Gifts

Exchanging anything for a spiritual thing makes one guilty of simony, whatever the thing exchanged. It might be objected that Simon offered money (Acts 8:18), not other things. However, many things can be measured in money, so exchanging spiritual things for these counts as simony.¹See Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas (Redactio C), IV, d. 25, q. 4 (fol. 315r).

The matter is plain enough, but this has not kept many from supposing that certain things may be offered in exchange for spiritual things regardless. In a relatively extreme example, Blaise Pascal contended with the Jesuit casuistry that would permit selling spiritual things so long as money was offered as a “motive” rather than a “price.”²Pascal, Les Provinciales, 174, 187. That is, so long as the amount exchanged is not truly proportional to the spiritual thing, it is permissible. Since spiritual things are by definition priceless, this would mean that any exchange for a material thing is permitted. In this framework, Simon himself is cleared of simony.

How simony is committed therefore depends on what is exchanged for the spiritual thing and may be discerned by the quality or circumstances of the gift.

The Gregorian Triad

Almost all discussions on this matter go back to Gregory the Great, who classified gifts into three kinds. In commenting on Matthew 10:8, he quoted the Latin text of Isaiah 33:15 (“He who shakes his hands free from every gift”) to observe that it speaks of “every gift” (omni munere) rather than merely “a gift.” At this point, he exhorted the hearer to reject three classes of gifts in divine matters:³Gregory I, Homiliae in Evangelia, 4.4 (p. 25). This triad is unrelated to the later development of the munus triplex, the threefold office of Christ.

These distinctions were embraced by many who touched on the subject afterward, including Gratian,⁵Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 114. Thomas Aquinas,⁶Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 78, a. 2; II-II, q. 100, a. 5. Bonaventure,⁷Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, dub. 6 (pp. 658–59). John Wycliffe,⁸Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (3:32–4:8). Peter Martyr Vermigli,⁹Vermigli, Loci Communes, 2.8.14 (p. 250). and even later divines like William Ames¹⁰Ames, Conscience, 4.67–68. and James Durham.¹¹Durham, A Practical Exposition of the X. Commandements, 409–10. These categories appear not only in works on simony but also in writings on related ethical topics like bribery and usury. Many of the works that feature the triad directly attribute it to Gregory’s homily, remarking on the relevance of both Isaiah 33:15 and Matthew 10:8.

Writing in 1909, Nicholas Weber reported, “Subsequent ages have brought no addition to this interpretation of the material price.”¹²Weber, A History of Simony in the Christian Church, 199. More than a century on, his verdict needs no revision.

Speech and Service

Gifts of the hand, being material things or rights of pecuniary value, need little definition, but the other two members of the triad are not as easily recognized. We will here examine several examples that recur throughout the literature.

Formal Commendations

There are various gifts of the tongue. Some of these are more obviously of financial value, such as commendations to high positions. For example, one who commends another to an ecclesiastical position gives the gift of the tongue in exchange for a spiritual honor, even though the honor is bestowed on another.¹³Recall that simony became entrenched through the right of presentation. See Chapter 1, ↗. If such an entreaty is made on behalf of one who is unworthy, it constitutes simony.¹⁴E.g., “And this is to be understood of the case where that spiritual thing is obtained by entreaties on behalf of an unworthy person.” Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166a).

However, a commendation made on behalf of a worthy person is not thereby simoniacal. If words tend toward alleging a man’s fitness rather than toward securing the office for him, then such words are only a secondary cause of the appointment.¹⁵The same passage continues: “For otherwise, if it is obtained for a worthy person, and it is not given principally for the sake of the entreaties but secondarily, in this way simony would not be committed. Hence caution should be applied here, so that the entreaties do not tend directly toward obtaining the thing for the person, but toward alleging his sufficiency [i.e., his qualifications], so that they may thus be rather words of allegation and testimony than words of begging and beseeching.” Ibid., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166a). A truthful commendation is right to give and right to be desired.¹⁶See also Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 147va).

The same holds in the opposite direction, where spiritual things are given in order to secure a commendation. For example, Henry Burton spoke of “sermon simony,” in which a man about to purchase a benefice preaches a showpiece sermon to win the patron’s commendation, which then satisfies his own conscience that he has preferred a worthy man.¹⁷Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 41–42. But if he preaches with the desire to sincerely demonstrate his capacities and so receive a truthful commendation, and that desire is only a secondary cause of his preaching, he is innocent.

Praise and Flattery

Some gifts of the tongue are less obviously of financial value. For example, can mere praise constitute a simoniacal exchange even though it does not result in any financial advantage? John Chrysostom asked and answered, “For what, though you give no money, but instead of money employ flattery, and contrive many things, and use much scheming? May your silver perish with you!”¹⁸Chrysostom, Homiliae in Acta Apostolorum, 3.5 (PG 60:41). Augustine similarly concluded that exchanging spiritual things for praise was its own sort of commerce: “those who seek such things are selling.”¹⁹“For what does it profit to acquire in this age any temporal and transitory thing whatever, whether it be money, or the pleasure of the belly and the throat, or honor in human praise? […] My brethren, those who seek such things are selling. For even that Simon wished to buy the Holy Spirit for this reason: because he wished to sell the Holy Spirit.” Augustine, Tractatus in Evangelium Ioannis, 10.6 (PL 35:1469).

Not only is it wrong to flatter one’s way to some spiritual thing or into some ecclesiastical office, but it is also wrong to give any spiritual thing in order to be flattered. This occurs when one rightly gives a deserved church position, but does so for the sake of praise,²⁰See Fuller, The Holy State, 98. or when a minister preaches for the sake of approval.²¹See Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad 1 (p. 93b). In either case, he exchanges a spiritual thing for a temporal thing. Furthermore, those who do such a thing call attention to themselves rather than Christ. In doing so, they do not preach Christ, but themselves (cf. 2 Cor. 4:5).²²See The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 82–83.

Though one ought not perform spiritual labor for temporal honors, he may do so for a good name in the kingdom of heaven. As Albert the Great remarked, “the fame of the saints rests in spiritual things.”²³“To the next it must be said that popular praise has nothing spiritual in it; on the contrary, it is more temporal even than time itself, because it is thinner, and dissolves into the air. But the fame of the saints rests in spiritual things, and therefore it is spiritual.” Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad 2 (p. 93b). The underlying concern is not that spiritual labor should lack all motivation but that its motivation must exclude what may be received from man rather than God.

Personal Favor

Personal favor, a gift of service, is not to be given for the sake of any spiritual thing. This may sound difficult to discern or enforce, but in a number of situations, personal favor shows itself plainly. In more extreme cases, explicit oaths of fealty might be given in exchange for spiritual things.²⁴See Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.17.

Harder to discern is the case where someone might ordain or give spiritual things out of a pre-existing partiality. One might argue that nothing is exchanged in this case, but what is “given” by the recipient of the spiritual thing is a continued respect in the context of that relationship. The motivation for the minister here is some unspoken obligation that discounts the demands of justice, especially in an ordination or benefice. Albert the Great explained that “‘Selling’ and ‘buying’ are not taken so strictly in the definition of simony; rather, it is called a sale whenever any price whatever causes spiritual things to be given—‘price’ being taken in a broad sense for every temporal thing that is the whole and sole cause of the giving.”²⁵Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad 3 (p. 93b).

The most common concern on this front is partiality that would be shown toward family. The Liber extra counted it simoniacal for a priest to act “out of respect for any person, or of consanguinity, or of familiarity.”²⁶Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.14. Occasionally this language was grounded in James 2:1 (“Do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons”),²⁷E.g., Aquinas, Quodlibet, IV, q. 8, a. 4 (p. 82); Groote, De simonia ad beguttas, 14–15. especially on account of Augustine’s application of the passage to ecclesiastical honors.²⁸“Nor indeed, in my judgment, is it to be thought a light sin ‘to hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons,’ if we refer that distinction between sitting and standing to ecclesiastical honors. For who could bear that a rich man be chosen for a seat of honor in the Church, while a poorer man, better instructed and holier, is despised? But if he is speaking of everyday assemblies, who does not sin here—if indeed it is a sin—except the one who within himself so judges that the richer the other man, the better he appears to him? For this is what he seems to have meant by saying: ‘Have you not judged within yourselves, and become judges of evil thoughts?’” Augustine, Epistulae, 167.18 (CSEL 44, 605:10–606:3). John Calvin remarked that within the papacy, not even one in twenty attains the priesthood apart from a simony evoked by kindred, affinity, parental influence, or obsequiousness.²⁹Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, 4.5.6. Often, benefices functioned as dowries,³⁰Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 42. and English sources referred to such presentations as “smock simony.”³¹E.g., The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 60; Douglas, The Diaries, 184.

