Addressing Evasions

As the An­gli­can di­vine Jer­emy Tay­lor ob­served, “Most men choose the sin, if it be once dis­put­able whether it be a sin or no.”¹Tay­lor, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” fol. 136. Yet the sale of theo­log­i­cal in­struc­tion now turns over enor­mous sums. Be­tween Chris­tian books and sem­i­nar­ies alone, theo­log­i­cal ed­u­ca­tion is a mul­ti­bil­lion-dol­lar in­dus­try.²On re­li­gious-book sales, see Mil­liot, “Pub­lish­ing In­dus­try Sales”; on sem­i­nary rev­enues, As­so­ci­a­tion of Theo­log­i­cal Schools, 2025–2026 An­nual Data Ta­bles, Ta­ble 4.6. It re­mains, then, to ap­ply the frame­work de­vel­oped in the pre­ced­ing chap­ters to this pri­mary sort of com­merce in spir­i­tual things that ex­ists to­day.

At­tempts to ap­ply the doc­trine of si­mony afresh have a ten­dency to stir up more than a lit­tle re­sis­tance. Pe­ter Da­mian re­ported that when the elev­enth-cen­tury monk Ro­muald in­tro­duced this doc­trine to those who had been or­dained for money, they plot­ted to kill him be­cause up un­til that time scarcely any­one in those parts knew it was a sin.³Pe­ter Da­mian, Vita beati Ro­mualdi, cap. 35 (PL 144:986C–D). In 1494, a Car­mel­ite friar was found mur­dered in his bed with twenty wounds af­ter preach­ing against si­mony.⁴The friar was Adam of Genoa, who had preached at Rome against the si­mony of Alex­an­der VI. Ma­li­piero, An­nali ve­neti, 318; cf. Burck­hardt, Civil­i­sa­tion of the Re­nais­sance, 155. Jan Hus was burned at the stake on a num­ber of charges, but in his own as­sess­ment as well as in pop­u­lar opin­ion, it was pri­mar­ily for his preach­ing against ac­cepted prac­tices that he iden­ti­fied as si­mony.⁵“Every­where there are en­e­mies in plenty, both Czech and Ger­man, who seek my death: […] For it touches both the pope and the car­di­nals when one preaches against pride, against av­a­rice, and es­pe­cially against si­mony.” Hus, Pos­tilla, 114.G; cf. Spinka, John Hus and the Czech Re­form, 38–40n62. See also Spinka, John Hus: A Bi­og­ra­phy, 87. Mau­rice of Prague warned the Coun­cil of Con­stance that “the com­mon opin­ion of the peo­ple, al­though false and he­ret­i­cal, cries out that Jan Hus was sen­tenced by the coun­cil as though it had judged him as se­verely as the Sav­ior judged the si­mo­ni­acs, against whom he, though con­demned, had preached most ve­he­mently.” Mau­rice of Prague, Con­sil­ium de Ec­cle­si­as­tico Statu, 870.

It may seem mel­o­dra­matic to re­count these events as though we do not live in a time of boun­ti­ful broth­er­hood and ex­cep­tional lib­erty, but it would be naïve to sup­pose that a mod­ern ap­pli­ca­tion of the doc­trine of si­mony would be met with uni­ver­sal grat­i­tude. Faith­ful theol­ogy is not mea­sured by its re­cep­tion; truth re­mains truth whether it is wel­comed or re­sented. Magna est ver­i­tas et prae­va­let—truth is great and pre­vails.

In­suf­fi­cient Mo­ti­va­tions§

Since si­mony re­sides fun­da­men­tally in the will, it would seem to fol­low that one may be able to ex­cuse a si­mo­ni­a­cal trans­ac­tion so long as the un­der­ly­ing mo­ti­va­tion is in­no­cent. Me­dieval theo­lo­gians there­fore found it nec­es­sary to counter a num­ber of jus­ti­fi­ca­tions in which one pointed to pure mo­ti­va­tions that con­tained no mal­ice. How­ever, one need not have ma­li­cious in­tent for his de­sire to be si­mo­ni­a­cal. An ear­nest de­sire to buy or sell spir­i­tual things is si­mo­ni­a­cal even if it forms out of ig­no­rance or weak­ness.⁶See Os­wald of Laskó, Ro­sa­rium, IV, s.v. Si­mo­nia, 1; cf. Rich­ard of Mid­dle­ton, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1 (p. 383a). Ob­jec­tions to the con­trary re­duce to a plea of ex­pe­di­ence, which the school­men and canon­ists re­jected.

To Raise Suf­fi­cient Re­sources§

While many ex­changes of spir­i­tual things were for pri­vate gain, some had the pur­pose of main­tain­ing a spir­i­tual work. In par­tic­u­lar, monas­ter­ies and col­le­giate churches of­ten had lim­ited re­sources, and the ad­mis­sion of new mem­bers placed real fi­nan­cial bur­dens on the com­mu­nity. Many there­fore jus­ti­fied charg­ing for en­trance into the so­ci­ety, claim­ing that if fi­nan­cial im­par­tial­ity in ad­mis­sions were main­tained, “all re­li­gious houses would per­ish, be­cause so many would be placed there that their goods would not suf­fice; and this seems un­fit­ting.”⁷Al­bert the Great, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 5, quaest., s.c. 1 (p. 92b). Such prac­tices were com­mon. In part, their ex­tent may be gauged from Thomas of Stras­bourg’s ob­ser­va­tion that “cer­tain nuns of Ger­many” very ex­plic­itly de­manded tem­po­ral goods from those who would en­ter their com­mu­nity.⁸Thomas of Stras­bourg, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4, qc. 2 (fol. 150v). See also Groote, De si­mo­nia ad be­gut­tas, 16–18; Lynch, Si­mo­ni­a­cal En­try, 220–21. Wyc­liffe com­plained of a re­lated prac­tice among the fri­ars, who for an an­nual fee sold lay­men let­ters of con­fra­ter­nity, os­ten­si­bly prom­is­ing them a share in the or­der’s spir­i­tual suf­frages. He ar­gued that it went hand in hand with their preach­ing for money, both be­ing si­mony.⁹Wyc­liffe, De apos­ta­sia, cap. 2 (36:22–30).

