Collusive Simony

Collusive Simony is the purchase or attempted purchase of ecclesiastical office or sacrament through money. In the novel, it is not merely a theological prohibition but a charge with immediate political and institutional consequences: a confidential report links Joseph Tremblay’s alleged payments to his candidacy in the papal election, and Jacopo Baldassare Lomeli must decide whether to expose the evidence to the cardinal-electors. The resulting conflict turns on what can be proved, what Church law requires, and whether protecting the institution means preserving its procedures or revealing a suspected offense.

Definition and Canonical Stakes

Lomeli identifies the alleged conduct as simony and invokes the scriptural account of Simon, who offers money for spiritual power and is condemned by Peter. The example frames the charge as an attempt to obtain a divine gift through payment, not simply as an irregular campaign expense. Lomeli argues that the report presents an overwhelming prima facie case against Tremblay and emphasizes that simony carries an automatic penalty of excommunication.

The distinction between an allegation and a proven offense remains important. Lomeli describes the report as evidence of conduct designed to advance Tremblay’s candidacy; it does not establish which electors received money or how they voted. The ballots have already been burned, and Lomeli says the recipients might have intended to pass the money on to their churches. He therefore separates the conduct he believes the documents establish—Tremblay’s distribution of money in support of his candidacy—from the question of whether particular cardinals were corrupt or voted for him.

The Report and Its Evidence

The accusation emerges from documents discovered among the late Pope’s private papers. Hidden inside a removable bedpost cap was a wooden case containing financial records, transfers, addresses, and notes. One set of papers concerned Church property and listed apartments occupied by senior officials; another was an addendum prepared for the Pope that reported discrepancies in the administration of the Church’s property holdings. These papers place the alleged electoral payments within a broader setting of financial scrutiny and the late Pope’s efforts to investigate the Curia.

A separate document makes the simony allegation explicit. Its executive summary is headed as a report on the alleged offense committed by Tremblay, marked strictly confidential, and dated 19 October—the day of the Pope’s death. Lomeli tells Aldo Bellini that the report concerns the activities of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples and, more specifically, its prefect, Tremblay. He says the documents name cardinals from Africa and South America and record cash payments made during the preceding twelve months. In his account, using cash made the transfers harder to trace, while their timing suggested a deliberate effort to benefit Tremblay’s candidacy as the Pope’s pontificate neared its end.

When Bellini asks how Lomeli knows the money was not used for legitimate purposes, Lomeli answers that he has seen the recipients’ bank statements. The answer strengthens the evidentiary case in Bellini’s eyes, but it does not remove every uncertainty: the ballots are unavailable, and the reported financial trail cannot by itself establish how each named elector voted. The narrative thus gives the report substantial force without turning an allegation into a fully adjudicated verdict.

From Suspicion to Public Disclosure

The suspected offense is entangled with an earlier dispute over the Pope’s final actions. Janusz Woźniak tells Lomeli that after the Pope’s death Tremblay took control of the situation, then asked whether the Pope had seemed preoccupied at supper. Woźniak says he withheld details because he was frightened and believed he was not supposed to know of the Pope’s business. He recalls seeing Tremblay speak privately with Hector Morales and suspects Tremblay persuaded the secretary not to disclose the meeting. Lomeli later tells Bellini that the report, if made widely known, would support Woźniak’s account that the Pope’s last official act was to order Tremblay to resign. The accusation therefore bears on both the alleged electoral payments and the credibility of the account of the Pope’s final intervention.

Lomeli does not keep the report as private leverage. He asks Sister Agnes to make 118 copies, and the document is circulated among the electors. He acknowledges that he broke the seals on the Pope’s rooms and that he was responsible for distributing the report. To cardinals who question him, he explains that he investigated because an excommunicable offense might have been committed and covered up; he leaves the weight of the evidence to his fellow electors. His stated position is that he acted from conscience rather than as judge of Tremblay’s guilt.

The disclosure draws competing objections. Giulio Sabbadin reproaches Lomeli for surrendering a weapon that could have been used to control Tremblay after an election, and says the publication has instead strengthened Goffredo Tedesco. Archbishop Fitzgerald objects that Tremblay was given no opportunity to present a defense and accuses Lomeli of acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Other cardinals murmur agreement. These reactions expose the procedural problem at the heart of the episode: suppression might preserve tactical advantage, while disclosure risks unfairness to the accused and still may not settle the charge.

Institutional Context and Consequences

The case belongs to a wider struggle over accountability in the Curia. Bellini recalls that the late Pope demanded transparent accounts, receipts, outside tenders for building work, and the review of files by accountants and management consultants. The reforms provoked hostility and were followed by leaks about misuse of funds. Bellini describes a pontificate increasingly isolated within the Holy See, amid opposition from traditionalists and the Pope’s declining trust in those around him. Against this background, a confidential report about alleged payments in a papal election is both a specific accusation and a test of whether financial oversight can reach the Church’s highest offices.

The report does not produce a simple resolution. Lomeli presents evidence and asserts that the alleged conduct falls under a grave canonical prohibition; his opponents challenge the fairness and strategic wisdom of making it public. Meanwhile, the conclave’s rules constrain responses to other emergencies as well. After explosions in Rome, Lomeli resists suspending or accelerating the election because either action could undermine its legitimacy, and he invokes the constitution’s provision for a special discussion. The book places the simony controversy within this same concern for law: the electors confront a possible offense, but they must also consider the validity of the procedures through which they address it.

Simony therefore functions as a fault line between institutional loyalty and accountability. The documents are powerful enough to make concealment consequential, yet incomplete enough that their circulation cannot substitute for a hearing or establish how the electors voted. By placing the alleged purchase of office beside the Church’s formal rules, its financial reforms, and the uncertainty left by burned ballots, the narrative makes the scandal a test of both personal conscience and institutional legitimacy.