INDULGENCES
… An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been
forgiven…
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence
is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin;
neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the
guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is
not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation
consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary,
it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God.
It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility
of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase
of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of
another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to
any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches
on this subject.
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal
punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which
remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the
keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and
of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this
definition, the following points are to be noted:
• In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin
remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament
of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment
due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required
by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the
present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory (q.v.). An indulgence
offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his
life on earth.
• Some writs of indulgence--none of them, however, issued by
any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)--contain the
expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt
and
from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding
(cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula
is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent,
after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards
freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence- (Bellarmine, "De Indulg".,
I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely
obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from
penalty as well as from guilt, has been made.
Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors
of indulgences who pretended to absolve" a culpa et a poena" (Clement,
I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII,
n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes
to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces.,
VIII, viii. 7). …
God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise
amount is in severity and duration. Finally, some indulgences are granted
in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of
the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the application has
not the same significance in both cases. The Church in granting an indulgence
to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction
and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage
(per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of
satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings
of the souls in Purgatory. …
DISPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE
The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence
does not imply
that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From
what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from
the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession
and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though
confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e.
"at
least with a contrite heart ", is the customary prescription. Regarding
the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can
gain an indulgence for the dead. see PURGATORY. It. is also necessary to
have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence.
Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must
perform the good works-prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church, etc.-which
are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see "Raccolta".
…
BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE
An essential element in indulgences is the application to one person
of the satisfaction performed by others. This transfer is based on three
things: the Communion of Saints, the principle of vicarious satisfaction,
and the Treasury of the Church.
(1) The Communion of Saints "We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one
of another" (Rom., xii, 5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole
body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works
of all the rest-a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those
who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the sinful
members.
(2) The Principle of Vicarious Satisfaction Each good action of the just man possesses a double value: that
of merit and that of satisfaction, or expiation. Merit is personal, and
therefore it cannot be transferred; but satisfaction can be applied to
others, as St, Paul writes to the Colossians (i, 24) of his own works:
"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that
are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which
is the Church," (See SATISFACTION.)
(3) The Treasury of the Church Christ, as St, John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), "is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world." Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes
an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness
contracted by sin...
These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit,
not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ …
"Upon the altar of the Cross ", says the pope, "Christ shed of His
blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of
the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious
torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure
He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to
Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for
just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in
partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin…
THE POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES
Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive
sins (see PENANCE), the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred.
Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and
to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also
free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty.
This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of
the power granted to Peter (Matt., xvi, 19): "I will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shaft loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Cf. Matt., xviii, 18, where like power
is conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of
loosing, "the power of the keys ", as it is called; it must, therefore,
extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no
less than the guilt.
When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty,
her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven.
That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the
earliest times, is shown by St. Paul's words (II Cor., ii, 5-10) in which
he deals with the case of the incestuous man of Corinth. The sinner had
been excluded by St. Paul's order from the company of the faithful, but
had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one "this rebuke
is sufficient that is given by many" and adds: "To whom you have pardoned
any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing,
for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." St. Paul had bound
the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent
from this punishment by an exercise of his authority -- "in the person
of Christ." Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence. …
St. Cyprian himself was reproached for mitigating the "Evangelical
severity" on which he at first insisted; to this he replied (Ep. lii) that
such strictness was needful during the time of persecution not only to
stimulate the faithful in the performance of penance, but also to quicken
them for the glory of martyrdom; when, on the contrary, peace was secured
to the Church, relaxation was necessary in order to prevent sinners from falling into despair
and leading the life of pagans.
In 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letojum) declares that the penance
should be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal
in performing it- "ut spatium canonibus praestitum posset contrahere (can.
xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). …
ABUSES
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have
proved such a stumbling - block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition.
But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily
have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this
respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however
holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of
man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking
of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1
Cor., xi, 27-9).
And, as God's forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse
into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of
an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been
in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection
with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be
forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic
value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it
is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave
the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices
which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs
to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures
on the part of the Church.
Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who
imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place
of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. …
Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the
practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized
by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-
minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this
world and eternal glory in the next. …
In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found
some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin
as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of
the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of
Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences
should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy
See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted
to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Traffic in Indulgences
These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation,
not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority
to correct them.
In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext
for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against
the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love
of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary
ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain.
Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article
(see REFORMATION), it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine
itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as
is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day
are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the
saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some
practice of piety.
Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works
which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence,
alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be
induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the
building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of
a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing
essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy
act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.
Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition
for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent
in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became
a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the
payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those
who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions.
On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make
them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church
were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their
officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences. This
class has happily disappeared, but the type has been preserved in Chaucer's
"Pardoner", with his bogus relics and indulgences.
While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should
also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual
grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them
in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist
on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficult to understand
why the Church, instead of abolishing the practice of indulgences, aimed
rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements.
The Council of Trent in its decree "On Indulgences" (Sess.
XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation
be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church,
lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and
further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees
that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away
with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people; and as to
other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any
cause whatsoever--since these, on account of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions--the Council
lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his
own diocese, of bringing them before the next provincial synod, and of
reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff,
by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare
of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed
on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption."
After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed
by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued
their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council
ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely
abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the
faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and
bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these
heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre
(Sess. XXI, c. ix).
In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any
fees or other financial transactions. …
From the
Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New
Advent, Inc.
|