The canon­ists and school­men gave the same an­swer at this point: no com­mu­nity may ex­act a fee for en­trance into re­li­gious life, but if funds are truly lack­ing, it may de­cline to re­ceive those it can­not sus­tain.¹⁰For rel­e­vant canon law, see C. 1, q. 2; X 5.3.8; X 5.3.19; X 5.3.30. How­ever, it may ac­cept from an en­trant, apart from any pact, the means of his own main­te­nance, and so ad­mit a mem­ber its goods would not oth­er­wise al­low.¹¹E.g., “When the pos­ses­sions of some re­li­gious house do not suf­fice to sus­tain more per­sons, then some­thing may be re­quired of one who wishes to serve God in that place, not as a price of re­li­gion, but that the mon­as­tery may have the means to pro­vide for him; and there­fore si­mony is not com­mit­ted. But if he can be re­ceived with­out bur­den to the church, it is si­mony to re­quire any­thing for his re­cep­tion.” Aqui­nas, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2, ad 7; cf. Aqui­nas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 4; Thomas of Stras­bourg, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4, qc. 2 (fol. 150v).

Theo­lo­gians in­quired how a house might non-co­er­cively re­quest such pro­vi­sion. In gen­eral, a house might state its needs plainly, but for any­thing not strictly needed, it may not ask at all.¹²E.g., Rich­ard of Mid­dle­ton, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 3, q. 2, ad 6 (p. 386b). As­te­sanus of Asti re­layed from the canon­ists a set form of words that stayed within the rule: “We gladly and freely re­ceive you into our spir­i­tual fel­low­ship; but since our goods do not suf­fice for us and for you, bring with you the means to live.”¹³As­te­sanus of Asti, Summa de ca­si­bus, VI, tit. 55, q. 4 (fol. 165r); cf. Ma­jor, In Sent. (red. A), d. 25, q. un. (fol. 148ra). In all of these ac­counts, ne­ces­sity (ne­ces­si­tas) may war­rant re­quir­ing money, but ad­mis­sion may not be given in re­turn for pay­ment un­der a con­trac­tual ar­range­ment (pac­tum).¹⁴E.g., “To re­ceive [some­one] un­der an agree­ment [sub pacto], es­pe­cially where the house has no need, is openly si­mony. To the ar­gu­ment it must be said that ad­mis­sion is not granted be­cause of the pay­ment; rather, ne­ces­sity ex­acts it, for they would gladly re­ceive him freely, and that need is why they con­sider money when con­fer­ring the place.” Al­bert the Great, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad quaest. (p. 94b).

While re­li­gious so­ci­eties pro­vided a com­mon case study, the prin­ci­ple was not con­fined to them. An ac­tual lack of fi­nan­cial ca­pac­ity could jus­tify with­hold­ing some spir­i­tual ben­e­fit un­til the need was met, but a com­mer­cial ex­change re­mained im­per­mis­si­ble, how­ever ad­van­ta­geous it might seem to the work be­ing done. Wyc­liffe set the limit even on a min­is­ter’s own sus­te­nance: “But first, ere men do si­mony, they should tra­vail with their hands, or go to an­other peo­ple, or rather starve in their body.”¹⁵Wyc­liffe, Ser­mons, serm. 83 (1, p. 284).

To Prac­tice Char­ity§

An­other at­tempted jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of mo­tive is to prac­tice char­ity (alms­giv­ing). That is, some con­sid­ered it ac­cept­able to sell spir­i­tual things in or­der to give the pro­ceeds to the poor. Gra­tian iden­ti­fied the er­ror with this line of rea­son­ing: it is ob­jected that “sin­is­ter be­gin­nings of­ten reach happy out­comes”—Ja­cob reached the bless­ing by sup­plant­ing, a lep­rous hand sows a crop that is har­vested clean, an adul­ter­ous union bears a beau­ti­ful child, “so too money that is ac­quired through si­mony has a happy out­come when it is dis­trib­uted to ben­e­fit the poor.” “But none of these things,” he an­swered, “de­fends the si­mo­ni­acs.”¹⁶C. 1, q. 1, d.p.c. 24, § 1. And in a canon drawn from Greg­ory, he laid down the rule: “Com­mit­ting the sins of the si­mo­ni­a­cal her­esy un­der the pre­text of alms­giv­ing must be strictly avoided. For it is one thing to give alms on ac­count of sins and quite an­other to com­mit sins on ac­count of alms­giv­ing.”¹⁷C. 1, q. 1, c. 27, § 2; cf. Greg­ory I, Ep. 9.218 (2, 207:24–27).

