Catholic Church to Bring Back Indulgences

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, is it fair to allow the rich to get out of purgatory, while the poor are left there?

It's as fair as saying that people who have time and resources to say a lot of prayers or do good deeds can "buy" their way out.

It's what they say about prostitutes: negotiable morality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Guess I need to read up on this a bit. I am under the impression Indulgences were done away with because of abuses.

I'm certain they were still on the funeral cards at least in the mid-'60s. I'm pretty sure they were later than that. (The prayer kind--not selling them for money.)

I think abuses of indulgences was one of the things that led to the protestant movement.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

For non-believers, we offer a special package deal. A one-time payment of $150 grants you a non-believer's indulgence; this doesn't grant you forgiveness, but it does give you a chance to go to Purgatory, rather than straight to Hell. That way, once you've discovered you're wrong, you can use your time in Purgatory to atone for your past misdeeds and lack of faith.

A real "Get Out of Jail Free" card, for those who think this all sounds like a load of bollocks...but want to play it safe, just in case.

Why on Earth would I want to get out of Hell? That's where the party's going to be, along with all the freethinkers, skeptics, scientists, and other cool people. Best of all, you're eternally separated from God, so he won't be breathing down your neck, watching your every move, and spoiling all your fun anymore. I already have a lakeside apartment that comes with air conditioning, because that's what I believe.

 

[Wolfman]

Yep.

I think some people don't quite get the idea of what indulgences are.

It's not a free pass for a particular sin (that would be a "pardon"). It's just strictly time off (usually a number of "days" whatever that might mean) from time in purgatory. In the bad old days, you could buy indulgences (for yourself or for loved ones) for cash. In my memory, it was just a matter of saying a prayer (or a certain number of repetitions of a prayer) to gain a certain number of days for yourself or someone else.

I'm not sure why saying the prayers makes more sense than paying money if the indulgences are for someone else. (I can at least understand the argument that they could say that saying the prayer would make you a better person, but if that is just to be transferred to someone else's "account"--why not use money?)

Well, historically, indulgences were once offered as actual forgiveness for sins, and could be purchased. You could even purchase them in anticipation of a sin you were going to commit (my above comments were not all that original).

It was the Reformation that caused the church to change its policies, and alter indulgences to apply only to Purgatory.

 

[Hokulele]

How long after the sin would one be allowed to purchase an indulgence? Would someone be allowed to purchase enough indulgences to let famous dead people into heaven?

I can see a real opportunity for entertainment in getting Genghis Khan a free pass...

 

[Wolfman]

How long after the sin would one be allowed to purchase an indulgence? Would someone be allowed to purchase enough indulgences to let famous dead people into heaven?

I can see a real opportunity for entertainment in getting Genghis Khan a free pass...

In the Catholic system, it only works for people in Purgatory...not those in Hell...

...but in my system, I'm quite happy to let you pay me money to get people out of Hell, also. In fact, considering God's omniscience, He'll know that they were going to get indulgences, so they'll be proactively saved from Hell, and go straight to Purgatory. Heck, buy enough indulgences for them, and they'll make it straight to Heaven.

Ya' know...I'm thinking that there's a board game in this somewhere.

"Indulgences: Heaven & Hell"

Everyone starts off in Hell...has to work their way to Purgatory, and then finally to Heaven. They are given a variety of ways to earn money to buy indulgences, and also have special opportunities to perform acts of repentance that can cut time off their sentence.

 

[Hokulele]

Yeah, well Genghis Khan wasn't Catholic, so I say let's form a consortium and get him into heaven.

Heaven sounds like the kind of place that can definitely be improved by a few Mongol hordes.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

Translation: $$$

As always in these situations, follow the money.

And the catholic church wonders why people laugh at them, when they aren't completely ignoring them.

 

[arthwollipot]

Lust (unfulfilled) -- $15.00
Lust (fulfilled) -- $50.00

I would reverse these two. But perhaps that's just me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, historically, indulgences were once offered as actual forgiveness for sins, and could be purchased. You could even purchase them in anticipation of a sin you were going to commit (my above comments were not all that original).

It was the Reformation that caused the church to change its policies, and alter indulgences to apply only to Purgatory.

I don't think the basic definition of indulgence changed. The abuses were illegal even then. Indulgences only applied to sins that were already confessed and forgiven (by absolution).

Here's a bit of history:

According to canon law, a pardoner or quaestor of alms did not have the right either to forgive sin or to sell indulgences. Indulgences remitting punishment for sin could only be legitimately granted to persons who confessed their sins to their own parish priests. If the condition of confession is met, they were allowed to purchase indulgences and thus be relieved of a stated period of purgatorial punishment.

Many pardoners were commissioned directly from Rome, and offered indulgences to all those subjects who contributed to the support of Christendom. Some pardoners were sent from church-supported hospitals.
<snip>
The practice of offering indulgences grew corrupt. Selling indulgences became a means for the Church to be able to finance special projects, such as the construction of the Vatican in the sixteenth century. Pardoners also tended to exaggerate the power of their indulgences—that is, they sometimes pretended to have the authority to release the buyers from hell as well as from purgatory. They might sometimes also claim that those who purchased indulgences needed neither to repent nor to amend their lives in order to be pardoned.

In other words, what they were doing wasn't in accordance with Church law.

Here's the Canon Code on the topic:

Can. 992 An indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment for sins whose guilt is already forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful gains under certain and defined conditions by the assistance of the Church which as minister of redemption dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.

