Guilt and penalty; the treasury of the Church

IN every sin the teaching of the Catholic Church distinguishes two elements: the guilt and the penalty which it incurs. The guilt is the injury committed against God by the sinner and the displeasure with which God views the sinful act. If the sin is mortal, it deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and of God’s friendship, so that a state of enmity exists between God and the sinner. A venial sin is an injury against God; it is the object of his displeasure, and is a stain on the soul, but it does not rob the soul of sanctifying grace or deprive it of the friendship of God. Besides this guilt a sin deserves and ordinarily receives punishment at the hands of God. It is a law of God’s justice that wrongdoing entails suffering either in this world or in the world to come. It is the sanction which in the nature of things is annexed to the great moral law. The penalty for mortal sin, as befits the unrepenting and obstinate enemies of God, is eternal separation from him and punishment in the fires of hell; the penalty for venial sin is temporary punishment in this world or in purgatory. These two elements in sin are not only distinct from each other in thought; they may be, and frequently are, separated in reality. When God pardons mortal sin, the eternal penalty which it deserves in hell is also remitted, but we know from revelation that he frequently exacts from the sinner some temporary punishment for the serious offence which has been committed against him and right order. The guilt of David’s adultery was forgiven on his repentance, but he had to endure the loss of the child and other punishments. This is only in keeping with what we might expect at the hands of a wise Providence and with what observation of the order of nature teaches us. A man may truly repent of his sin, and he may have the fullest confidence that God has pardoned it, but he knows that he will have to bear the sad effects of it till his dying day.

This distinction between the guilt of sin and the penalty due to it is necessary for the understanding of what is meant by an indulgence. An indulgence is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; much less is it a permission to commit sin. It is the remission of the temporal punishment which often remains due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven. An indulgence, then, cannot be gained for unrepented sin, nor for sin of which the guilt still stains the soul. If, however, the guilt has been forgiven, any temporal punishment which remains to be suffered in consequence of it may be remitted by indulgences and by other means.

As the Catholic Church claims that her divine Founder empowered her ministers to forgive sin, provided that the sinner has the requisite dispositions, so she also lays claim to the power of remitting the temporal punishment due to sin both by the ministration of the sacraments and by granting indulgences. From the first centuries of the Christian era her bishops have used the power to condone temporal punishment due to sin outside sacramental confession, and they have understood that this power was contained in the general power to bind and loose granted to the Apostles and their successors by our Lord. As the Pope has jurisdiction over the whole world, he can grant indulgences to all the faithful; a bishop can only grant indulgences to those who are within his diocese, and up to the limits imposed on him by the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff (Can. 349, sec. 2, ii).

The doctrine of indulgences is intimately connected with other dogmas of the Catholic faith. When the Church remits temporal punishment due to sin, she does not simply condone it outright in the name of God, but she pays the debt due to sin out of the treasure of the Church. This treasure of the Church is made up of the satisfactions of our Lord and of his saints. Christ and all the members of his Church form one mystical body: “ For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.”¹ “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”² By virtue of this oneness in Christ, there is among the faithful what is called the communion of saints. Not only do all get the benefit of the same sacrifice and sacraments, but the good works of each benefit to some extent all the rest. The merit, indeed, which every good action possesses with God, with a view to an eternal reward, is personal and belongs exclusively to the doer of it; but besides meriting, every good action has also a power of placating God and satisfying for sin, as well as a power of impetrating his graces and blessings. The satisfactory part of the good actions of Christ and his saints was not required to satisfy for their own offences, and it is available to satisfy for the sins of those who form with them one mystical body. It needs, however, application to the individual soul, and one of the ways in which this is done is through indulgences. The dispensing of the mysteries of God belongs to the prelates of his Church, and inasmuch as they have jurisdiction over the faithful in this life, indulgences are applied to them directly by the power of the keys.

Over the faithful departed who are suffering for their sins in purgatory the Church has no jurisdiction, but as we can pray for them, and they are helped thereby, so if the Church permits it we can gain indulgences and apply them to the souls of the faithful departed by way of suffrage, asking God to accept the satisfaction offered for the holy souls (Can. 911).

¹ Rom. xii 4.

² Eph. iv 4-6.

I. Notion. An indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment due for sins which, as far as guilt is concerned, have already been blotted out, which ecclesiastical authority grants from the treasury of the Church outside the sacrament, for the living by way of absolution, for the departed by way of suffrage (canon 911).

It is said:

1. Remission of temporal punishment; but not of guilt, whether mortal or venial; nor of eternal punishment, but only temporal punishment.