Pu­ri­tan writ­ers con­curred. Bur­ton re­corded that peo­ple made sim­i­lar ob­jec­tions in his own time, claim­ing to use for a char­i­ta­ble pur­pose money re­ceived for pre­fer­ment.¹⁸“An­other ob­jec­tion doth here cross my way on the pa­tron’s be­half, Sir, you need not be so rigid against giv­ing and re­ceiv­ing for a spir­i­tual pre­fer­ment: for, for my part, I have a good in­tent to con­vert such money to some char­i­ta­ble use, as to be­stow it in alms, etc.” Bur­ton, A Cen­sure of Si­monie, 65. To an­swer this ob­jec­tion, he ap­pealed to Gra­tian, as cited above,¹⁹Ibid., 65–66. and fur­ther de­scribed such char­ity as no dif­fer­ent from the pur­chase of the field of blood with Ju­das’s blood money.²⁰“Like the high priests’ char­ity, who with Ju­das trea­son-money, by some called si­mony, bought, for­sooth, a field to bury strang­ers in. But for all this char­i­ta­ble work, by di­vine or­di­na­tion (as Lyra saith) the field got such a name, as could never be washed off. For it is called, the field of blood to this day. Matt. 27:8Matthew 27:8Therefore that field was called the field of blood to this day..” Ibid., 66. John Dow­name was no less se­vere, de­scrib­ing those who give alms out of money got­ten by si­mony as “much more abom­i­na­ble” than those who give out of money got­ten by op­pres­sion.²¹“But much more abom­i­na­ble are their alms, who spoil the Church by si­mony and sac­ri­lege, and tak­ing into their pos­ses­sion the por­tion of Levi, which is con­se­crated unto God, think to please the Lord, and as it were, sat­isfy for their sin, by giv­ing some small alms to the poor, or keep­ing good hos­pi­tal­ity of the spoils of the Church. And that not only for the time past, but with a res­o­lu­tion to con­tinue still in their sin, pay­ing these pit­tances to the poor, as the price or pen­alty of their sac­ri­le­gious wicked­ness: but unto these may be well fit­ted the say­ing of the Holy Ghost. Prov. 21:27Proverbs 21:27The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!. The sac­ri­fice of the wicked is an abom­i­na­tion: How much more when he bring­eth it with a wicked mind?” Dow­name, The Plea of the Poore, 67. Just as the Deutero­nomic code for­bade the wages of a har­lot to be of­fered to the Lord (Deut. 23:18Deuteronomy 23:18You shall not bring the wages of a prostitute, or the wages of a dog, into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination to Jehovah your God.), so the ill-got­ten gain of si­mony may not be of­fered.²²“If the hire of an har­lot, or price of a dog, might not be con­se­crated unto God, be­cause they were an abom­i­na­tion unto him, then nei­ther may we of­fer that which we have got­ten by stealth and rob­bery […] Whereby it ap­peareth that men can­not law­fully give alms out of those goods which they have got­ten by theft and rap­ine, brib­ery and ex­tor­tion, si­mony and usury, dic­ing and un­law­ful gam­ing.” Ibid., 64–65.

To En­cour­age Char­ity§

A less com­mon but re­lated jus­ti­fi­ca­tion is that of en­cour­ag­ing char­ity. Un­like the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion just con­sid­ered, which gives si­mo­ni­a­cal pro­ceeds away as alms, this ar­gu­ment holds that the sale of spir­i­tual things en­cour­ages good works, since it in­duces the pur­chaser to give.

Al­bert the Great con­sid­ered an ar­gu­ment de­fend­ing charges for en­try to a re­li­gious so­ci­ety: “Fur­ther, it is not evil to in­duce men to give alms; there­fore if they in­duce [them] to be­stow an alms by re­ceiv­ing a man whom they oth­er­wise would not re­ceive, it is not evil; there­fore it is not si­mony.”²³Al­bert the Great, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 5, quaest., s.c. 2 (p. 92b). Al­bert did not an­swer this ar­gu­ment di­rectly, but ef­fec­tively dis­missed it on the ground that re­cep­tion un­der an agree­ment is si­mony what­ever end the pay­ment serves. A house may count the de­vo­tion a man’s gen­eros­ity shows to­ward it among his qual­i­fi­ca­tions for en­try, but his re­cep­tion on ac­count of his gift may never take place by way of agree­ment.²⁴Ibid., IV, d. 25, a. 5, ad quaest. (p. 94b); Aqui­nas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 4.

The ob­jec­tion there­fore fails on its own terms: a pay­ment made in ex­change for some spir­i­tual ben­e­fit is not char­ity but com­merce. True alms­giv­ing should be mo­ti­vated by good will, but an ex­change by agree­ment cor­rupts the na­ture of good works by at­tach­ing a con­trac­tual re­ward. On this point, one canon rea­soned, “For we have never read that the Lord’s dis­ci­ples, or those con­verted by their min­is­try, en­ticed any­one to the wor­ship of God by hold­ing out any gift.”²⁵C. 1, q. 2, c. 2. Gen­eros­ity may and should be mo­ti­vated by di­vine re­ward (Prov. 19:17Proverbs 19:17He who has pity on the poor lends to Jehovah, and his good deed will he pay him again.; Heb. 11:6Hebrews 11:6And without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of those who seek him.), but that re­ward comes at a time of God’s choos­ing and apart from any hu­man con­tract (Matt. 6:3–4Matthew 6:3–4³But when you do alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does:⁴that your alms may be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.).

Si­mony in the sale of in­dul­gences and prayers pro­vides a clear ex­am­ple of how such pur­chases are con­trary to char­ity. The one who pur­chases an in­dul­gence un­der the pre­tense of alms­giv­ing of­fers no real sac­ri­fice since he seeks to se­cure a ben­e­fit from man. While many of the school­men did not see in­con­sis­tency in de­fend­ing these prac­tices,²⁶For in­dul­gences, see Bo­na­ven­ture, In Sent. IV, d. 20, pars 2, a. un., q. 4, ad 1 (pp. 536–37); for prayers, see Aqui­nas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 2. Prot­es­tants and proto-Re­form­ers high­lighted the hy­poc­risy. As Pe­ter Mar­tyr Ver­migli re­marked of the re­li­gion of Rome, “With their in­dul­gences they cor­rupt good works: for they take away from alms their proper end, the glory of God. They say they are given so that pun­ish­ments may be taken away.”²⁷Ver­migli, Loci Com­munes, 3.8.37 (p. 612).

To Up­hold Cus­tom§

An­other at­tempted jus­ti­fi­ca­tion was cus­tom (con­sue­tudo), which in canon law can carry le­gal force. One may rea­son that a long­stand­ing prac­tice can­not be si­mo­ni­a­cal, for if it were, it would have been cor­rected long ago. Fur­ther­more, to up­hold the cus­toms of the church would ap­pear to be a wor­thy ob­jec­tive that war­rants par­tic­i­pa­tion in the trans­ac­tions they re­quire. The Liber ex­tra re­jected this no­tion in many chap­ters,²⁸X 5.3.8; X 5.3.9; X 5.3.16; X 5.3.19; X 5.3.21; X 5.3.36; X 5.3.39. John Ma­jor like­wise ad­dressed this is­sue at length, Ma­jor, In Sent. (red. B), d. 25, q. 4 (foll. 186ra–187rb). which we will now con­sider.

