The Heresy of Simony

From the fathers to the medievals and beyond, a number of sources speak of simony as a species of heresy. Many—especially earlier sources—do so without qualification, including Peter Lombard’s Sentences¹Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, c. 5 (p. 910). and Gratian’s Decretum.²Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. This identification goes back to Gregory the Great, who frequently spoke of “simoniacal heresy” (simoniaca haeresis).³See Rosé, Simon le Magicien hérésiarque?, 206, 235–38 for a map and a table of Gregory’s use of the term in his correspondence. In the homily where he first used the term, he proclaimed,

But our Redeemer overturned the seats of those selling doves, because he destroys the priesthood of such traffickers. Hence the sacred canons condemn the simoniacal heresy and command that those who seek a price for conferring orders be deprived of the priesthood. The seat of those selling doves is therefore overturned when those who sell spiritual grace are deprived of the priesthood, whether before the eyes of men or before the eyes of God.⁴Gregory I, Homiliae in Evangelia, 17.13 (pp. 109–10).

Moreover, the fathers and medievals regarded Simon Magus as the first of all heretics⁵Though he includes in his description of them more than the commerce of the Spirit, Augustine referred to the “Simonians” (Simoniani) as being the first in a catalog of eighty-eight heretical groups, Augustine, De Haeresibus, 1 (PL 42:24); cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1. and the father of all heresies. Cyril of Jerusalem called him “the inventor of all heresy.”⁶Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 6.14 (1, p. 174). Irenaeus referred to him as the one “from whom all heresies originate.”⁷Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, I.23.2 (pp. 246–47); cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, II.13.6 (GCS 9.1, 136:8–9). Simony is not only the first of all heresies, but the foremost of all heresies,⁸“primos et precipuos hereticos” Deusdedit, Contra invasores, cap. II, 17 (p. 335); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 7, c. 27; Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (4:18–24). Gratian and subsequent authors wrongly ascribe the passage to “Pascalis Papa”; see Friedberg, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:437n387. and therefore is more damnable than other heresies.⁹Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.

Later schoolmen qualified this identification in some measure, and also sought to answer the question of whether the pope could himself commit the sin of simony.

The Basis of the Identification

On what basis did theologians of previous generations identify simony as a heresy? The discourse typically centered around three contentions: the simoniac prices what is priceless, he makes the Spirit a servant, and he blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

Pricing the Priceless

Lombard spoke of the sin of simony as the activity of putting a price on a priceless grace.¹⁰“impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere” Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909). Because many of the schoolmen addressed simony in the context of commenting on Lombard’s Sentences, this description appears repeatedly. Many made the same observation without using that exact phrase.¹¹E.g., Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2; Cudworth, The Supplement, 537; Ames, Conscience, 5.229. For example, in making this point, Thomas Aquinas appealed to Proverbs 3:15 (“she is more precious than all riches, and nothing that is desired can be compared with her”).¹²Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, corp.. Peter Auriol spoke of it as a sin against religion because, “the priceless [impreciabile] and incommensurable [inaequabile] is given for something that can never match it—take a sacrament, which the whole world cannot equal, nor even the least degree of spiritual things.”¹³Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b).

In the words of the Glossa ordinaria, “Spiritual gifts are cheapened by a price.”¹⁴“Dona spiritualia pretio vilescunt” Migne, ed., Glossa Ordinaria, Matt. 10:8 (PL 114:118A). It is on this count that some have described it as a spiritual harlotry,¹⁵For example, the philosopher, scientist, and proto-Reformer Nicole Oresme made this analogy while preaching to Urban V on Christmas Eve, 1363. Oresme, Sermo coram papa et cardinalibus, 198–99, 222. This sermon, boldly proclaiming the corruption of the papacy directly before the pope (coram papa), was referenced later by a number of works, and Foxe translated it whole into the Actes and Monuments, Foxe, Actes and Monuments, 5.415. selling what should be given in the context of true love. Though not explicitly invoking the name of Simon or the label of “simony,” Augustine explained the problem well:

[The Word] is priceless [nullius pretii], because it surpasses all things. For a thing for sale is either matched by its price, or is inferior to it, or exceeds it. When anyone buys for as much as a thing is worth, the price equals the thing bought; when for less, the thing is inferior to it; when for more, it exceeds it. But nothing can be made equal to the Word of God, nor in any exchange be inferior to it, nor superior.¹⁶Augustine, Sermones, 117, cap. 1 (PL 38:661–62).