Can. 993 An indulgence is partial or plenary insofar as it partially or totally frees from the temporal punishment due to sins.

Can. 994 Any member of the faithful can gain partial or plenary indulgences for oneself or apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.

Can. 995 §1. In addition to the supreme authority of the Church, only those to whom this power is acknowledged in the law or granted by the Roman Pontiff can bestow indulgences.

§2. No authority below the Roman Pontiff can entrust the power of granting indulgences to others unless the Apostolic See has given this expressly to the person.

Can. 996 §1. To be capable of gaining indulgences, a person must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of grace at least at the end of the prescribed works.

§2. To gain indulgences, however, a capable subject must have at least the general intention of acquiring them and must fulfill the enjoined works in the established time and the proper method, according to the tenor of the grant.

Can. 997 As regards the granting and use of indulgences, the other prescripts contained in the special laws of the Church must also be observed.

By the way, Can. 996 §1 puts the kibosh on your plan to get Genghis Kahn into heaven, Hokulele. I like the idea, though.

I'm also not sure what the news story is about, though, because I don't think

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also from the Wiki article on Indulgences, there's the answer to my question about what changed with Vatican II:

In response to suggestions made at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI substantially revised the practical application of the traditional doctrine, making it clear that the Church's aim was not merely to help the faithful make due satisfaction for their sins, but chiefly to bring them to greater fervour of charity; it was for this purpose that he decreed that partial indulgences simply supplement, and to the same degree, the remission that the person performing the indulgenced action has already gained by the charity and contrition with which he does it.[3] Previously, partial indulgences were granted as the equivalent of a certain number of days, months, "quarantines"[12] (Lent-like forty-day periods) or years of canonical penance. Those who did not understand these terms sometimes misinterpreted them as meaning a reduction of that length of stay in Purgatory.
The abolition of this classification by years and days made it clearer than before that repentance and faith are required not only for remission of eternal punishment for mortal sin but also for remission of temporal punishment for sin. Pope Paul VI wrote: "Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God".[13]

I swear I saw "30 days" and so on used on prayer cards in my childhood. I guess they could have been stuff printed prior to Vatican II, but I'm also pretty sure they were from family funerals that I can remember. (I was born just before Vatican II in 1961.)

Anyway, I'm not sure what's changed from that to what this news story is about, though. Clearly indulgences were never completely banned.

 

[Wolfman]

Joe,

Very true; it was the role of the Pardoner in particular where Indulgences tended to be abused. Things such as selling indulgences for sins not yet committed, or getting someone out of hell, or other things like that, were never an official part of church doctrine, and in fact were denounced by some church leaders. But on the other hand, there were church leaders -- including some Popes -- who, when they needed money, were more than willing to stretch the definitions. The church knew what was happening, and occasionally said it was wrong, but they didn't actually crack down on it and make a real effort to stop it until the Reformation kinda' forced their hand.

To me, its similar to the Communist gov't in China (with which I've had plentiful experience). Officially they denounce corruption, and even punish/execute the occasional corrupt official...but corruption still happens, and at all levels of government. And, like the corruption in the church, real change isn't likely to happen until it is forced upon them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep--I was speaking from a de jure point of view rather than de facto.

I still can't figure out what the NY Times article is saying has changed now.

 

[Hokulele]

IBy the way, Can. 996 §1 puts the kibosh on your plan to get Genghis Khan into heaven, Hokulele.

 

[Wolfman]

Yep--I was speaking from a de jure point of view rather than de facto.

I still can't figure out what the NY Times article is saying has changed now.

In re-reading it, I don't think that the church is changing any rules; only a shift in policy to promote indulgences more actively.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In re-reading it, I don't think that the church is changing any rules; only a shift in policy to promote indulgences more actively.

I suppose that fits in with the outlook of this papacy. I wonder if Pope Benedict is also increasing the budget for exorcists too.

And I'll bet those Inquisition torture implements in the museums are still functional. . . .

 

[Wolfman]

I suppose that fits in with the outlook of this papacy. I wonder if Pope Benedict is also increasing the budget for exorcists too.

And I'll bet those Inquisition torture implements in the museums are still functional. . . .

I think they need to bring back both Pardoners and Inquisitors. People are taking the whole "sin" and "eternal damnation" thing entirely too lightly these days.

 

[Flo]

I suppose that fits in with the outlook of this papacy. I wonder if Pope Benedict is also increasing the budget for exorcists too.

Definitely. Pope Ben is well bent on sending the Cath.Ch. back to the 13th century ...

 

[Flo]

Joe,

Very true; it was the role of the Pardoner in particular where Indulgences tended to be abused. Things such as selling indulgences for sins not yet committed, or getting someone out of hell, or other things like that, were never an official part of church doctrine, and in fact were denounced by some church leaders. But on the other hand, there were church leaders -- including some Popes -- who, when they needed money, were more than willing to stretch the definitions. The church knew what was happening, and occasionally said it was wrong, but they didn't actually crack down on it and make a real effort to stop it until the Reformation kinda' forced their hand.

Until at least the 50s, there was a very popular scheme in many French churches - I'm sure it has happened in other European countries too -, where the priests would describe paradise as a kind of theater with god sitting at the center seat and all could revel in his majesty as well as contemplate the sinners suffering in hell. The priest would then sell numbered seats to "deserving" (read $$$) parishioners ... I know most bishops considered it a fraud but there has to my knowledge never been any real attempt at stopping it or at punishing the culprits ...