The Coun­cil of Tours (1163) ex­plained the ba­sic prin­ci­ple: “The pas­sage of time does not di­min­ish a sin, but ag­gra­vates it.”²⁹Coun­cil of Tours (1163), can. 6 (Mansi 21:1178D); cf. X 5.3.8. The Third Lat­eran Coun­cil (1179) ad­dressed those who in­voked long-stand­ing cus­tom to jus­tify charg­ing fees to en­throne bish­ops and ab­bots, in­stall priests, bury the dead, bless mar­riages, or con­fer other sac­ra­ments. It called them “blinded by greed” and warned that any­one who per­sisted would “have his por­tion with Ge­hazi.”³⁰“Many think that this is per­mit­ted to them, be­cause they con­sider that long-stand­ing cus­tom has given it the force of law, not suf­fi­ciently pay­ing at­ten­tion—since they are blinded by greed—to the fact that crimes are all the graver for how long they have held the un­happy soul bound. […] If any­one shall pre­sume to act against this, let him know that he will have his por­tion with Ge­hazi, whose deed he im­i­tates by ex­act­ing a shame­ful re­ward.” Third Lat­eran Coun­cil (1179), can. 7 (Mansi 22:221E–222A); cf. X 5.3.9.

In a let­ter to the Arch­bishop of Can­ter­bury, In­no­cent III ad­dressed an in­ge­nious eva­sion. Cer­tain of the arch­bishop’s suf­fra­gans had been ex­act­ing pay­ment for chrism. Hop­ing to elude his cor­rec­tion, they did not cease but merely col­lected ear­lier in the year and re­named the pay­ment: first “chris­mals,” then “pas­chals,” and fi­nally “mid-Lenten cus­toms.” In­no­cent re­sponded that a new name ab­solves no one of guilt. Such de­cep­tion is to “cloak si­mony un­der an hon­est name,” but “God is not mocked.”³¹“Gap­ing af­ter shame­ful gain and say­ing in their hearts, ‘There is no God,’ they cloak si­mony un­der an hon­est name, as though by chang­ing the name the guilt and the pen­alty would be trans­ferred. But God is not mocked, ac­cord­ing to the apos­tle, nor will such fol­low­ers of Si­mon—even if they per­haps evade tem­po­ral [pun­ish­ment] in the present—es­cape eter­nal pun­ish­ment in the fu­ture, since nei­ther will the re­spect­a­bil­ity of a name cloak the mal­ice of the crime, nor will a word be able to abol­ish guilt.” In­no­cent III, Reg. 2.96 (208:4–9); cf. X 5.3.36.

The Fourth Lat­eran Coun­cil (1215) was es­pe­cially di­rect. It iden­ti­fied the prac­tice of de­fend­ing si­mo­ni­a­cal ex­ac­tions by ap­peal to cus­tom and gave the de­fin­i­tive re­join­der: “We ut­terly re­ject this cus­tom, which ought rather to be called a cor­rup­tion.”³²“Some en­deavor to de­fend this base­ness and de­prav­ity by a cus­tom long ob­served. Wish­ing there­fore to abol­ish so great an abuse, we ut­terly re­ject this cus­tom [con­sue­tu­di­nem], which ought rather to be called a cor­rup­tion [cor­rup­tela], firmly de­cree­ing that for these things—whether to be con­ferred or al­ready con­ferred—no one pre­sume un­der any pre­text what­so­ever to ex­act or ex­tort any­thing. Oth­er­wise both the one who re­ceives and the one who gives such a wholly con­demned price shall be con­demned along with Ge­hazi and Si­mon.” Fourth Lat­eran Coun­cil (1215), can. 63 (Mansi 22:1051C); cf. X 5.3.39. While a cus­tom may have the force of law, cor­rup­tion can­not. This same coun­cil or­dered that lay­peo­ple who, out of “the leaven of he­ret­i­cal de­prav­ity,” un­der­mined pi­ous cus­toms of giv­ing should be re­strained.³³Fourth Lat­eran Coun­cil (1215), can. 66 (Mansi 22:1054D–E); cf. X 5.3.42. Yet the same canon pro­hib­ited cler­i­cal ex­ac­tions.

Present Dan­ger§

Pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions of­ten re­garded si­mony as one of the great­est dan­gers of their own day. To what de­gree do these con­cerns ap­ply to­day among evan­gel­i­cals? The re­cov­ery of a doc­trine should end in proper use, and proper use re­quires an up­dated as­sess­ment of its present ap­pli­ca­tion. In some ways, we have pro­vided that in the last two chap­ters, but points of in­quiry re­main.

First, we should con­sider the dif­fi­cul­ties of dis­cern­ing and ac­knowl­edg­ing mod­ern si­mony. Sec­ond, we should con­sider the grav­ity of si­mony and its cure.

The Dif­fi­culty of Dis­cern­ing Mod­ern Si­mony§

Mod­ern si­mony is dif­fi­cult to dis­cern on ac­count of both the sub­ject who would dis­cern the mat­ter and the ob­ject in ques­tion. As re­gards the sub­ject, we have lost im­por­tant cat­e­gories; as re­gards the ob­ject, the com­mon of­fenses have shifted greatly from what they once were. In ei­ther case, a ro­bust doc­trine of si­mony is the rem­edy.

