Prohibition of Simony

The Prohibition of Simony forbids buying a sacred office or sacrament. In the conclave, the rule becomes more than a doctrinal prohibition: a confidential investigation alleges that Cardinal Joseph Tremblay paid fellow electors to support his candidacy, placing the validity of the election and the Church’s capacity to hold its leaders accountable under scrutiny.

Definition and Stakes

The rule’s central concern is the exchange of money for spiritual authority. Jacopo Baldassare Lomeli invokes the biblical account of Simon, who offers money for the power to confer the Holy Spirit and is rebuked by Peter. For Lomeli, the scriptural precedent makes the allegation against Tremblay especially grave: he describes the report as a strong prima facie case that Tremblay attempted to purchase office or sacrament.

The alleged conduct is tied directly to the conclave’s first ballot. Lomeli says Tremblay secured votes by paying cardinals, mostly from Africa and South America, and identifies Cárdenas, Diène, Figarella, Garang, Papouloute, Baptiste, Sinclair, and Alatas in the report. He says the payments were made in cash to make them harder to trace and were distributed during the final twelve months of the late Pope’s pontificate, when Tremblay must have anticipated its end.

The Investigation and Its Evidence

The accusation rests on a report prepared for the late Pope into alleged simony by Tremblay. Dated October 19, the day the Pope died, it is marked strictly confidential. Material found among documents hidden in a wooden case in the Pope’s bed includes financial records and bank statements; Lomeli tells Aldo Bellini that he has seen the recipients’ bank statements. When Bellini questions whether the money might have been intended for legitimate purposes, Lomeli distinguishes the uncertainty about what the recipients did with it from the clearer evidence of Tremblay’s conduct.

That distinction shapes the case. Lomeli does not claim that every cardinal named in the report was necessarily corrupt: he allows that some may have intended to pass the money on to their churches. Nor can the burned ballots establish which recipients voted for Tremblay. The evidence, as Lomeli presents it, instead concerns Tremblay’s own actions: he bypassed official procedures and handed out tens of thousands of euros in a manner designed to further his candidacy.

Penalty, Proof, and Political Consequences

Lomeli cites excommunication as the automatic penalty for simony. The rule therefore gives the allegation consequences beyond political impropriety: if established, the conduct would expose Tremblay to a severe ecclesiastical sanction. But the ballots are gone, the report is confidential, and Tremblay can deny the charge. The gap between a persuasive documentary case and proof of how individual electors voted prevents the investigation from resolving every question it raises.

The report also bears on the disputed account of the late Pope’s final days. Lomeli argues that its existence supports Janusz Woźniak’s claim that the Pope’s last official act was to order Tremblay to resign. That connection makes the simony allegation part of the struggle over what happened before the Pope’s death as well as over who should lead the Church afterward.

Disclosure and Institutional Accountability

Lomeli warns Bellini that broad circulation of the report would produce an extraordinary scandal. Yet keeping it private would leave a serious allegation against a candidate unexamined. At the Casa Santa Marta, Lomeli asks Sister Agnes to make 118 copies; the unusually large number indicates that he intends to place the document before the assembled electors rather than confine it to a private exchange.

The controversy echoes the late Pope’s efforts to make Church finances more transparent. Bellini recalls that the Pope demanded proper accounts, disclosed records, outside tenders, and receipts, then brought in accountants and management consultants to examine files. The hidden financial papers, the confidential report, and the accusation of cash payments make the prohibition of simony part of a wider question: whether institutional authority can police its own finances and electoral conduct without allowing secrecy to protect those it is meant to govern.