Is this not just straight up simony

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
Well, you quoted my post, I assumed it was in response to that. My humble apologies for misrepresenting your intent.
Click to expand...
I did not and have not been into the website. I was merely making general comments about what is and is not considered simony. We are good now.
 
pnewton said:
I looked up this canon. For those who say it is forbidden to buy these items, is it possible to show where the Church has forbidden it? Without some synthesis of various moral concepts, I cannot find this addressed.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that while selling is forbidden buying is not. That is not logical. Selling and buying are part and parcel of the same thing.
 
pnewton said:
Canon Law makes a distinction
Click to expand...
I support your distinction-making here. Canon 1190’s original Latin appears to be best translated as “to sell” and other words could have been used so that buying and selling would have been directly condemned.

Nevertheless, it appears as though the intention behind the law is to link this prohibition to simony (which includes buying and selling) so that both buying and selling are prohibited. The most recent instruction on relics has this to say: “The commerce (that is, the exchange of a relic for something else or for money) and the sale of relics (that is, the cessation of ownership of a relic for a corresponding price), as well as their display in profane or unauthorized places, are absolutely prohibited.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...20171208_istruzione-reliquie_en.html#_ftnref4 at art. 25

Dan
 
You are correct. Buying is not. The scenario of buying items to prevent their abuse was brought up and is certainly fine. But just to buy the new for the sake of ownership, when supporting a business who is seems to be beyond the pale, seems wrong to me.
 
Canon law does only apply to Catholics, that does not mean the moral teaching behind may not be universal.
 
Last edited:
I am too far removed from this culture of relics to relate to the moral implication, though I understand the sin of simony. However, I am fascinated by history and find the reliquary as interesting as the relic, for historical value, even if the “relic” was a very old fake.

I can see that someone might want to buy a relic for the purpose of ending possible profanity, though that might be akin to negotiating for a ransom, something for which the morality is uncertain.
 
tafan2 said:
You are correct. Buying is not. The scenario of buying items to prevent their abuse was brought up and is certainly fine. But just to buy the new for the sake of ownership, when supporting a business who is seems to be beyond the pale, seems wrong to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and while the Canon Law does not explicitly forbid buying relics people who do buy relics (other than to rescue them) are simply perpetuating the relic market leaving relics open to abuse.
An immoral market will die out if folks stop buying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top