Simony (pronounced sahy-muh-nee or sim-uh-nee)
(1) The making of profit out of
sacred things.
(2) In Christianity, the practice,
now usually regarded as a sin, of buying or selling spiritual or ecclesiastical
benefits such as pardons, relics, benefices or preferments.
The buying or selling of spiritual or sacred things, such as ecclesiastical offices, pardons, or consecrated objects.
1175–1225: From the Middle English & the twelfth century Old French simonie (selling of church offices; the sin of buying or selling sacred things), from the Late Latin simōnia (from Simon Magus (Σίμων ὁ μάγος in Greek, Simon Magvs in Latin), the Samaritan sorcerer (magician) who was rebuked by Peter when he tried to buy the power of conferring the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24)). The nouns simoniak & simoner (the alternative spelling was simonier) (one who practices simony) appear in documents around the turn of the fifteenth century but there’s no evidence the adverb simoniacally was in use before the mid-1700s. Simony, simonist, simoner & simonism are nouns, simoniac is a noun & adjective, simonient is an adjective and simoniacally is an adverb; the noun plural is simonies.
Acts 8:9-24: Origin of the Church’s ban on outsourcing.
18:
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost
was given, he offered them money.
19:
Saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive
the Holy Ghost.
20: But Peter said unto him, thy
money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be
purchased with money.
Simon Magus, known also as Simon the Sorcerer, was one of many magicians and, with competition fierce in a crowded market, he sought to increase his stock of magic tricks, gaining thereby a comparative advantage. What he really wanted was to be thought of as one who, by laying on of hands, could make people feel filled with the Holy Spirit (the presence of the Lord), then a desired thing.
When Simon Magus saw Peter and John deliver the presence by the laying of their on baptized believers, he offered money if they would confer on him the same power. The pious pair were aghast at the idea one could buy the gift of God and urged Simon to repent so God might forgive him. Hearing these words made Simon fearful and he pleaded with them to pray that nothing bad would befall him. Whether Simon was truly repentant is never made clear although he did not immediately die so God did not at once smite him in his wrath. Others were not so fortunate but Simon was the first heretic named in the New Testament and ever since, the Church has insisted on its monopoly in matters spiritual. However, later popes, bishops and other clergy, while noting the the ruling of Peter & John as conferring on them exclusivity of supply in such matters, their interpretation didn't extend to banning profit from the business, something which would come to have profound consequences for Church and state.
Compared with the unfortunate Ananias and Sapphira, Simon got off lightly. In the Book of Acts (4:32), it’s recorded the early Christian disciples did not think of their possessions as their own but as the property of the collective to be used in the name of the Lord (not now a popular piece of scripture among the more materialist Christians). Were money received by one, it belonged to all the apostles and were one to be found cheating, there were consequences and of course there had to be because, theologically, not only was the miscreant cheating others in the clergy, they were stealing from God Himself. In Acts (5:1-11), it’s recounted that Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold their land but, when handing the proceeds to Peter, Anania kept some of the money for himself (the modern term in the study of governance & corruption in the distribution of foreign aid would be "siphoning").
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
A salutary warning then, rather untypical of the New Testament, something more in the spirit of the vengeful God of the Old and it remains one of the passages in scripture most of modern Christianity prefers to ignore. The endorsement of the death penalty often attracts little criticism but the notion of sharing with others one’s capital gains from the real-estate market would likely have little appeal to the many in evangelical congregations, although, given the corporate structure, the richer of the clergy might see some attraction.
The story has long been a struggle for theologians. Although a injunction against lying is not one of the ten commandments (although it seems implied in (8) You shall not steal & (9) You shall not bear false witness), it wasn't explicitly prohibited although Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead simply for conspiring to lie; that would seem unfair for on the night Christ was tried, Peter himself lied three times yet was not thrice struck dead and anyway, as Peter acknowledged, they were under no obligation to donate the money. It might then seem difficult to see just what was the sin so heinous that both deserved to die but theologians most often hint at something Aristotle might have called honor, what the social media marketing experts might call the quality of authenticity. The transgression of Ananias and Sapphira was seeking the honor of their community in a manner dishonorable, shaming themselves as mere counterfeits; phoneys. It was not the money which mattered, it was the fake news and, as Peter said, that news came from Satan for Satan had filled (to “the brim” in some translations) the heart of Ananias. So, it's no great theological leap to see in their conduct as transgressions of (8) You shall not steal and (2) You shall not make any idols to worship (in that money had become an object of veneration).