In canon law and scholastic theology, the phrase “pricing the priceless” is not a mere description of the activity of simony but supplies the basis for its condemnation. By his attempted commerce, the simoniac makes a comparison between the Spirit and wealth, functionally denying the pricelessness of the Spirit. Frequently, this is characterized as a denial of grace, such as in the words of Bonaventure: “This is manifest heresy, and this is what Simon Magus thought. For such a person errs in faith, because he believes that grace is not grace.”¹⁷Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4 (p. 648).

This concern of pricing the priceless is not diminished, but heightened from a Protestant perspective. With the recovery of sola gratia during the Reformation, the false gospel of grace on the basis of works became a chief concern. In this vein, Martin Luther went further, holding that all works-righteousness is a form of simony, since it would make grace something exchanged for merit.¹⁸“Every man is naturally a simoniac […] he would wish God to be one who would be appeased by human works and merits.” Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 423:32–424:4). The passage is quoted in Chapter 1.

Making the Spirit a Servant

The Second Council of Nicaea (787)—the last of the first seven ecumenical councils—restored the veneration of images, and with it the communion between Constantinople and Rome. Bishops who had conformed under iconoclasm were charged with having bought their sees, and Tarasius, the patriarch of Constantinople and president of the council, granted some of these a swift restoration. This cost him monastic support in the east, and a report of his laxity reached Rome. Tarasius answered the charges with a letter to the pope, which he published in the acts of the council itself.¹⁹Price, Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 54, 629–31. It carries the following argument:

For the impious heresy of Macedonius and those around him—the attackers of the Holy Spirit—is more tolerable [than simony]. For those men, in their raving, confess the Holy Spirit to be a creature and a slave of God the Father and the Son; but these men make that same Holy Spirit their own slave. For every master sells what he has if he wishes, whether a slave or anything else of those things he possesses. Similarly, he who buys, wishing to be the master of what he has bought, acquires it through the price of money. Thus, those who carry out this iniquitous transaction disparage the Holy Spirit, sinning equally with those who blasphemed, saying that Christ cast out demons by Beelzebub. And, to speak more truly, they are compared to Judas the traitor, who sold Christ to the Jews, the killers of God.²⁰As recorded in Deusdedit, Collectio Canonum, 4.15 (p. 407).

We might parallel the Macedonian heresy mentioned by Tarasius to Arianism, but instead of making the Son a creature, it makes the Spirit a creature. Yet simony is even worse by this analysis: it makes the Spirit to be so low a creature that he becomes the slave of man. This argument was recorded by Gratian,²¹Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. and others repeated it after him, affirming that simony is a sin against the Spirit.²²E.g., Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b); Hus, O svatokupectví, 9.F; The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 113.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

While many addressed simony as a sin against the Holy Spirit, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus following after described it in a more elaborate Trinitarian framework. For them, simony is not only a heresy, but one of three categories of heresy that map to the persons of the Trinity in the nature of their offense. This categorization appears to be unique to them,²³Other Trinitarian models exist to describe simony. Robert Holcot described simony as selling the power of the Father, charging for a testimony as selling the truth of the Son, and doing good works for praise as selling the holiness of the Spirit; Holcot, In Librum Sapientiae, lect. 132 (sig. F1r–F1v). but Wycliffe explained that Apostasy is a sin against the Father, who binds the bride of Christ to himself; Blasphemy is a sin against the Son, who is the power and wisdom of God; and Simony is a sin against the Holy Spirit, who orders the peace of the house of God.²⁴“Now, there are three more famous kinds of heresy: namely Simony, Apostasy, and Blasphemy. Nor are these mutually exclusive, since the species of the vices, like those of the virtues, are interconnected. However, their rationales are distinguished: Apostasy is generally according to the principle by which man strays from the religion of God. Blasphemy is according to the principle by which one slanders the power of God. But Simony is according to the principle by which one strives to break apart the ordering of God. And thus, through this threefold nature, the whole Trinity is offended: God the Father, through apostasy—he who, according to religion pure and undefiled, powerfully binds the bride of Christ to himself; God the Son, who, since he is the power of God and the wisdom of God, is blasphemed daily through the second heresy; and God the Holy Spirit, who, since out of supreme kindness he wisely orders his house in peace, is provoked by simoniacal depravity contrary to his ordination. For the simoniac, resisting the Holy Spirit, strives blasphemously to dissolve this benign order and thus peace.” Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (1:3–20); cf. Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.A–B.

