ister Christ's sacraments is not simony nor any sin. For it is not taken as pay, but as a necessary stipend.

It is better to go without the sacraments than to sin by purchasing them.

The same remark applies to Holy Matrimony. The blessing of the Church cannot be purchased. If the priest merely solemnized the civil contract, he might be paid for doing so.

Is it lawful to give and to receive money for other spiritual ministrations?

As the sacraments are called spiritual because they confer spiritual grace, so certain other things are called so because they either proceed from spiritual grace or dispose man for it.

Yet these require the ministry of men, who must be supported by those who receive these benefits (1 Cor. ix. 7). To sell or buy acts of this nature is simoniacal. But to give and receive something for the support of those who minister in these spiritual things, according to the ordinance of the Church and approved custom, is lawful, if the simoniacal intention be not there, and if the demand be not made on those unwilling to contribute, by withholding those spiritual ministrations. For this would be a kind of selling. But when spiritual ministrations have been already freely bestowed, it is lawful to demand, from those who are able but unwilling to give, the appointed and customary offering for clerical support (say, the pew rent).

The case of the physician or lawyer is not the same. He who has any science does not get with it the obligation to use it for every one alike, as do the ministers of spiritual things. The former may receive pay, not as selling their science, but in exchange for their labours. But if they were bound by the obligation of their office to give their services, as in the case of a hospital physician, etc., they would grievously sin in selling their services.

Some things are so annexed to spiritualities as to depend upon them, as the benefice of a rector, which can only be held by a clergyman.

The sale of such things would be understood as the sale of spiritual things, and is unlawful.

But other things are annexed to the spiritual as being ordained for them, as the right of presentation to a living, or the sacred vessels (not yet consecrated and used) which are prepared for sacramental use. Such things precede the spiritual in order of time, and may be sold, but not as annexed to the spiritual.

In case of need for the Church or the poor, even the consecrated vessels may be broken and sold for their value as precious metals.

There is another form of simony, when spiritual things— say, office in the Church-are given as a reward for personal service, or, in response to a request, in order to obtain some temporal advantage. What can be estimated in pecuniary value is equivalent to money, when simony is in question. Nepotism is a sin in these matters, but it is not simony, unless some temporal advantage is in some way expected.

CHAPTER V.

DUTIES TOWARDS OTHERS, DEPENDING ON JUSTICE, AND THEIR OPPOSITE VICES.

§ 1. Piety, reverence, and honour.

What is piety towards men?

Man becomes a debtor towards others in various degrees and manners, according to their diverse excellence and the diverse benefits which he receives from them. In both God holds the highest place, as infinitely excellent and as the first principle of our being and of our direction in life.

But, in the second place, as the source of our being and the orderers of our life, stand our parents and our country. Next to God, then, we owe service to our parents and our country.

But in this service due to parents is included that of our near relatives who are descended from the same parental stock. And in the service of our country is implied that of our fellow-citizens and of all friends of our country. (Patriotism is a part of piety towards man.)

The word "piety" is often applied to the service which we owe to God, who is the Father of us all. But the greater includes the less, and now we use the term in the more restricted sense.

Works of mercy, also, are sometimes called pious works for a similar reason, being part of our service towards God.

It is filial piety to provide for the support of parents.

For the Lord, in rebuking the Pharisees (S. Matt. xv. 5), taught us that this is part of the honour due to those who are the source of our being.

Some things are due to parents and fellow-citizens as such; some things are due in special circumstances. To a father, as father, are due reverence and dutiful conduct. But he may be sick; then provision must be made for his infirmity. He may be poor; then his children owe him support, and all such things are included in dutiful conduct. This is part of the law of nature, as well as of the civil code.

The Common Law is to the same effect. "The child is equally compellable, if of sufficient ability, to maintain and provide for a wicked and unnatural progenitor, as for one who has shown the greatest tenderness and parental piety" (Blackst., i. p. 454).

Why, then, does S. Paul say (2 Cor. xii. 14), "The children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children"? Because the father is bound to this per se, since children are his natural successors. But the child is not bound to lay up for a parent whom in the course of nature he will survive. The case before us, however, is that of present, not future, need.

Piety has its special object; sc., parents and country, and those connected with these, under the special idea of paying duty and service to those who are the sources and directors of ourselves.

Therefore piety is a special virtue, a special manifestation of charity.

May the duties of filial piety be neglected on account of religious duties?

The Pharisees were sternly rebuked by Christ (S. Matt. xv.) for putting religion in the place of natural piety. Both are virtues, and cannot contradict one another, nor can the act of one exclude the act of the other.

The act of every virtue is limited by due circumstances, and if these are neglected, the act will be vicious, not virtu

ous.

Now piety exhibits duty and service to parents according to the due mode. But it is not the due mode that parents should be set above God. If, then, the service of parents withdraw us from the service of God, it will not be filial piety if we persist in that service against God (who is the source of the filial obligation). In such a case, God must come first. But if dutiful conduct towards parents does not totally withdraw us from God's service, this conduct is required by piety, and we may not neglect it on account of religion.

66

There are, indeed, words of the Gospel, liable to be misunderstood, which seem to justify neglect of parents on account of religion. Thus, the Lord said (S. Luke xiv. 26), "If any one come unto Me, and hate not his father and mother, he cannot be My disciple." And, again, it seems to be said in praise of SS. James and John, that they straightway left the boat and their father and followed Him." So it was said of Levi of old (Deut. xxxiii. 9), that he "said of his father and mother, I have not seen him." And to the man who said (S. Matt. viii. 22), "Suffer me first to go and bury my father," the Lord replied, "Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." This pertains to religion; but burying a father is a work of filial piety. Therefore, piety gave way to relig

ion.

But as for the first quotation, parents who are adversaries towards God are to be fled from as if they were hated. If they try to induce us to sin, or to withdraw us from God's service, we do right to desert them. So the Levites ignored their kinsmen when the question arose of punishing idolaters according to God's command. SS. James and John left their father and followed the Lord, not because he tempted them to sin, but because they judged that he did not need them at that time for his support.

There were others who could bury a father, but the Lord, who knows all hearts, called the son from many evils which