
INDULGENCES

and Why they Remain Vital to us Today
How many of us
— indeed, all of us — have at one time or another
said, “Ah ... would that I had never done that! Could I only go back
in time!”
Confucius,
in one of his well known Analects, summarized it best: "What is said
cannot be unsaid." How true. What is more, in so many, many ways, what
is done cannot be undone ...
We are prisoners
of our past — and Time, the stern warden, it appears, has thrown away
the key.
We are prisoners
to what we have said and to what we have done. In spite of all our longing
— and despite every reparation — we have done what we have done and
said what we have said. And we know it! And even this we cannot
“unknow”.
However
much we have amended our lives or corrected our ways, we cannot escape
what we have done and what we have said. They are deeds and words indited,
chiseled as it were, in a ledger of adamantine stone that we understand
as the truthful history of our lives.
For all
our blithe protestations that, “we
have moved on, moved beyond them”, they remain withal the secret burden
in our hearts, the darkest closets in our memories in fearfully remote
corners of our minds. In the dark watches of the night they often return
to us, or totally unbidden, come to us as we walk down the street. Indeed,
even the prophet says,
“I
know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.”
(Psalm 50.5)
|
And yet the same prophet tells us
that,
“If thou, O Lord, wilt mark
iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it. For with thee there
is merciful forgiveness.”
(Psalm 129.3)
|
In light
of this undeniable reality, how are we to understand the forgiveness
of God afforded us in Holy and Sacramental Confession? On the
one hand God forgives our sins ... while on the other
He retains our punishment ... How is that the forgiveness extended to
our sins does not extend to the punishment due sin? More
simply put, does not forgiveness of the act entail remission
of the punishment? In a word, no.
Justice and Satisfaction for
Sin
First of all, not
every sin is susceptible to restitution in the way, say, that
the sin of stealing $100 can be rectified (not undone ...) by
repaying the $100 to the person from whom it was stolen. This sinful
act can be remediated by simply restoring what was wrongly taken. A
lie can be redressed by telling the truth. However, this clearly is
not the case with the sins of adultery and murder ... among many others.
We cannot, of ourselves, restore, rehabilitate, or redress every
sin. We cannot bring to life whom we have murdered. We cannot restore
our virginity or that of another. We may be forgiven such sins
but there is no path to restitution. This is to say that we cannot make
satisfaction for them.
In such
cases a commensurable privation, or punishment, is the only satisfaction
possible in justice — and God is just (however
frequently and conveniently overlooked). That justice is a good is indisputable.
Were it not, then injustice would be good — and no one reasonable will
argue this. God, then, Who is perfect, and perfectly good, cannot
be wanting in any good, and we have agreed that justice is an indefeasible
good. There is, in a word, no incongruity between God's goodness and
God's justice. In fact, the two are both mutual and reciprocal. The
notion of punishment, then, in no way derogates from God as good and
God as just.
Since justice
demands the atonement of sin, the punishment justly due sin must be
satisfied either in this life or in the next. It appears inescapable.
Satisfaction in this life is generally held by the Saints and Doctors
of the Church to be less rigorous than the satisfaction exacted in the
life to come. In this life or the next, justice will be satisfied.
But
since all things are possible to God, why cannot the punishment
due sin be commuted also? Since God is all good and all loving —
as well as just — would He not make this at least possible? The
answer to this question is precisely the point of this article.
The KEY to Understanding
that All Things are Possible to God
The answer
is yes.
To understand
this, let us look at an analogy in secular life. The President of the
United States, (or the Governor of any State) is granted the power of
Executive Clemency, or the power to commute the sentence due in justice
to an individual guilty of a crime ... even a capital offense.
He exercises this power ex meru motu, or of his own accord,
and independent of the sentence or penalty already delivered by a Court
of Justice. This power is accorded him by Article II, Section 2 of
the Constitution.
The question
implicit in the exercise of this power is this: why would the President
of the United States be granted — by the Constitution of the United
States — this power to entirely commute the sentence delivered by a
court that demands, and would exact, justice — if he was never intended
to exercise it? In other words, why would any power be given any individual
if it were never intended that the power so granted be exercised? The
question, really, is rhetorical: it would be absurd to do so. Are we
agreed?
Let us then
look at Indulgences and the power to grant them by the Pope. It is a
power explicitly granted him by no less an authority than Christ Himself
in Sacred Scripture:
“Et
ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificábo
Ecclésiam meam, et portæ ínferi non prævalébunt advérsus
eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni cælórum. Et quodcúmque ligáveris
super terram, erit ligátum et in Cælis : et quodcúmque sólveris
super terram, erit solútum et in Cælis.”
“And
I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And 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 shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed
also in Heaven.”
(St. Matthew 16.18-19)
|
Let us re-frame
the question we initially asked relative to Executive Clemency in the
state of secular affairs: why would the Pope be granted — by Christ
Himself — this power to entirely commute the demands of justice — if
he was never intended to exercise it? In other words, why would the
Pope be given this power if Christ never intended that the power so
granted be exercised? Once again, such an assumption is absurd. If such
power resides in the President of the United States through the Constitution
— a fortiori ... that is to say, with greater force still, does
the power to grant Plenary Indulgences reside in the Pope through Christ.
This is,
literally, the KEY to understanding Indulgences:
the key to Kingdom of Heaven given to Peter with a commission of such
profound authority that, Christ tells Peter,
“whatsoever
thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also
in heaven.”
Peter, the Pope, has power that extends
to Heaven itself, such that it is eo ipso ratified by God Himself
in Peter’s pronouncing it!
The State of Innocence Regained:
undoing the done and unsaying the said
In acquiring
a Plenary Indulgence one effectively regains the state of Baptismal
Innocence. It is a stunning realization — and an unspeakable gift! It
is nothing less than life absolutely anew in Christ! All that we had
done in the way of sin has, through the Power of the Keys of Peter,
been undone; all that had been said, is unsaid. They cease to be. Within
our lives in Christ, these things no longer exist and never occurred.
They have been totally abrogated, canceled, expunged, through the pronouncement
of Peter — which is ipso facto ratified in Heaven itself!
In beginning
this article, we had expressed the universal lamentation:
“Ah ...
would that I had never done that! Could I only go back in time!”
You cannot go back in time. But what you have done can, after all —
and to our amazement — be undone. But not of ourselves. This
prerogative belongs to Peter, to the Pope, alone — to undo what we have
done, to unsay what we have said. He has the power because he has been
given the power — and he was given that power by Christ with a purpose
and to an end. And Peter — the Pope — exercises this power, and is being
faithful to this commission, in granting Plenary Indulgences to the
Faithful under stipulations that he himself determines. And when he
does — it is instantly ratified in Heaven!
Do you wish
be truly, totally, free of the burden of
your sins? Of the penalties — in justice demanded of them, and which,
in all likelihood and with good reason, you fear when pondering the
hour of your death ... and what lies beyond? Christ has spoken much
of this.
But He also
spoke to Peter — and through Peter, to us. A Plenary Indulgence —
the forgiveness of all the sins of your entire life, and the punishment
due in justice for them, is held out to you by God ... in the hands
of Peter. 1
Why the Gaining of a Plenary indulgence for
Oneself is not a Selfish Act
First
we must understand two fundamental and extremely important features
about the dogma and doctrine of Plenary Indulgences:
-
The benefits of an indulgence
can be applied to oneself.
-
Or they can be applied in
the way of suffrage for the souls of the dead: We can ask God to
grant the benefits of the indulgence that we claim (under very specific
stipulations outlined in the
Indulgentiarum Doctrina)
to the soul of one we love who has died — with a clear understanding
that the graces offered through the indulgence are God's Alone to
give as He wills. In other words, He may very well accept your petition
that the indulgence be granted to the specific person for whom you
offer it. But we can never contravene, or violate, the free will
of God; it is God’s prerogative to apply the indulgence that
you offer to any soul Whom He chooses! It may be a soul in
far greater need of the indulgence than the soul for whom you intended
it. That soul then gains the merits of the indulgence you
have claimed, rather than the soul for whom you petitioned. The
indulgence is never lost, nor obtained in vain; it is, rather, granted
according to the most holy will of God: for the person on whose
behalf you offer it, or for another soul to Whom He chooses
to apply its merits. Ultimately, God Alone knows upon whom He chooses
to confer the merits of the indulgence that you have obtained. God
is not heedless of our hearts. He knows the love and faith that
motivates your offering of an indulgence for one who has been dear
to you in this life. God honors and answers specific prayers that
we place in humility and trust before Him. We know this. Holy Scripture
is senseless apart from it. Whatever our intention, some soul,
is granted that extraordinary grace, and goes to Heaven at once,
beholding the very face of God! One day you will know whom, and
it will be the person you have loved ... or another that will greet
you in the company of Angels and Saints and reveal it to you. In
either case your own joy will be overwhelming!
It has been asked: “Is it not
selfish for me to apply the indulgence to myself, when I could have
obtained it for another?”
No.
And this is why: First we must remember Christ's admonition to us to
remove the beam from our own eye before we attempt to remove it from
the eye of another (St. Matthew 7.5). Holy Mother Church has always
taught that our first obligation in the way of salvation
and holiness, is to ourselves! We must pray for ourselves
first before we can pray for others, seek to be holy ourselves before
attempting to lead others to holiness. We must seek to be perfect even
as our Father in Heaven is perfect (St. Matthew 5.48) until we can say
with Saint Paul, “I live, now not I; but Christ
liveth in me.” (Gal. 2.20). Such a soul is surely heard by
God in every petition, yes? This is not to say that contrite sinners
are not heard by God. We have the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee
to testify to this (Saint Luke 18.10-14). It nevertheless remains that
one free from sin and living in a state of grace is both pleasing to
God and heard by Him. Within such a soul God sees His own Son, as Saint
Paul tells us above. The stain of sin has been washed away, revealing
the unmarred, unblemished, imago Dei (the image of God)
in which it was created and in which there is no contrariety to God;
in a word, a soul conformed to Christ Jesus.