Some schoolmen qualified their concerns on this point. While the canons speak with rigor on kinship in conferral, Aquinas distinguished between the one who gives a spiritual thing seeking to obligate the receiver and the one who hopes for some voluntary benefit from the receiver. The former he regarded as simoniacal, the latter carnal but not simoniacal.³²“For if the prelate intends to oblige the man to whom he gives the ecclesiastical benefice to make some recompense to himself or to his blood-relations, the intention is simoniacal, for he intends a kind of tacit sale. But if he does not intend to oblige him, but intends that the man should of his own accord make temporal recompense to him or to his own, the intention is indeed depraved and carnal, but not simoniacal.” Aquinas, Quodlibet, V, q. 11, a. 3 (p. 116); cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 5, ad 2. Albert the Great spoke similarly, even permitting kinship as a factor, so long as it was not the primary cause of the giving of any spiritual thing.³³“[For such an exchange to be problematic] kinship must be the cause and the reason for giving. For if goodness of life were the cause and kinship a concurrent cause, it would not be simony, since kinship is something bodily and derived from the flesh.” Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad 3 (p. 93b). For appointment to an office, kinship may only be a secondary consideration, concurrent alongside genuine merit.

Qualities and Circumstances

One might suppose a gift may be excused on account of its quality or circumstances. Once again, we will examine several examples of these considerations that frequently appear in the writings of medieval theologians and canonists.

Spiritual Things

Does simony only occur when temporal things are exchanged for spiritual things, or is it simony when spiritual things are exchanged for spiritual things? While the language of theologians tends to center on temporal things, gifts of service may indeed be spiritual services.

One might object that simony requires an unequal exchange—a temporal thing given for a spiritual one—and that exchanging like for like should be permissible. Occasionally, this was affirmed in some measure, such as the case of exchanging posts with the approval of a superior,³⁴E.g., Peter Cantor, Verbum Abbreviatum, cap. 40 (PL 205:133B); Innocent IV, Commentaria, ad X 3.19.5 (fol. 394v). or agreeing to pray for one another.³⁵E.g., Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 147vb).

However, there is reason to reject as simoniacal even the exchange of spiritual things for spiritual things.³⁶E.g., “commutation in spiritual matters seems not much unlike buying and selling, and [seems] to constitute simony.” Peter Cantor, Verbum Abbreviatum, cap. 40 (PL 205:132D). Commenting on the exchange of benefices, Peter Paludanus remarked “it is a wonder how an exchange should be less simoniacal of itself than a sale.”³⁷Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 4 (p. 315b). Pelbartus of Temesvár, writing in Hungary a generation before the Reformation, explained it with the scenario of two agreeing to baptize each other. The prices of these baptisms could be compared, if they were salable things, but they are not, and in the matter of spiritual things they cannot be exchanged by contract.³⁸Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2. It is unlawful “both because a thing is bought from one who is not its owner, and because it is contrary to the nature of grace that it be sold for any price whatsoever.”³⁹Ibid., IV, s.v. Simonia, 2.

The primary concern behind simony is the undermining of the nature of grace as a gift of God, not the desire for material things. Even exchanging spiritual things has that potential.

Delayed Things

Simony may be committed whether a temporal thing is given before, during, or after the conferral of the spiritual thing. One might suppose that offering money after an ordination is a mere gratuity rather than a simoniacal exchange, but this reasoning does not hold.

Basil of Caesarea wrote to bishops under his authority: “They think that they commit no sin, because they receive the money after and not before the ordination. But to take is to take, whenever it happens.”⁴⁰Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 53 (p. 339). Gratian, quoting Tarasius of Constantinople, affirmed that scripture and canon alike condemn the exchange regardless of its timing: “For to receive is to receive at whatever time.”⁴¹Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. Immediately before this, Tarasius wrote, “The twenty-ninth canon of the holy apostles, and their Acts, and the third and fourth book of Kings pronounce wholly alien from the priesthood anyone who at any time gave or received money, whether before the laying on of hands or after the laying on. For to receive is to receive at whatever time.” This maxim is the Latin equivalent of Basil’s Greek.⁴²Cf. the Latin translation available in Basil of Caesarea, Epistolae, 53 (PG 32:398B).

Indirectly Given Things

Indirect exchanges of temporal things for spiritual things are likewise forbidden. This is manifest in the example of commendations. As John Major put it, “it is the same thing to give money to the bishop and to give it to someone else so that he may petition the bishop on one’s behalf.”⁴³Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146va).

