What an Indulgence is, and what it is not. Various Kinds.
Some time ago, while glancing over the church advertisements in one of our daily newspapers, the writer was amazed at what was called a series of interesting topics to be discussed in one of the city's non-Catholic churches. Among other sermon subjects of a like nature was the following: "Indulgences: How the Roman Catholic Pays for the Privilege of Sinning," We might expect such manifestations of utter ignorance from those who swallow all the filth that the "Menace" places before them but that an educated American who is supposed to be a leader and, par excellence, an exponent of honesty and truthfulness, should betray either such ignorance or such malice, is really beyond all comprehension.
But, you say, this is not the first time that I have heard unfavorable comment on the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. And where there is so much smoke, surely there must be fire. The answer is that the Catholic Church has been made the victim of a most malicious campaign of slander, and that she is powerless to undo all the wrong that has been heaped upon her. You must know that the so-called Reformation was ushered in under circumstances that suppressed truth and favored falsehood. Wherever the "Reformers" could gain royal favor, laws were enacted that prohibited the exposition of Catholic doctrine in books. It was a crime to defend the Church in writing in England. The consequence was that everything that pertained to Catholic doctrine was studiously misrepresented in history and biography. Honest investigators today declare that the history of the past four hundred years is grossly unjust to the Catholic Church, and that it purposely misrepresents the facts concerning this great religious body. And since the doctrine of indulgences was the pretext upon which Martin Luther launched his rebellion, it is but natural that this doctrine fared worst at the hands of those whose purpose it was to ruin the Church.
Never in the history of the Roman Catholic Church has it been believed, or has the belief been tolerated, that an indulgence grants the right to sin. Any one but faintly conscious of the Church's unceasing battle against sin in every form would refuse to be led into such an absurd error.
What, then, is an indulgence? First of all, let us see what it is not. It is not a permission to sin. It is not a remission of sin. It in no way encourages sin, for one must be free from sin to gain an indulgence.
Let us suppose that Jimmy, a lad of our acquaintance, has deliberately broken his little sister's doll. The act is unjustifiable and causes the little maid great grief. Jimmy's better self realizes the vn^etched meanness of his act, and he begs the girl for forgiveness, which after many promises and much coaxing is finally granted. However, the mother has witnessed the whole performance. She is pleased that Jimmy is sorry for his unkindness, but at the same time holds that he ought to be punished. Accordingly she sends him to his room where his penalty is to write an endless number of lines. But the lad pleads with his mother. He volunteers to fill the wood-box with kindling, is prepared to fetch coal, and so on. Now the mother accepts his work in lieu of the task that he was to perform as punishment. Does any one suppose that the mother is encouraging Jimmy to be rude to his sister? Or is it possible that the little fellow believes that in future he may destroy other toys? Not at all. He was sorry for his fault and it was forgiven him. However, some punishment was meted out as a warning for the future. Shrewdly he offers to do some work that will be helpful to his mother, and his punishment is remitted.
Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence. For an indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment due to sins that already have been forgiven. There is no encouragement to sin, for the recipient must be free from mortal sin. It is not a remission of sin itself, for it presupposes the sin to have been forgiven.
Certainly it is reasonable to believe that there is temporal punishment, either in this world or in the next, for our crimes, even though God has forgiven them. There is the case of David, who had sinned grievously against the Lord. His great sorrow for his sins found favor with God, and the Lord sent to him a prophet to announce that his sin had been forgiven. But nevertheless, a punishment followed as is apparent from the words of the prophet: "The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing the child that is born to thee shall surely die." (2 Kings 12:13-14) One might object that in the case of sin it is not the Church who is off ended, and that she does not inflict the punishment. By what right, then, does she presume to remit this punishment? By the right and the power given to her by God Himself. "Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 18:18) If these words of Our Saviour convey anything, they certainly confer upon the Church a power to bind and loose that is recognized in heaven. The power is unlimited, as the "whatsoever" signifies. We know that the Church cannot abuse this power, for Christ is with her, and the Holy Ghost guides her. And thus it is really God who grants the indulgences through the Church, whom He has appointed as the custodian of the spiritual treasures won by the Saviour and the saints.
The stand of the Church on the question of indulgences, far from bearing the stigma of abuse of power, is a most logical expression of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. The saints in heaven, the souls in purgatory, and the militant Christians upon earth are united in holy cooperation for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls. The saints in heaven have stored up superabundant merits, and still continue, by their powerful intercession, to gain favors for the faithful on earth. These in turn apply their merits to the helpless souls in purgatory. Could the doctrine of the Communion of Saints find a more beautiful expression than in the practice of granting indulgences?
And now let us consider the kinds of indulgences and the significance of their names. We speak of plenary and partial indulgences. Plenary, as the word signifies, means a full remission of punishment due to sin. Thus, if a person in the state of grace would fulfill all the requirements to gain a plenary indulgence, his standing before the throne of God would be such that if he were to die immediately afterwards he would escape the temporal punishments of purgatory. Human frailty, however, prevents many of us from fulfilling the necessary conditions. For that reason we try, and try repeatedly to gain plenary indulgences.
A partial indulgence, as the word intimates, remits a part of the punishment due to sin. In the early ages of the Church the faithful performed public penance for their sins. This penance sometimes was of short duration; then again it was carried on for years. Thus when you gain an indulgence of one hundred days, seven years, etc., as much punishment for your sins is remitted as if you had atoned publicly so many days or years.
But some one may say: "Thus far I have seen nothing objectionable about indulgences, but the thing that bears all the marks of simony is the fact that indulgences have been granted for the payment of money. Thus, for instance, the building of the magnificent basilica of Saint Peter's at Rome is said to have been accomplished with funds collected over the entire world; and these donations were given all the more freely because indulgences were offered." Let us sanely consider the objection. For what purpose was that money destined? To build a fitting memorial to the Prince of the apostles; to erect a church that would be in keeping with the magnificence and sublimity of the religion of God. Where is the wrong? It was a work for the greater glory of God, a work that could only be consummated by means of money. Accordingly, the sacrifice made by the Christian people who contributed was an act of religion, and as such was as fully entitled to an indulgence as any prayer or act of mortification. Only those who studiously search for scandals can discover anything irregular in the granting of indulgences for works of this kind. And if ever individual bishops have attempted to grant indulgences as a means of strengthening their finances, their abuse was criminal and as such severely condemned by the Church.
And thus we have seen that all the bugaboo talk about indulgences is forced and devoid of any substantiation in fact.
God is merciful. He is willing, yes, anxious to extend to us the fullness of His forgiveness, if we but manifest the least sign of good will. The doctrine of indulgences is only one of the many proofs of God's great mercy and magnanimity. We should strive to appreciate this gift of God and try to gain as many indulgences as possible.
- from The Principal Catholic Practices: A Popular Explanation of the Sacraments and Catholic Devotions by Father George Thomas Schmidt, 1920