Miss­ing Cat­e­gories§

In the ap­pen­dix to Nine­teen Eighty-Four, George Or­well de­scribed the for­ma­tion of “New­speak,” a ver­sion of Eng­lish so pared of its vo­cab­u­lary that it ren­dered so­phis­ti­cated thought im­pos­si­ble. By this, the to­tal­i­tar­ian re­gime that im­posed the lan­guage be­came in­vin­ci­ble. If one lacks the words to de­scribe evil, he tends to strug­gle to even iden­tify it. Or­well’s sce­nario was a fic­tion of his own mak­ing, but this phe­nom­e­non of lan­guage and cog­ni­tion has been iden­ti­fied by sci­en­tists in em­pir­i­cal stud­ies. For ex­am­ple, com­pared to a speaker whose lan­guage fea­tures a word for a par­tic­u­lar shade of color, a speaker whose lan­guage fea­tures no such word is slower to dis­tin­guish that shade from its neigh­bors.³⁴Wi­nawer et al., “Russ­ian Blues Re­veal Ef­fects”.

So it is with the doc­trine of si­mony. Once its vo­cab­u­lary is lost, the sale of spir­i­tual things may go en­tirely un­de­tected. Re­cov­er­ing the vo­cab­u­lary of si­mony, as we have done here, is there­fore a first task. The va­ri­eties of spir­i­tual things (by es­sence and by cause) to­gether with their an­nexes (by di­rec­tion and by de­pen­dence) al­low us to iden­tify the spir­i­tual side of the ex­change. The Gre­go­rian triad (the gift of the hand, the tongue, and ser­vice) iden­ti­fies the tem­po­ral. And this is only the core vo­cab­u­lary of the ex­change it­self. Be­yond it lie the modes of ex­change, and within these, the var­i­ous modes of giv­ing and re­ceiv­ing.

There is al­most cer­tainly room to re­cover and de­velop fur­ther vo­cab­u­lary still. Yet given the breadth al­ready cov­ered, the greater part of the work that re­mains might be not ex­pan­sion but re­fine­ment, sharp­en­ing of the cat­e­gories al­ready in hand. The sharper our vo­cab­u­lary of si­mony grows, the bet­ter our abil­ity to dis­cern it be­comes.

Shift­ing Of­fenses§

For­mer ap­pear­ances of si­mony have largely re­ceded from view. Com­merce in or­di­na­tions, sac­ra­ments, in­dul­gences, rel­ics, and rights of pa­tron­age is rare. This is not to say that the old forms are ex­tinct. They sur­vive in some mea­sure in Ro­man Cathol­i­cism and East­ern Or­tho­doxy, and even among Prot­es­tant churches, fees for bap­tism ser­vices and the like are not un­heard of. Re­gard­less, the bat­tles fought by for­mer gen­er­a­tions against the man­i­fes­ta­tions of si­mony in their own day were largely won.

Yet si­mony is pro­tean.³⁵“Among all the lit­tle foxes that ruin the vine­yards, no lit­tle fox is more wicked or more cun­ning than si­mony. For, as a cer­tain au­thor [Ho­race] says, ‘By what knot do I hold Pro­teus as he changes his as­pect?’ so we may say: by what knot shall we hold si­mony—that most cun­ning lit­tle fox, man­i­fold in face, thou­sand-shaped in habit, and al­most al­ways un­like not only the other lit­tle foxes but even un­like it­self, to such a de­gree that, while it ru­ins the vine­yards of Christ, it is some­times seen in the very guise of the vine­dresser?” Ger­hoch of Re­ich­ers­berg, Liber de si­mo­ni­a­cis, 268:27–38. We have ob­served how the ad­vent of copy­right has en­abled the sale of bib­li­cal teach­ing it­self in a way that was for­merly im­pos­si­ble, and re­cent phe­nom­ena like the for­mal­iza­tion of bib­li­cal coun­sel­ing have cre­ated more op­por­tu­ni­ties for com­merce in spir­i­tual things.

As the pace of tech­nol­ogy quick­ens, so does the trans­for­ma­tion of si­mony. Dig­i­tal me­dia have opened new chan­nels for mon­e­tiz­ing doc­trine, and the plat­forms that fa­cil­i­tate this in­tro­duce their own com­plex­i­ties. Ad­ver­tise­ments and rev­enue shar­ing—some­times not even op­tional—do not have the ap­pear­ance of a di­rect sale, but in­volve their own sorts of ex­changes. Our cul­ture has mul­ti­plied the ways a spir­i­tual thing may be an­nexed to a ma­te­rial thing, and with them the oc­ca­sions for con­fu­sion. Some are plainly in­no­cent. For thirty years, Alaska Air­lines gave its pas­sen­gers prayer cards printed with a verse of Scrip­ture;³⁶The tra­di­tion ended in 2012. no cus­tomer could rea­son­ably un­der­stand his air­fare as pur­chas­ing a pre­sen­ta­tion of the word of God. Other prac­tices, such as theol­ogy cruises, re­quire more con­sid­er­a­tion.

The chang­ing na­ture of si­mony is noth­ing new. For ex­am­ple, in Prot­es­tant Eng­land the prev­a­lent form of si­mony had shifted from the sale of or­ders to cor­rup­tion in the col­la­tion and pro­vi­sion of ben­e­fices.³⁷See Willis, Si­mony: In Two Parts, 21–22. A new era yielded a new man­i­fes­ta­tion of the sin, but es­tab­lished doc­trine fur­nished the means to iden­tify and pro­scribe it. Re­gard­ing this phe­nom­e­non, one nine­teenth-cen­tury pro­fes­sor of civil law ob­served that if the an­cients in­veighed prin­ci­pally against si­mony of one de­scrip­tion and the mod­erns against si­mony of an­other, this “arises not from any dif­fer­ent view taken by the church as to the na­ture of the of­fence, but from the change of dis­ci­pline which change of times and man­ners has ren­dered nec­es­sary.”³⁸Jo­seph Phil­li­more, as quoted in Phil­li­more, The Ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal Law, 1103–4.

Proper def­i­ni­tions keep si­mony from pass­ing un­rec­og­nized when its ap­pear­ance changes. When these foun­da­tions erode, hard-won ground is eas­ily sur­ren­dered. The house swept clean of one form of the of­fense may have seven more re­turn in its place, so that the last state is worse than the first. A proper doc­trine of si­mony res­i­dent in the church guards against that re­turn.