People lie all the time and God does not smite them in his wrath but while all men might be equal before God, not all communities are equal. When people lie to others in their community they are lying to others, to themselves and before God; it is a sin and one day they shall be judged. But among the disciples of Christ himself, there can be no lies for to lie there is to lie about the work of the Holy Spirit and to speak that lie to God. There can be only one consequence and that must be death. It's a warning to those with the conceit to seek pre-eminence among the people of God, careerists seeking recognition, influence and power in God’s Church which is wrong for it is God alone who takes us into His Church (John 6:44, 65) and Him alone who elevates and ordains individuals to offices within (1 Corinthians 12:18, 28; Ephesians 4:11); as in all things, "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). The vainglory of the self-aggrandizement of Ananias and Sapphira was the work of the mind and nature of Satan (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:17) and was what made the couple willing instruments in the execution of his purposes. Structuralists draw from the story a lesson about the authority of the hierarchical clergy and the nature of the institution of the Church. Theologians writing their apologia (which seem always emphasise that Peter must be absolved of any responsibility) conclude the message is in everything we do we must love our neighbors as ourselves and seek not to accrue wealth, status and power.
In
the early medieval church the legal position was unambiguous so the spirit was
strong, even if the flesh of priests was sometimes weak, accusations of simony
not uncommon, something encouraged presumably by the increasingly obvious wealth
of not a few clergy. In reaction, canon
law banned what had become revenue streams derived from the supply of
what had once been simple orders of service performed for events such as
blessings or baptism. Over the years
many canons and edicts reinforced the sanctions, something necessitated by
priests being good “black letter law” practitioners, eager to spot loopholes and
eyes of needles through which money could pass.
Even papal bulls addressed the matter though it was a time of low
literacy and distant channels of communications, things which helped
imaginative priests hone their business model.
Famously, Gregory I (circa 540–604; usually styled Saint Gregory the
Great, pope 590-604) condemned such transactions as “a simoniac heresy” but the problem was not the state of law but the
efficiency of its enforcement, a familiar complaint in the modern secular
world.
Despite
it all, by the ninth and tenth centuries, simony had become so entrenched in
the ecclesiastical structure that the very economy of the Church may have been dependent
on the practices and in the eyes of the population, presumably was an accepted
part of theology. The more austere canon
lawyers however found it disturbing and by the eleventh century, one of the
debates between them concerned the issue of whether a priest who had gained his
office by a simonical transaction (ie purchased it from a bishop) could be said
to be validly ordained and this was not merely a tiresome technical point argued
between lawyers: if an ordination was invalid, did this invalidate the legal
effect of the rituals he’d since performed?
If so, were some marriages null & void, couples living in sin and
unknowingly producing illegitimate children?
Were their baptisms valid or were there many unbaptised heathens? That was bad enough but if so, would those
who had died (and there would have been many), on that basis be sent not to Heaven
but instead burn in Hell (discussions of some less unpleasant alternatives such
as Limbo were not then well advanced)?
It
was during the pontificate of Gregory IX (circa 1150-1241; pope 1227-1241) the sanctions were codified and it was done with a legal sledgehammer. In issuing the Corpus Juris Canonici (literally “Body of Canon Law”) in
1234, Gregory provided the document which would provide the framework for the
Church’s canon law for over 700 years and although
subject to frequent refinement, it would not be replaced until 1917. As a part of this, the matter of simony was
dealt with in what might now be called “an omnibus provision”, the definitional
basis for the offence so wide that just about any transaction “involving
consideration” (ie money or some other benefit) might be caught in its net.
Canto XVIII, part of the eighth circle of Hell, in Divine Comedy (circa 1494), illustrated by Sandro Botticelli (Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi; circa 1445–1510).
It’s said to have had a great reforming influence but of course the problem shifted shape rather than going away and in the fourteenth century, Dante Alighieri (circa 1265–1321) in Divina Commedia (Divine Comedy (circa 1310-1321)) detailed (not without glee) the fate of avaricious simoniacs including “clergymen, and popes and cardinals” who, dammed for “fraud” would be cast into the eighth circle of Hell, a hot, fiery place where they’d have ended up trapped for eternity in a flaming tomb, the frequent punishments including being whipped by demons, immersed in excrement and transformed into reptiles:
Rapacious ones, who
take the things of God,
that ought to be the
brides of Righteousness,
and make them fornicate
for gold and silver!
The time has come to
let the trumpet sound
for you;
Ever if not scared of lawyers, from the most humble monk to the pope himself, priests were scared of going to Hell so Dante’s words may have had some effect, even though he wrote in common Italian rather than Latin. The lure of money though proved strong and although the sale of “indulgences” (essentially God’s forgiveness, often in bulk) was not the sole inspiration for the movement which led to the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, it was probably the most celebrated and an indication of the way corruption tends to be hydra-headed, difficult to suppress and probably impossible to eradicate. Still, it was the framework of canon law which provided the basis for the structures the Church of England would adopt to stamp out simony and it’s not hard to see traces of it in many of the anti-corruption statutes and institutions which exist today in many Western states.
Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment