and Why they Remain Vital to
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."
And yet the same prophet tells
|"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,
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:
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
Peter, the Pope, has power that extends to Heaven
itself, such that it is eo ipso ratified by God Himself in Peter's
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.
Why the Gaining of a Plenary indulgence for Oneself is not a Selfish
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
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.
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
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
Joseph Mary del Campos
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Click here for the Official
Indulgentiarum Doctrina on the Promulgation
of Sacred Indulgences in English
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.