The Dif­fi­culty of Ac­knowl­edg­ing Mod­ern Si­mony§

Re­gard­ing mod­ern si­mony, the dif­fi­culty of ac­knowl­edg­ment at least ri­vals, if not ex­ceeds, that of dis­cern­ment. Com­pet­ing au­thor­i­ties eas­ily gov­ern even those who re­gard them­selves as un­bi­ased judges. We might break these down into two pri­mary cat­e­gories: the au­thor­ity of oth­ers and the au­thor­ity of self-in­ter­est.

The Weight of an Im­plied Con­sen­sus§

Com­mon prac­tices among rel­a­tively elite ranks sug­gest to on­look­ers a stud­ied con­sen­sus, and the pro­pri­ety of these prac­tices is of­ten as­sumed on ac­count of this im­plied au­thor­ity. Cus­toms form from a va­ri­ety of fac­tors and of­ten go with­out be­ing sub­jected to se­ri­ous scru­tiny. Such is the case with mod­ern si­mony. Be­cause the sale of spir­i­tual teach­ing sat­u­rates the Chris­tian land­scape, it ex­erts a kind of he­ge­mony. The par­tic­i­pants in this com­merce in­clude not only false teach­ers and char­la­tans but men of un­ques­tioned de­vo­tion, so chal­lenges to the prac­tice are of­ten re­garded as ma­li­cious at­tacks against the pil­lars of the church.

We might par­ti­tion those af­fected by this phe­nom­e­non into three groups. First, there are those who prac­tice or en­dorse the sale of spir­i­tual teach­ing with ob­sti­nacy. Like the priests of Mi­cah’s day, they pre­sume upon the mercy of the Lord on ac­count of the ubiq­uity of the prac­tice (Mic. 3:11Micah 3:11The heads of it judge for reward, and its priests teach for a fee, and its prophets divine for money; yet they lean on Jehovah, and say, “Is not Jehovah in the midst of us? No evil will come on us.”). Sec­ond, some are un­cer­tain on the is­sue, but with­hold firm judg­ments against the sale of spir­i­tual teach­ing on ac­count of an ap­par­ent con­sen­sus to the con­trary. Third, there are those who have con­cluded that the prac­tice is con­trary to God’s law yet hold their tongue for fear of op­pos­ing the masses.

In any of these cases, the doc­trine of si­mony ex­poses the ar­ti­fi­cial­ity of this au­thor­ity. First, the doc­trine has al­ready met this ar­gu­ment from au­thor­ity and re­jected it, for even those who re­spected Rome con­cluded that its high­est bishop could not be pre­sumed free of the sin. Sec­ond, tech­ni­cal terms and cat­e­gories de­mand an­swers in a way that pre­vail­ing cus­toms do not. Third, an an­cient tra­di­tion re­frames the whole no­tion of con­sen­sus, widen­ing it from one gen­er­a­tion of the faith­ful to many.

Con­flicts of In­ter­est§

The ques­tion is dif­fi­cult to ap­proach hon­estly when the an­swer is of sig­nif­i­cant per­sonal con­se­quence. As Up­ton Sin­clair quipped, “It is dif­fi­cult to get a man to un­der­stand some­thing, when his sal­ary de­pends upon his not un­der­stand­ing it!”³⁹Sin­clair, I, Can­di­date for Gov­er­nor, 109. We do not sup­pose that all whose sal­aries so de­pend know­ingly sup­press the truth; in­ter­est of this kind works qui­etly upon the judg­ment, mak­ing the most con­ve­nient con­clu­sions ap­pear the most likely.

This in­ter­est gov­erns one’s read­ing of Scrip­ture. Those who pro­mote the sale of spir­i­tual things of­ten em­ploy 1 Co­rin­thi­ans 9:141 Corinthians 9:14Even so did the Lord ordain that those who proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel. in their de­fense. Paul es­tab­lished a min­is­ter’s right to fi­nan­cial sup­port in the first four­teen verses, but this is only the ini­tial prem­ise of the apos­tle’s dis­course. The weight of the ar­gu­ment falls on its re­main­der and Paul’s re­fusal to use that au­thor­ity (1 Cor. 9:15, 181 Corinthians 9:15But I have used none of these things; and I do not write these things that it may be so done in my case, for [it were] good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my boasting void.). Those who ap­peal to the pas­sage com­monly stop where the prem­ise ends. Con­tend­ing against pew rents in the nine­teenth cen­tury, James Begg ob­served the same se­lec­tive quo­ta­tion from his op­po­nents, re­mark­ing that they “al­ways halt in the mid­dle of the apos­tle’s state­ment with an ev­i­dent de­sign.”⁴⁰Begg, Seat Rents, 20.

Many are hes­i­tant to iden­tify the sin where it may in­ter­fere with their present ac­tiv­i­ties or even re­quire re­pen­tance for past ones. In the four­teenth cen­tury, the point was made di­rectly by the pop­u­lar Epis­tola Lu­ciferi, a sat­ire penned in the guise of “Lu­cifer prince of dark­ness,” ad­dressed to the prel­ates of the church, thank­ing them for their faith­ful ser­vice to his king­dom.⁴¹The let­ter was com­posed around the turn of 1352 and has been at­trib­uted to a num­ber of can­di­dates. See Scha­bel, “Lu­cifer prin­ceps te­ne­bra­rum,” 127–29. Therein, the devil ob­serves that cor­rupt clergy can­not speak out against si­mony be­cause she is their mother: “We com­mend to you our very dear daugh­ters, Pride, Av­a­rice, Fraud, Lux­ury, and the oth­ers, es­pe­cially Lady Si­mony, who has made you and suck­led you with her own breasts and nour­ished you. And you shall not call her si­mony or sin, be­cause you own every­thing.”⁴²Ibid., 132, trans­lat­ing the crit­i­cal Latin at ibid., 171. An Eng­lish ver­sion of the let­ter is printed among the Lol­lard writ­ings an­nexed to the trial of Wal­ter Brute in Foxe, Actes and Mon­u­ments, 5.503.