This accords with the quote from Tarasius as found in Gratian’s Decretum, where he also described simoniacs as sinning equally with those who blasphemed by accusing Christ of casting out demons by Beelzebub. Wycliffe and Hus pressed these charges to the fullest extent, insisting that simony must be categorized as sin against the Holy Spirit, that which “cannot be forgiven in this world or the next.”²⁵Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (1:21–23); Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.B.

Qualifications

Following Gregory the Great and the testimony of canon law, the medievals were virtually unanimous in identifying simony as heresy. However, the theologians of the eleventh century introduced qualification that carried through the following centuries.²⁶Gilchrist, `Simoniaca haeresis', 216. For example, in his commentary on the Sentences, Aquinas handled the objection that heresy must be a belief rather than an action, and began by conceding the point.²⁷The objection: “Every heresy is against some article of faith, about which a correct opinion is not held. But a simoniac can hold a correct opinion concerning all the articles of faith. Therefore, it is not a heresy.” Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, s.c.. In the strictest sense, simony is not necessarily a heretical belief because it often is not a belief at all. Accordingly, Aquinas elsewhere judged that the sin of simony is not necessarily the unpardonable blasphemy of the Spirit.²⁸“Not everyone who sins by choice sins against the Holy Spirit; but only he who chooses sin through contempt for those things which usually hold men back from sinning.” Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 2.

Among the medievals, even those willing to speak of the heresy of simony without qualification on some occasions admitted the qualification at others. For example, Wycliffe granted that this use of the label “equivocates,”²⁹Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 2 (24:38–25:1). and elsewhere, he described some simoniacs as being able to repent,³⁰Ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13). though he had identified simony as the unpardonable sin. Similarly, Hus opened by sorting the senses in which a man may be called a heretic, counting the one who holds an error by deed alongside the one who holds it by word.³¹Hus, O svatokupectví, 1.C.

From the eleventh century and onward, theologians and canonists managed to offer this objection without rejecting centuries of canonized tradition by explaining two senses in which simony may be labeled a heresy: the similarity of the action and the enormity of the crime.

The Similarity of the Action

Aquinas continued in the same article to defend his position, arguing that simoniacs are called heretics on account of the similarity of their actions and formal heresy. He wrote, “A name is given to a thing in two ways: in one way without qualification [simpliciter]; in another on account of a likeness of action [propter similitudinem actus].”³²Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, resp.. Therefore, “simoniacs are not heretics properly and strictly speaking, since they do not hold any false opinion; but they are called heretics on account of a similarity of action, because they act as if they believed the gift of the Holy Spirit could be possessed with money: which belief would be heretical.”³³Ibid., IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, resp..

Aquinas also compared it to the disparity between one’s outward profession of religion and the faith that resides in his heart: “simony is called a heresy according to an outward profession, because in the fact that a man sells the gift of the Holy Spirit, he in a certain way professes himself to be the lord of the spiritual gift; which is heretical.”³⁴Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1. By his actions, the simoniac professes the heresy of a salable Spirit, but the typical simoniac is a false professor of this heresy, not truly believing it in his heart. He does not formally embrace the heretical ideas of Simon Magus but materially expresses them.³⁵See also Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 3, ad 2 (p. 90b); Innocent IV, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5 (fol. 498v). Jeremy Taylor made a similar argument, explaining that Simon Magus held a “false opinion” but “his followers are rather noted of a vice.”³⁶Taylor, Σύμβολον Θεολογικόν, 947.