Some religious societies—e.g., monasteries and collegiate churches—would admit new brothers only if they brought sufficient wealth. They struck no bargain, but would stall the decision in order to weigh the circumstances to see if they might bring much. Albert the Great described this as happening every day.⁴⁴Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, quaest. (p. 92b). Against the scheme of leaving the inquiry to someone else, he argued that “it makes no difference whether one does it himself or through another where the whole cause of the conferral of the prebend is the expectation of temporal gain.”⁴⁵Ibid., IV, d. 25, a. 5, quaest. (p. 92b). He continued, “because by whomever it is done, they expect this in return for the conferral; therefore simony is committed in whatever way it is done.” Cf. ibid., IV, d. 25, a. 5, resp. (p. 93a).

If the ultimate cause of the exchange of a spiritual thing is the expectation of some reciprocal action, simony is committed regardless of how many hands the payment passes through and how many parties stand between. Each participant is responsible for his own involvement, though an ignorant beneficiary would be personally innocent.⁴⁶See John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum, I, tit. 1, q. 8–9 (fol. 1vb–2ra).

Small Things

One might assume that the sin of simony requires a substantial or profitable exchange, but even the smallest gift suffices. A penny spent to purchase a spiritual thing is no less simoniacal than a fortune, and the one who exchanges spiritual things for temporal is guilty even if he does so at a loss.

While canon law was willing to distinguish between magnitudes of gifts for the sake of adjudication, no such distinction exists in the forum of conscience.⁴⁷“For although, as regards the presumption of law, a distinction is drawn whether [the gift] be large (which is plausibly likely to move the heart) or small, of which this is not plausible […] nevertheless, as regards conscience, whether it be small or great, if a spiritual thing is bought or given for it, it is simony.” Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 321a). Wycliffe responded to this justification by observing that God does not “weigh what or how much of his goods his servant has consumed, but in what manner and by what means he has sought them.”⁴⁸Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 8 (107:9–11). Jan Hus described it as analogous to the widow’s mites: “Nor is the simony excused by the fact that sometimes only a little is taken; for since the poor widow, as the Savior testifies, gave more than all the others, having given two copper coins, because she gave out of such great devotion: likewise a priest or scribe who takes a penny or two out of great desire will be struck down by great simony.”⁴⁹Hus, O svatokupectví, 5.F.

Simony is measured by the avarice in the transaction, not by the wealth that changes hands. This is not to say that the one who judges himself free of greed is innocent, because such greed is made manifest through an exchange, and one who is free of it “shakes his hands free from every gift” (Isa. 33:15).⁵⁰See ibid., 2.D. For example, addressing whether hospitality toward clergy is necessarily simony, John of Freiburg explained that small measures are acceptable, but any agreement or corrupt intention undoes this.⁵¹John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum, I, tit. 1, q. 11 (fol. 2rb); cf. Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, ad X 5.3 (foll. 535vb, 536ra).

While many were willing to acknowledge the harm caused by large amounts changing hands, the occasional judgment was that small gifts entail a greater divine offense. Writing of ordination, Burton observed, “Of all other kinds of simony, this is the most pernicious and damnable: yea, the less a man giveth or receiveth in this respect, it is an argument of the less esteem he makes of so holy and excellent a calling.”⁵²Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 47.

Voluntary Things

Theologians and canonists who addressed the topic of simony in detail generally concluded that things offered voluntarily (voluntarie) or spontaneously (spontanee) do not count as simony.⁵³E.g., Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 2, c. 4; Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320a); Ames, Conscience, 5.230. Because the gift is not the cause of the giving of the spiritual thing, no simoniacal exchange takes place. The one who gives the spiritual thing does so for selfless reasons, and the one who gives something in return likewise has some honest motivation.⁵⁴See Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad quaest. (p. 94b). The exchange is non-contractual; nothing is given out of obligation or designed to establish any obligation.

Many discussions on this point go back to two texts of canon law. The first text is the fifth canon of the Council of Rome (595). Various things such as notary fees had been annexed to ordinations in order to escape the appearance of simony. This led Gregory to forbid all money exchanging hands in the context of an ordination, except if given out of unprompted gratitude. Regarding this exception, he wrote, “But if the one who has been ordained, not by agreement, nor under compulsion, nor upon request, after receiving his documents and pallium, wishes to offer something to anyone of the clergy solely for the sake of gratitude, we by no means forbid this to be accepted, because his offering brings no stain of guilt, since it did not proceed from the self-seeking of the recipient.”⁵⁵Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, V.57a.5 (1, 365:8–11); cf. Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.1; Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 2, c. 4.

