Case L: The Conditions for Gaining an Indulgence

Mother Pia, an Ursuline who has taken solemn vows, when wishing to gain plenary indulgences, makes the visits of a church, as is required, but in order to save time she says no prayers, but part of her appointed office (officium parvum B. M. Virg.).

Question.—Is this enough to gain the plenary indulgence?

The good works prescribed for those endeavoring to gain a plenary indulgence are usually Confession, Communion, visit to a church, and prayer for the Holy Father's intention. The first point to decide is whether prayers that one is already bound to say suffice for this purpose. The unanimous answer is that they do not: " nec sufficit, nisi id expresse concedatur, praestare opera jam aliunde debita, ut sunt v. g. jejunium quadragesimale, recitare Breviarium, etc" Marc. 1730 (5) with reference to Decr, auth., n. 291 (2).

Beringer writes in the same way (Die Ablässe, I, Part X. p. 80, etc.): " A work which one is already for other reasons bound to perform cannot serve to gain an indulgence, unless the Pope has given permission for it to serve, either when granting the indulgence or in some special decree. It is impossible for one action to satisfy two obligations, each of which requires the performance of this action.... Therefore, failing any special indult, fasting on the forty days of Lent, or on Ember days, or vigils, cannot take the place of a fast ordered as a condition for gaining an indulgence. In the same way, according to an answer given by the S. Congregation of Indulgences, on May 29, 1841, a priest cannot for gaining an indulgence say his Office instead of the prayers prescribed by the Pope."

The question whether the visit to a church on Sundays and holidays, for the purpose of hearing Mass, suffices to gain the indulgence, is answered by some authors affirmatively and by others negatively. The latter give as their reason the fact that to visit a church and to hear Mass are two different things. Beringer advises those who cannot easily pay a second visit to the church, to come early to Mass or to stay after it is over, so as to make the visit and say the required prayers.

With regard to the penance imposed in confession, according to papal rescript of June 14, 1901, any indulgences attached to it may be gained; but from the question which elicited the abovementioned decision, it does not appear that the performance of the penance can take the place of the prayer to be said during the visit to the church, as a condition to gaining a plenary indulgence (Acta S. Sedis, tom. XXXIV. p. 125), unless the confessor, who can impose opera aliter debita by way of penance (S. Alph., 1. VI. 513), should allow it.

After these general remarks we may answer the question of Mother Pia. In the cases to which we have referred the works have been opera stricte, i. e. sub peccato debita. As to the prayers imposed on religious by their Rule, in most cases they do not bind under sin, although, as theologians show, any avoidable omission of them per accidens is generally not free from venial sin. Therefore Beringer writes: " As in religious communities the Rule is generally not binding under sin, the prayers and pious practices, enjoined by the Rule, can serve to gain the indulgences which are attached to such works of piety." The Office which Mother Pia has to say daily belongs to the class of prayers prescribed by the Rule, for the strict duty binding certain religious of both sexes to the daily recitation of the Divine Office sub gravi is not applicable to her, for although she has made solemn vows, her order was not intended to say the Divine Office in choir. "All professed religious of either sex who are destined for choir are bound to the Hours" (S. Alph., 1. IV. 141). Therefore Mother Pia's practise cannot be blamed nor pronounced insufficient to gain plenary indulgences.—Johann Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.