In the seventeenth century, John Donne appealed to this distinction in the midst of an English controversy. After the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, James I imposed the English Oath of Allegiance (1606), which identified as heresy the notion of papal authority to depose the crown. However, many Roman Catholics insisted that they could not take the oath because it belonged only to the pope to pronounce a doctrine heretical. Donne made an effort “to deliver them of that scruple”³⁷Donne, Pseudo-Martyr, 372. and assure them they could call heresy that which “is not itself necessarily heresy, properly understood” with an analogy to simony. Simony has been called a “true and undoubted heresy,” not because it inherently is, but because it begets or accompanies heresy.³⁸Ibid., 387. He continued, “So that we see, such acts as beget or accompany heresy, are called heresy in this mild acceptation, which our law gives it. From which sense the Fathers did not abstain in using that word; for Tertullian says, that no man will doubt to call Adam’s transgression heresy, since by his own election, he adhered rather to his own will, than to God’s. And in another book he says, not so much newness, as truth doth convict things to be heresies, for whatsoever tastes against truth, is a heresy, though it be an ancient custom. And so says St. Augustine (if their own men cite him truly) that schism is called heresy, not that it is heresy, but that it disposes to heresy.” Ibid., 387–88.

The Enormity of the Crime

Beyond similarity of action, the schoolmen offered a second reason for calling simony a heresy: they are functionally equivalent in the courts of the church. Simony is so grave an offense that it merits the same ecclesiastical punishment as heresy: deposition from office and excommunication. Panormitanus concluded that “on account of the enormity of the crime it is called heresy.”³⁹Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5, no. 1 (fol. 69vb).

Some made this point along with similarity of action. For example, Bonaventure spoke of the simoniac who does not truly believe his heresy, that he “is not strictly a heretic, but nevertheless is called a heretic by the saints, either because he acts in the manner of a heretic, or because, like a heretic, he is cast out from the service and worship of God on account of his enormous crime.”⁴⁰Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4, concl. (p. 648). Sorting the senses of the word, Gabriel Biel granted that every simoniac is a heretic “since he is excommunicated and a perverter of sacred things,” subsequently observing that the simoniac is called a heretic “by a certain likeness […] because he acts as if he held the contrary of the faith.”⁴¹Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 13, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 1 (sig. m6vb).

These two qualifications—the similarity of the action and the enormity of the crime—stand together rather than as alternatives. The label of “heretic” applies to the simoniac both because his conduct professes heretical opinions and because he should functionally be treated as one.

The Pope and Simony

In the Roman system, the supreme pontiff is the source of the church’s law rather than a subject of it, leading some to conclude that he could not commit simony at all.⁴²E.g., “the pope, according to some, cannot commit simony.” Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, arg. 7. By and large, those theologians and canonists who treated the issue determined that he could indeed be guilty of the heresy of simony.⁴³E.g., Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 3 (p. 167a). Aquinas called the contrary opinion “erroneous,” saying, “If the pope were to accept a gift in exchange for something spiritual, he would commit simony just like any other man; because it was under Peter, whom the pope succeeds, that the vice of simony first received its condemnation in the New Testament.”⁴⁴Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 3, ad 2; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 7. If Peter himself condemned simony, no successor can be exempt from that standard.

The exemption was also argued from ownership: if the goods of the church are the pope’s own, then in taking them he receives nothing from another, and no sale occurs. Aquinas denied the premise. “Although the property of the Church belongs to the pope in a certain way, it is not his to possess in every way, like the personal property he has on hand.”⁴⁵Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 3, ad 2. A pope who gave spiritual things for the temporalities of a church would therefore be selling them as surely as to a layman.⁴⁶“Now, there is no doubt that one would commit simony if he were to give something spiritual to his debtor in order to recover what is owed to him; and so, in the matter at hand, the pope would not be excused from simony if (far be it) he were to give spiritual things in exchange for the temporal goods of the churches.” Ibid., IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 3, ad 2.

John Major put the matter flatly: “The Supreme Pontiff can commit simony just like anyone else: this is evident. This entire definition can apply to him just as to another: hence Peter recoiled from Simon Magus, lest he fall into it.”⁴⁷Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145vb).