This in­ter­ested blind­ness is not re­stricted to pre­vi­ous cen­turies. To­day the idea that sem­i­nary tu­ition or roy­al­ties on a theol­ogy text might be il­licit is rarely sug­gested, and where it is, es­tab­lished voices pre­clude it as an in­tol­er­a­ble con­clu­sion. Even apart from those with a fi­nan­cial stake in in­sti­tu­tions that sell bib­li­cal teach­ing, nearly every­one within the church has ben­e­fited in some way from those in­sti­tu­tions and has within them friends, men­tors, or ben­e­fac­tors. Few are will­ing to in­dict those they love or those who have served them well.

So long as the sale of spir­i­tual teach­ing is treated as a mat­ter of prac­ti­cal judg­ment—of wis­dom, pro­por­tion, or taste—this in­ter­est will find room to ma­neu­ver. Such judg­ments are end­lessly ne­go­tiable. Prin­ci­ple gives the mat­ter fixed bounds and de­mands a con­sis­tency that re­sists, at least in some mea­sure, per­sonal bias. A re­cov­ered doc­trine of si­mony pro­vides that prin­ci­ple and forces the is­sue.

Con­clu­sion§

A re­cov­ered doc­trine of si­mony aids in dis­cern­ing the sin, giv­ing us a vo­cab­u­lary and prin­ci­ples by which to iden­tify it how­ever its ap­pear­ance changes. That re­trieval like­wise aids in ac­knowl­edg­ing the sin by mit­i­gat­ing the com­pet­ing fac­tors that would com­mend si­lence. Even in its mod­ern forms, si­mony may be re­garded as a prac­ti­cal her­esy, counted among the chief sins and tar­geted with much of the rhet­o­ric used by the saints of the past.

While such com­mit­ments and strat­e­gies may seem less than gen­teel, the dif­fi­culty may be nav­i­gated by a zeal that is ac­cord­ing to knowl­edge. Right un­der­stand­ing both di­rects and gen­er­ates right zeal, that same zeal by which Christ cleansed the tem­ple of com­merce in the days of his earthly min­is­try.

