by Fr. Peter R. Scott

Q. Is it licit to sell on ebay relics (whether first, second, or third class), blessed articles, statues and sacred vessles, and items of intrinsic value secondarily containing a blessed item or a relic?

A. The principle to always keep in mind is that once they have been blessed or consecrated, holy pictures and sacred vessels are of their nature set aside for the worship of God, and for the honor of the saints, as also are relics of the Passion of Our Lord and of the saints. They must consequently "not be used for profane purposes" (Canon 1296 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) and must be kept in a sacristy or other decent and safe place.

Blessed or consecrated objects can be owned by private persons, but they may not be used for profane or non-religious purposes. However, if they lose their blessing or consecration they may be, provided that these are not sordid uses (Canon 1510 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law). This law still exists in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, eliminating however the precision that even when they lose their blessing they still must not be used for improper or anti-Catholic purposes.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is very explicit about the fact that exposing blessed or consecrated items to public sale or auction does cause them to lose their blessing (Canon 1305). There is no equivalent in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Clearly, the advertising for sale on ebay constitutes a public auction, so that objects that are sold in this way do need to be re-blessed.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law (only) is very explicit about the vice of simony: the will and intention to buy or sell spiritual things for a temporal price (Canon 727, §1). It describes two types, simony of divine law and of ecclesiastical law. Simony of divine law exists when intrinsically spiritual things (e.g., sacraments, indulgences) are sold for a price, or to make a spiritual thing the partial object of a contract, such as when a chalice is sold for more money because it is consecrated (Canon 727, §1). Simony of ecclesiastical law does not concern us here, for it consists in requiring some kind of exchange for a spiritual benefice or favor, such as letters of recommendation or Christian burial.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 730) is also very specific in excluding from simony the giving of payment for a temporal object which has something spiritual joined to it. Thus it is that it is not simony, and consequently perfectly moral, to sell a chalice for the value of the metal, provided that there is no increase in price because it is consecrated (e.g., for a private sale, where the consecration is not lost), or the sale of the reliquary, in which relics are contained. However, this would not be licit unless it could be foreseen that all profane uses were to be excluded (in the case of blessed items or relics) and unless all anti-Catholic uses could be excluded for those formerly blessed or consecrated items which are sold publicly, as on ebay.

From this it follows that it would be moral to sell historic or antique religious items for their real value on the market, provided that no additional price was requested because of their former blessing or use, or the relic that might be attached or included within the item.

It is never permitted to sell relics as relics, for their spiritual value as a relic, whether they be first, second or third class. This is clear from Canon 1289 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which states that "it is a horrible thing to sell sacred relics," which prescription is renewed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1190, §1. However, it is permissible to sell the reliquary, in which the relic is contained, for its artistic or historical value. It would, though, be entirely against the spirit of the Church to make this a legal fiction by calling it a price for the reliquary and simply taking advantage of the demand for a particular relic and charging for it, calling it a price for the reliquary. This is simony.

A further distinction is made in the Church's Code of Canon Law, and that is of important relics, which are held in great veneration by the people, such as an entire body, head, forearm, heart, etc. from other relics. Important relics such as these cannot be moved into private houses or oratories without the authorization of the Holy See (Canon 1282 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and 1190, §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law). Other relics can be kept, but WITH DUE HONOR, in private homes, and even carried piously on their person by the faithful.

The wisdom of all these prescriptions of the Church, to protect the honor and reverence due to holy things, is a part of the sacredness of the Church's life that we all must do our utmost to preserve in this time of secularism, in which the sacred has become so defiled.

Q. Can Pope Pius XII's clarification of the error of the Council of Florence be used as a precedent for refusing the errors of Vatican II?

A. The question of the error in the Council of Florence's Decree to the Armenians concerning the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is interesting inasmuch as it demonstrates that the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium requires as a condition that it be an act of teaching of Faith or morals for the universal Church, and not just for one part of the Church. It also demonstrates that not everything taught by an Ecumenical Council is infallible, but only those teachings in which the conditions required for the infallibility of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium are fulfilled. The same applies to the teachings of Vatican II. The novelties, which are not a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and were never taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium, can and must be refused if they are in fact contrary to both, which is indeed the case.