A Qualification for Positive Law Simony

In Chapter 4, we addressed whether one could commit simony by commerce in otherwise non-spiritual things whose sale is forbidden by the church.⁴⁸See ↗. For those who would answer “yes,” this complicates the question of whether the pope can be guilty of simony. If he is the highest authority, do such laws apply to him?

Panormitanus reported finding none who addressed the question but a single cardinal who inferred a flat exemption for the supreme pontiff.⁴⁹“I have not expressly found this question examined by the doctors, except that the lord Cardinal here says simply that he does not commit simony […] since the title to a benefice seems to be of positive law, and the pope uses that law, and in such matters is not bound.” Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.1, no. 6 (fol. 69rb). He ultimately concurred that the pope would not commit simony in matters of positive law, because he is not thereby bound. All the same, he judged that the pope “ought nevertheless to abstain.”⁵⁰“In other benefices not carrying the exercise of an order, the pope would not commit simony, because in them it is prohibited only by positive law, by which the pope is not bound; he ought nevertheless to abstain.” Ibid., ad X 5.3.1, no. 8 (fol. 69rb). The other party in that transaction is not covered by the exemption. He “is not safe as regards God,” and where a prohibitory constitution stands, he incurs the penalty the pope escapes—as a subject who gambles with the bishop who decreed excommunication for gambling incurs it, though the bishop “could not be bound by his own constitution.”⁵¹Ibid., ad X 5.3.1, nos. 8–9 (fol. 69rb).

For those who reject the category of positive law simony altogether, the question is moot. The pope incurs the guilt of simony identically to anyone else, without regard to church law.⁵²E.g., Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 3 (p. 167a).

Positive Accusations of Simony

For many, this was not a theoretical possibility but an observable reality. Dante depicted simoniacs in the eighth circle of hell, stuck upside down in holes while their feet are set ablaze. In particular, simoniac popes are stacked, each subsequent one pushing the others further down.⁵³Dante Alighieri, Divina Commedia, Inferno XIX (pp. 543–46). When Dante arrives, Nicholas III mistakes him for Boniface VIII, the pope at the time of the poem’s fictional setting in 1300: “Are you already standing there, are you already standing there, Boniface? By several years the writing lied to me.”⁵⁴Ibid., Inferno XIX (p. 544).

Wycliffe and Hus likewise charged the office of the bishop of Rome with being steeped in simony.⁵⁵Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 3 (27:9–40:13); Hus, O svatokupectví, 4. Wycliffe argued that if the pope cannot commit simony, then he is the Antichrist, because he has made himself higher than God.⁵⁶Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 3 (28:3–15). Hus said much the same in a letter to the rector of the University of Prague, describing himself as “the Goose” who must beat her wings against the wings of Behemoth and against the tail that covers “the abomination of the beast of Antichrist.” Identifying the pope as the head of Isaiah 9:14–15 that the Lord will destroy, he offered a vivid image: the beast is a greater abomination than the exposed harlot who is “publicly ready for anyone who wished to fornicate with her” because he is “prepared to sell whatever anyone wishes to buy in spiritual matters.”⁵⁷Hus, Korespondence a dokumenty, letter 52, p. 154. He continued, “and he sells what he does not possess.”⁵⁸Ibid., letter 52, p. 154.

For these proto-Reformers, the point of contention was not so much whether a pope could commit simony but whether the reigning pope had. Of course, the later Reformers spoke along these lines as well. Luther remarked that simony is the very soul of the pope; he cannot be purged of it, but if he could, all that would remain would be the bishop of Rome.⁵⁹Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 422:28–33).

Conclusion

The identification of simony rests on three arguments: the simoniac prices the priceless, makes the Spirit his servant, and blasphemes him. The upholding of this charge in light of necessary qualifications falls into the theological and the juridical. The simoniac professes by his conduct that the gifts of God are subject to human commerce, and his crime is so grave that it warrants the same ecclesiastical punishments as heresy.

On both grounds the schoolmen and the Reformers found the bishop of Rome no exception. The answers ranged from “yes he can” to “yes he has.”