Bib­li­og­ra­phy§

• Al­bert the Great. Com­men­ta­rii in IV Sen­ten­tiarum. Edited by Au­guste Borg­net. Op­era om­nia 29–30. Paris: Vivès, 1894.
• Aqui­nas, Thomas. Scrip­tum su­per li­bros Sen­ten­tiarum. Vol. 13. Venice: Jo­seph Bet­ti­nelli, 1750.
• ———. Summa theo­lo­giae. Le­o­nina ed. Rome: Ex Ty­po­gra­phia Pol­y­glotta S.C. de Pro­pa­ganda Fide, 1895–1899.
• As­so­ci­a­tion of Theo­log­i­cal Schools. 2025–2026 An­nual Data Ta­bles. Pitts­burgh: Com­mis­sion on Ac­cred­it­ing of the As­so­ci­a­tion of Theo­log­i­cal Schools, 2026.
• As­te­sanus of Asti. Summa de ca­si­bus con­sci­en­tiae. Edited by Bar­to­lo­meo Bel­lati. Venice: Jo­hannes de Colo­nia and Jo­hannes Man­then de Gher­ret­zem, 1478.
• Begg, James. Seat Rents Brought to the Test of Scrip­ture, Law, Rea­son, and Ex­pe­ri­ence. Ed­in­burgh: John John­stone, 1838.
• Bo­na­ven­ture. Com­men­ta­ria in qua­tuor li­bros Sen­ten­tiarum. Op­era om­nia 4. Ad Cla­ras Aquas (Qua­rac­chi): Ex Ty­po­gra­phia Col­legii S. Bo­na­ven­tu­rae, 1889.
• Burck­hardt, Ja­cob. The Civil­i­sa­tion of the Pe­riod of the Re­nais­sance in Italy. Trans­lated by S. G. C. Mid­dle­more. Vol. 1. Lon­don: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1878.
• Bur­ton, Henry. A cen­sure of si­monie, or a most im­por­tant case of con­science con­cern­ing si­monie briefly dis­cussed not al­to­gether per­haps un­par­al­lell for the merid­ian of these times. Lon­don: Wil­liam Stansby for Ed­mund Weaver and John Smeth­wick, 1624.
• Coun­cil of Tours (1163). In Sa­cro­rum con­cil­io­rum nova et am­plis­sima col­lec­tio, edited by Gio­vanni Do­menico Mansi, vol. 21, 1167–1186. Venice: An­to­nio Zatta, 1776.
• Dow­name, John. The Plea of the Poore, or a Trea­tise of Ben­e­fi­cence and Almes-deeds. Lon­don: Printed by Ed­ward Grif­fin for Ralph Mabbe, 1616.
• Fourth Lat­eran Coun­cil (1215). In Sa­cro­rum con­cil­io­rum nova et am­plis­sima col­lec­tio, edited by Gio­vanni Do­menico Mansi, vol. 22, 981–1068. Venice: An­to­nio Zatta, 1778.
• Foxe, John. Actes and Mon­u­ments. Lon­don: John Day, 1583.
• Ger­hoch of Re­ich­ers­berg. Li­bel­lus de eo, quod prin­ceps mundi huius iam iu­di­ca­tus sit. In Li­belli de lite im­per­a­to­rum et pon­tif­i­cum sae­culis XI. et XII. con­scripti, edited by Ernst Sackur, Mon­u­menta Ger­ma­niae His­tor­ica, vol. 3, 239–272. Han­over: Hahn, 1897.
• Gra­tian. De­cre­tum Gra­ti­ani. Edited by Emil Fried­berg. Vol. 1. Leip­zig: Bern­hard Tauch­nitz, 1879.
• Greg­ory I. Reg­is­trum epis­to­larum. Edited by Paul Ewald and Lud­wig M. Hart­mann. Mon­u­menta Ger­ma­niae His­tor­ica, Epis­to­lae 1–2. Ber­lin: Weid­mann, 1891–1899.
• Greg­ory IX. Liber ex­tra. Edited by Emil Fried­berg. Vol. 2. Leip­zig: Bern­hard Tauch­nitz, 1881.
• Groote, Geert. De si­mo­nia ad be­gut­tas. In Quel­len und For­schun­gen zur Ge­schichte der deut­schen Mys­tik, edited by Ru­dolf Lan­gen­berg, 1–33. Bonn: P. Han­stein, 1902. Com­posed ca. 1380.
• Hus, Jan. Pos­tilla. In Mis­tra Jana Husi Se­brané spisy české, edited by Karel Ja­romír Er­ben, vol. 2, 1–434. Prague: Bed­řich Temp­ský, 1866.
• In­no­cent III. Die Reg­is­ter In­no­cenz’ III. Edited by Oth­mar Ha­geneder, Wer­ner Ma­lec­zek, and Al­fred A. Str­nad. Vol. 2. Rome and Vi­enna: Ver­lag der Ös­ter­rei­chi­schen Aka­de­mie der Wis­sen­schaf­ten, 1979.
• Lynch, Jo­seph H. Si­mo­ni­a­cal En­try into Re­li­gious Life from 1000 to 1260: A So­cial, Ec­o­nomic, and Le­gal Study. Co­lum­bus: Ohio State Uni­ver­sity Press, 1976.
• Ma­jor, John. In quar­tum Sen­ten­tiarum (redac­tio A). Paris, 1509.
• ———. In quar­tum Sen­ten­tiarum (redac­tio B). Paris: Jo­docus Ba­dius As­cen­sius, 1516.
• Ma­li­piero, Do­menico. An­nali ve­neti dall’anno 1457 al 1500. Edited by Fran­cesco Longo and Agos­tino Sa­gredo. Ar­chi­vio Sto­rico Ital­iano 7. Flo­rence: Vieusseux, 1843.
• Mau­rice of Prague. Con­sil­ium de Ec­cle­si­as­tico Statu in Con­cilio Con­stan­ti­ensi Ma­ture Emen­dando. In Mag­num oe­cu­me­ni­cum Con­stan­ti­ense con­cil­ium, edited by Her­mann von der Hardt, vol. 1, 860–874. Frank­furt and Leip­zig: In of­fi­cina Chris­ti­ani Gen­schii, 1697.
• Mil­liot, Jim. “Pub­lish­ing In­dus­try Sales Saw Mod­est Gains in 2024.” Pub­lish­ers Weekly (2025).
• Os­wald of Laskó. Au­reum sacrae theo­lo­giae ro­sa­rium. Ha­ge­nau: Hein­rich Gran for Jo­hann Ryn­mann, 1508.
• Pe­ter Da­mian. Vita beati Ro­mualdi. In Pa­tro­lo­gia La­tina, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 144, 953–1008. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1867.
• Phil­li­more, Rob­ert. The Ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal Law of the Church of Eng­land. Vol. 2. Lon­don: Henry Sweet, 1873.
• Rich­ard of Mid­dle­ton. Com­men­tar­ius in li­bros Sen­ten­tiarum. Vol. 4. Bres­cia, 1591.
• Scha­bel, Chris. “Lu­cifer prin­ceps te­ne­bra­rum … The Epis­tola Lu­ciferi and Other Cor­re­spon­dence of the Cis­ter­cian Pierre Cef­fons (fl. 1348–1353).” Vi­var­ium 56, no. 1–2 (2018): 126–175.
• Sin­clair, Up­ton. I, Can­di­date for Gov­er­nor: And How I Got Licked. Berke­ley: Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia Press, 1994. Orig­i­nally pub­lished 1935.
• Spinka, Mat­thew. John Hus: A Bi­og­ra­phy. Prince­ton: Prince­ton Uni­ver­sity Press, 1968.
• ———. John Hus and the Czech Re­form. Chi­cago: Uni­ver­sity of Chi­cago Press, 1941.
• Tay­lor, Jer­emy. “The Flesh and the Spirit.” In XXV Ser­mons Preached at Golden-Grove, fol. 125–138. Lon­don: E. Cotes for Rich­ard Roys­ton, 1653.
• Third Lat­eran Coun­cil (1179). In Sa­cro­rum con­cil­io­rum nova et am­plis­sima col­lec­tio, edited by Gio­vanni Do­menico Mansi, vol. 22, 210–467. Venice: An­to­nio Zatta, 1778.
• Thomas of Stras­bourg. Com­men­ta­ria in IIII li­bros Sen­ten­tiarum. Genoa: Apud An­to­nium Ore­rium, 1585.
• Ver­migli, Pe­ter Mar­tyr. Loci Com­munes. Lon­don: Thomas Vautrol­lier, 1583.
• Willis, Wil­liam Downes. Si­mony: In Two Parts. 2nd ed. Lon­don: Riv­ing­tons, 1865.
• Wi­nawer, Jon­a­than, Na­than Witt­hoft, Mi­chael C. Frank, Lisa Wu, Alex R. Wade, and Lera Bo­ro­dit­sky. “Russ­ian Blues Re­veal Ef­fects of Lan­guage on Color Dis­crim­i­na­tion.” Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­tional Acad­emy of Sci­ences 104, no. 19 (2007): 7780–7785.
• Wyc­liffe, John. Ser­mons. In Se­lect Eng­lish Works of John Wyc­lif, edited by Thomas Ar­nold. Ox­ford: Clar­en­don Press, 1869.
• ———. Trac­ta­tus de apos­ta­sia. Edited by Mi­chael Henry Dzie­wicki. Wyc­lif So­ci­ety. Lon­don: Trüb­ner & Co., 1889.