Did I comit Simony?

[HabemusFrancis]

IA few years a go I purchased a third class relic from a garage sale. It was a piece of cloth that touched Pope Pius X’s tomb. Kind a stretch to call it a relic I guess.

But did I commit a sin in buying it?

 

[Ben_F]

No. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Joe_5859]

IA few years a go I purchased a third class relic from a garage sale. It was a piece of cloth that touched Pope Pius X’s tomb. Kind a stretch to call it a relic I guess.

But did I commit a sin in buying it?

There are three classes of relics:

• First class relic: a piece of bone, heair, etc.
• Second class relic: an item that the saint owned/touched/etc. such as a bracelet or a rosary
• Third class relic: something (most often a cloth) that is touched to a first or seconjd class relic.

So what you had would be considered a third class relic. Was it attached to a medal or a holy card? Oftentimes, relics are “sold” but it is really the container that houses them that is sold – not the relic itself. If it was attached to something else, I would just say you bought the holy card or medal and the relic was an unexpected bonus.

 

[tafan]

…
Oftentimes, relics are “sold” but it is really the container that houses them that is sold – not the relic itself. If it was attached to something else, I would just say you bought the holy card or medal and the relic was an unexpected bonus.

Very slippery slope, and I don’t know if it occurs that often. I would be very cautious in buying a reliquary, that is in use, and the relic comes along as a “bonus”. That seems to be very much bending the rules, in my mind.

Been to a lot of religious stores, all over the world, and I don’t recall ever seeing this done.

I do not believe the OP committed simony, since I do not know if the description of the article fits the third class relic category.

 

[7armyrugrats]

If this relic was in a garage sale, it is reasonable to assume it could be bought by someone who would desecrate it. In that case, it is allowed and advisable to buy that relic. And yes, a third class relic is as you describe, and also many are “sold,” but it is truly the holder that is sold. Fir instance, a crucifix that has a relic encased can be bought/sold without committing a sin because you are only giving/receiving the value of the crucifix.

We do have a duty to protect holy objects from harm, and the fact that this was in a garage sale shows you needed to protect it. If you are concerned, please talk to your confessor

 

[SonCatcher]

If this relic was in a garage sale, it is reasonable to assume it could be bought by someone who would desecrate it. In that case, it is allowed and advisable to buy that relic. And yes, a third class relic is as you describe, and also many are “sold,” but it is truly the holder that is sold. Fir instance, a crucifix that has a relic encased can be bought/sold without committing a sin because you are only giving/receiving the value of the crucifix.

We do have a duty to protect holy objects from harm, and the fact that this was in a garage sale shows you needed to protect it. If you are concerned, please talk to your confessor

Nor so much a “purchase” as a “ransom” in such a case.

 

[thistle]

There are three classes of relics:

• First class relic: a piece of bone, heair, etc.
• Second class relic: an item that the saint owned/touched/etc. such as a bracelet or a rosary
• Third class relic: something (most often a cloth) that is touched to a first or seconjd class relic.

So what you had would be considered a third class relic. Was it attached to a medal or a holy card? Oftentimes, relics are “sold” but it is really the container that houses them that is sold – not the relic itself. If it was attached to something else, I would just say you bought the holy card or medal and the relic was an unexpected bonus.

Actually I don’t agree with that. In my opinion it’s naive for anyone to think they are purchasing a card, or reliquary with the relic thrown in free. Quite simply that is a sale of a relic unless the identical card or reliquary is sold for exactly the same price with and without the relic.

Some people mistakenly think the not selling of relics only applies to 1st and 2nd class relics but that is not true. Canon Law does not differentiate classes of relics.

Can. 1190 §1 It is absolutely wrong to sell sacred relics.

 

[tafan]

Actually I don’t agree with that. In my opinion it’s naive for anyone to think they are purchasing a card, or reliquary with the relic thrown in free. Quite simply that is a sale of a relic unless the identical card or reliquary is sold for exactly the same price with and without the relic.

Some people mistakenly think the not selling of relics only applies to 1st and 2nd class relics but that is not true. Canon Law does not differentiate classes of relics.

Can. 1190 §1 It is absolutely wrong to sell sacred relics.

Agreed, better said than my post.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Can. 1190 §1 It is absolutely wrong to sell sacred relics.

FWIW, this is not the definition of simony. Simony applies to buying and selling, not just selling. If the OP bought it for the purpose of not having the object disrespected, and not for any advantage, then I doubt that the sin of simony was committed.

Also, the OP’s religious status is agnostic, which also plays into the situation when examining sin.

 

[thistle]

FWIW, this is not the definition of simony. Simony applies to buying and selling, not just selling. If the OP bought it for the purpose of not having the object disrespected, and not for any advantage, then I doubt that the sin of simony was committed.

Also, the OP’s religious status is agnostic, which also plays into the situation when examining sin.

Is that a joke? Forbidden to sell also means nobody is allowed to buy it or are you really suggesting that the seller is sinning but not the buyer. I can’t possibly think you would mean that.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Is that a joke?

Of course not.

Forbidden to sell also means nobody is allowed to buy it.

It does not in any legal system I am aware of. Forbidden to sell does not mean forbidden to buy.

It’s also interesting that the canon doesn’t specifically state simony, but rather selling. Selling is never necessary; buying can be used as a means to avoid disrespect or desecration of the relic.

Do you really believe that buying such a relic at a garage sale with intent to stop possible desecration then subsequently donating to the Church is a sin? According to your interpretation, it must be.

 

[thistle]

Of course not.

It does not in any legal system I am aware of. Forbidden to sell does not mean forbidden to buy.

It’s also interesting that the canon doesn’t specifically state simony, but rather selling. Selling is never necessary; buying can be used as a means to avoid disrespect or desecration of the relic.

Do you really believe that buying such a relic at a garage sale with intent to stop possible desecration then subsequently donating to the Church is a sin? According to your interpretation, it must be.

If you had read other threads on relics you would have seen that I posted on many occasions the only possible allowable reason to buy a relic is to rescue it and hand it over to the Church. Short of that it is a sin.