerged from Simon, the magician who wanted to buy the spiritual power at work in the apostles (Acts 8:9-24).
Based on the generic definition of simony, it is not restricted to celebrating or receiving sacraments but includes the provision of ecclesiastical offices. The reason is that ecclesiastical offices are established to further a spiritual purpose (cf. Can. 145 §1).
Various instances of simony appear in the code. Canon 149 §3 CIC 83 states: “The provision of an office made as a result of simony, is invalid by virtue of the law itself.” This means that the appointment is automatically invalid if a superior appoints one to an office after a payment. This seems similar to the last two posts that examined “bribery of one who exercises an office, ministry, or function” according to Canon 1377 §1 norms. However, it differs because the post on bribery focused on offering something or promising to offer something to someone who exercises an office so that the person can act unlawfully or fail to act. In the case of simony, the one who exercises an office acts lawfully; nevertheless, the decision to act lawfully is influenced by temporal gifts. This is where lobbying can become delictual.
Hence, the code attaches invalidity as the remedy for that illegality. Moreover, the provision of an office is a necessary and legitimate act by a competent authority. Nevertheless, unlike the Latin Code, the Code of Eastern Churches (CCEO) considers the provision of office through simony as a delict punishable with an appropriate penalty, not excluding excommunication (cf. Can. 1462 CCEO).
In the same vein, canon 188 states: “A resignation which is made as a result of grave fear unjustly inflicted, or of deceit, or of substantial error, or of simony, is invalid by virtue of the law itself.” This means that one who resigns from an office or a function because he or she was paid to do so acted invalidly. While resignation from an office is a human right and can be salvific when one can no longer continue, resignation should not be done due to gifts and favours already received or yet to be received.
In the two cases described above, the act done as a result of simony is invalid, but the law does not categorise them as delicts. Instead, it attaches invalidity so that the illegitimate act is remedied immediately with invalidity of action. However, the delictual nature of simony is restricted to the celebration and reception of the sacraments because of sacrilege. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us” (CCC, 2120). Hence, regarding the Eucharist, canon 947 provides that “any appearance of trafficking or trading is to be excluded entirely from the offering for Masses.”
The delict of simony appears in canon 1380, which states: “A person who through simony celebrates or receives a sacrament is to be punished with an interdict or suspension of the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§2-4.” It is a malicious delict aimed at equalising the temporal and the spiritual, and it is divided into two.
The first concerns the one celebrating the sacrament, that is, the one who ‘sells’ a sacrament. Here, any priest or minister who celebrates the sacraments in exchange for money, property or other gifts is guilty of simony. It is important to emphasise that the money is not the stole fees, which is money received on the occasion of the administration of the sacraments. Instead, it is extra money requested or paid to obtain the sacrament. As discussed in the last two posts focusing on canon 1377, promising or offering something to a minister in view of obtaining a favour becomes simony when the favour is a sacrament.
In light of this, the competent authority stipulates a small amount that everyone can offer, and the minister ensures that he does not deprive the needy of the sacrament because of poverty (cf. Can. 848). In the same view, the law earnestly recommends that priests celebrate the mass for the intentions of Christ’s faithful even if they do not receive an offering due to penury (cf. Can. 945 §2).
The second category concerns one who deliberately offers money, property or other gifts to obtain a sacrament, that is, the one who ‘bought’ a sacrament. For instance, one who pays money or makes offerings to be ordained a priest.
Since this is a malicious delict, the offence is not present when a third party pays for the sacrament but does not receive it. However, the delict could be present if the recipient of the sacrament conspired with the third party to get the payment through. Here, the third party is an accomplice to the offence (cf. Can. 1329 §1). On the other hand, the delict is absent if the person who receives the sacrament is unaware that a payment has been made.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