The second is the eighth canon of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675). It applies the same principle beyond ordination—to baptizing, confirming, and chrism—and restricts what may be received according to the receiver’s motive, so the giver’s willingness does not settle the matter on its own.⁵⁶“Whatever is bestowed through the conferring of invisible grace ought in no way to be sold for monetary profit or for any rewards whatsoever, as the Lord says: ‘What you have freely received, freely give.’ And therefore, whoever henceforth, established in the ecclesiastical order, receives any rewards or prices voluntarily offered out of this kind of ambition—whether for baptizing and confirming the faithful, for conferring chrism, or for promotions of ranks—indeed, if, with the local bishop’s knowledge, any such thing is perpetrated by his subjects, that same bishop shall be subject to excommunication for two months, because he both concealed evils he knew about and failed to apply the necessary correction. But if, without his knowledge, any one of his people should think that he may accept anything for the aforesaid matters: if he is a presbyter, he shall be punished by three months’ excommunication; if a deacon, four; while a subdeacon or cleric serving these covetous desires shall be punished both by an appropriate beating and by the excommunication that is due.” Migne, ed., Eleventh Council of Toledo, c. 8 (PL 84:461D–462B). Gratian transmitted the clause about gifts as an exception, “unless voluntarily offered.” Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 101.

While these are artifacts of canon law, describing what may or may not be formally penalized, they appear affirmatively as examples in writings of theologians whose aim was to describe moral behavior.⁵⁷This includes even small gratuities, like tips. Major spoke of it being acceptable if “one gives a douzain [duodecimum, a small coin] to the doorkeeper so that he may gain entrance to speak with the bishop.” Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146va). From Gregory the Great to the English casuists, those writers allowed for some category of gratitude by which one might give to a minister, even in the context of having received some spiritual thing. In this light, voluntary gifts are welcome because they are not contractual, establishing no obligation between giver and receiver, and so they do not reduce the spiritual thing to an article of commerce.

However, cautions are frequently given about this being offered in any way that would be deceitful or arouse suspicion of simoniacal intentions. For example, the Glossa ordinaria on the Decretum calls a gift “fraudulent” when the giver says he would have given it anyway.⁵⁸Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria, C. 1, q. 1, c. 115. Aquinas, having affirmed voluntary gifts, immediately added this caveat: “In all these things, however, one must carefully guard against whatever has the appearance of simony or cupidity, according to that word of the Apostle, 1 Thessalonians [5:22]: ‘Abstain from every appearance of evil.’”⁵⁹Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 2, ad 4.

English authors echoed the same concern. Ames wrote, “Neither is it properly simony, when somewhat is given out of mere gratitude, not by any agreement tacit, or expressed, direct, or indirect. […] Howsoever in these we must beware of deceit, and the very appearance of evil is to be avoided.”⁶⁰Ames, Conscience, 5.230. Similarly, Richard Baxter warned, “Nor may you show gratitude by any scandalous way, which seemeth simony.”⁶¹Baxter, A Christian Directory, 4.19.2.33 (p. 119).

Even in the early church, some refused gifts of gratitude entirely. On this count, Patrick refused small ornaments.⁶²“I have tried in some measure to keep myself safe, even for the Christian brethren, and the virgins of Christ, and the devout women who used to give me of their own accord little gifts, and would cast some of their ornaments upon the altar; and I would give them back to them again. And they were scandalized at me because I did this. But it was for the hope of eternity that I guarded myself cautiously in all things, so that unbelievers might not catch me, or the ministry of my service, on any pretext, and that I might not give them occasion, even in the smallest matter, to defame or disparage me.” Patrick, Confessio, 49 (p. 22). In the next paragraph, he insisted that he conducted baptisms and ordinations without the slightest hope of receiving anything. Likewise, Jerome recorded that Hilarion refused any gift after healing a possessed man, asserting, “If I take these things, I too shall offend God, and the legion will return to you.”⁶³Jerome, Vita Hilar., 18 (PL 23:37C).

Conclusion

The scope of gifts that may constitute a simoniacal exchange is broader than one might first suppose. Gregory’s triad—gifts of the hand, gifts of the tongue, and gifts of service—captures that full range. Not only money, but even praise and favors count as the temporal price of a spiritual thing. The timing and directness of the exchange are immaterial; simony is committed whether the gift precedes or follows the spiritual thing and whether it passes through one hand or many. The amount matters as little: a penny is no less simoniacal than a fortune. A spiritual thing may itself stand as the price of another. Though canon law and theologians alike speak permissively of voluntary gifts, they draw that exception narrowly, since even voluntary things may have the appearance, potential, or settled intention of simony.