So what?
When you yourself,
for yourself, have obtained the graces and merits of a Plenary
Indulgence that abrogates all temporal punishment and places you in
a state of grace, conformed to God and free of sin together with its
just punishment, you are then prepared to pray for others, to intercede
for others. Your prayer is more efficacious because it is no
longer simply you who plead, but Christ Jesus within you!
“Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one
love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will
come to him, and will make our abode with him.” (St. John
14.23). In other words, through the Plenary Indulgence that you have
claimed for yourself you have been cleansed of all the detritus of sin
and every impediment before God — and are
then enabled to more efficaciously pray for others! It is quite the
opposite of selfishness: it is the impetus born of selfless love to
pray more effectively for others — who
have entrusted to you their own intentions, asking that you pray
for them!
Do you think it presumptuous
that the prayer of one who has obtained for himself the graces
and merits of a Plenary Indulgence is more efficacious than the prayer
of one who has not? Does it offend your democratic instincts that
all should be heard equally by God, irrespective of their lives?
The Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee is a beautifully inverse
paradigm. “Democratically”, we vote for the Pharisee who is “blameless”
and has the credentials, even as we abhor his self-righteousness (as
God does, as well). The Publican has no credentials; just a list of
the very reasons God should not hear him, but imploring God's mercy
nonetheless. We know who walked away justified before God: the Publican
who prayed, unlike the Pharisee who also prayed
— but not both!
God heard the prayers of
the Patriarch Joseph — but not those of
his eleven brothers. Moses and Joshua were allowed into God's
very Presence — but not Aaron
or Levi. God heard — and answered — the prayers of Moses, but not of
the grumbling Israelites. The list of examples of God answering the
prayers of the just over the prayers of the unjust are innumerable.
The point is that God hears all our prayers — but is especially
inclined to answer the prayers of those who have spurned sin,
the world, the flesh, and the devil — those who have washed their robes
in the Blood of the Lamb. In our own day, who among us would presume
that our own prayers were as likely to be answered as those of, say,
Saint Padre Pio — to whom people flocked to present their own petitions
to God? Indeed, why do we come to the holy Nun, Friar, Monk, or Priest
to assist us with their prayers? Why, indeed, to the Saints at all?
It is because throughout history we have recognized the extraordinary
efficaciousness of the prayers of the holy (who, incidentally, never
acknowledge themselves to be so) on our own behalf. Who has not petitioned
another they deem holy to present their own needs to God, confident
that God will answer because such a one — cleansed of sin, ever
striving against it, and pleasing to God — will be heard and answered?
And one becomes so — eminently — through a Plenary Indulgence first
gained for themselves — in order to assist, through the love of Christ
and neighbor, those who come to them in need, seeking their intercession
before the God Who knows them — sees and hears His very Son within them
— to Whom they have conformed their lives in contradiction to
the world that never knew Him.
This is
no selfish act simply to the end of ones own sanctification at which
one stops, much like the Pharisee in the parable, satisfied that they
have obtained salvation for themselves and heedless of the salvation
of others. It is acquired precisely for the sanctification
of others because once it is acquired for oneself it is subsequently,
and all the more efficaciously, offered for others. So understood it
is the ultimate act of the virtue of Spiritual Mercy (as distinct from
acts of Corporal Mercy) in which the self, as the imago Dei,
authentically reflects God Who is perfect in mercy. In a word, one becomes
like unto God in reflecting and enacting the mercy we
find in God Himself. Indeed, in so doing we find fulfilled the promise
of Christ: “Blessed
are the merciful, for they shall find mercy.” (Saint
Matthew 5.7)
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Click here for the Official
Indulgentiarum Doctrina on the Promulgation
of Sacred Indulgences in English
___________________________________________
1
Of course, the forgiveness extended by God for any sin
and under all circumstances, presupposes and thus requires perfect
Contrition, or sorrow, for the sins committed together with the resolute
amendment to sin no more. Any petition to God for forgiveness of sins
that is not accompanied by genuine sorrow is, in conspect Dei,
that is to say, before God, an act of presumption and insolence, not
reverence; and in the Holy Confessional constitutes the grave sin of
blasphemy, such that the sinner leaves the Confessional, not only without
absolution (even if the priest has pronounced it), but more guilty than
when he entered it. Sorrow for sin is indispensable to its forgiveness.

Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
(Apocalypse
3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2023 Boston Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission
is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying
and distribution of the articles and audio files under the
following conditions: No additions, deletions, or
changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any
way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the
reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text,
or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic
Journal.
|
|