2. Before God. This is clear both from proposition 19 of Luther condemned by Leo X: "Indulgences are of no value for those who truly gain them for the remission, before divine justice, of punishment due for actual sins;"² and from the authentic declaration of Pius VI issued against propositions 40 and 41 of the Synod of Pistoia.³

Besides this, indulgences are worth as much before God as the Church expresses in her words; so that, for example, a plenary indulgence of itself remits all temporal punishment, and an indulgence, for example, of one year of itself is worth only as much as one year of penance would be worth, passed according to the penitential canons, independently of the devotion or fervor of the subject. The reason is that "the quantity of the effect follows the quantity of its cause. But the cause of the remission of punishment in indulgences is nothing except the abundance of the merits of the Church, which is sufficient for expiating the whole punishment; but the devotion, or labor, or gift of the one receiving the indulgence, or the cause for which the indulgence is given, is not the effective cause. Hence the quantity of the remission ought not to be proportioned to any of these things, but to the merits of the Church, which always superabound" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 25, a. 2). "Nor in this is too great a market made of the mercy of God, as some say; nor is derogation made from divine justice, because nothing of the punishment is remitted, but the punishment of one is reckoned to another" (St. Thomas, cited place).

3. Due for sins which, as far as guilt is concerned, have already been blotted out. For while the guilt remains, the punishment corresponding to it cannot be remitted. But once guilt has been remitted, not necessarily every temporal punishment is remitted.

4. Ecclesiastical authority, since to it alone belongs disposing of the common treasury. Who are the subjects of this power is explained in n. 494.

5. From the treasury of the Church. By the treasury of the Church is understood the accumulation of satisfactions of the Saints, both those reigning in heaven and those dwelling on earth, which they did not apply to others. Namely, to every good work proceeding from grace there belongs a threefold value: meritorious, insofar as, when the other conditions have been fulfilled, it confers a right to a just reward; impetratory, insofar as it has the force of obtaining goods from God by supplication; satisfactory, insofar as by reason of the difficulty of the work itself and at least by reason of the reluctance of our nature, it can satisfy the injured justice of God. Now the satisfactions of Christ, certainly of infinite value, and likewise the satisfactions of the saints, insofar as they were neither necessary for blotting out their own punishment nor applied by them to other persons, constitute, as it is called, the treasury of the Church.

6. Outside the sacrament; by which indulgence is distinguished from the remission of punishment which is made by the power of the keys in the sacrament of Penance.

7. Grants for the living by way of absolution, for the departed by way of suffrage. Namely:

a) An indulgence granted to the living is a judicial act by which the Church definitively applies the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints to her subjects in substitution for the temporal punishment still due for guilt that has been remitted. Therefore it is made by way of absolution, or is a quasi-absolution; but it is not a pure and simple absolution, because it has payment attached, insofar as it applies to the faithful satisfactions rendered by others. Hence St. Thomas says: "One who receives indulgences is not, simply speaking, absolved from the punishment due, but it is given to him so that he may pay the debt" (Supplement, q. 25, a. 1, ad 2).

b) An indulgence for the departed - over whom the Church lacks jurisdiction - involves the Church, from her power of administering her treasury, offering - or granting the one gaining the indulgence the right of offering in her name - to God the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints, praying to Him that He will accept them in substitution for the punishment to be paid by the departed. Hence an indulgence of this kind is valid only by way of suffrage.

From what has been said it follows that an indulgence granted to the living, when the things to be observed have been observed, has an infallible effect. But as regards the effect with respect to the departed, it is disputed whether or not it is infallible. Some affirm, because God, by the very fact that He gave the Supreme Pontiff the power of granting indulgences for the departed, seems also to have bound Himself by a promise to apply indulgences to them. Others deny this, or at least think that the application of the whole value, and to the designated souls, is not infallible, because such a divine promise is not proved in any way. For the power of the Church to grant indulgences for the departed involves only the competence of offering to God for the departed the spiritual treasury entrusted to herself, that is, to the Church. But a competence of this kind does not prove a divine promise of accepting what is offered. The response of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, dated July 28, 1840, taken in its obvious sense, favors this opinion: "By an indulgence of a privileged altar, if the mind of the one granting and the use of the power of the keys are considered, there is to be understood a plenary indulgence which immediately frees the soul from all the punishments of purgatory. But if the effect of the application is considered, there is to be understood an indulgence whose measure corresponds to the good pleasure and acceptance of divine mercy" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 534, under 10).

¹ Cf. Beringer-Steinen, Die Ablässe; Fanfani, De indulgentiis: manuale theoretico-practicum; Stein, De indulgentiis lucrandis.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 759.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1540 and 1541.

II. Existence of indulgences. The existence of indulgences must be admitted if it is proved: 1. that there exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions which in itself suffices for blotting out before God the temporal punishment due for sins; 2. that these satisfactions are applicable to the faithful; 3. that the Church enjoys the power of applying them. Now:

1. There exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions which in itself suffices for blotting out before God the temporal punishment due for sins. This follows from the propositions of Luther condemned by Leo X. For, as we noted above, in proposition 19 he condemned Luther's doctrine which teaches that indulgences are not of value for the remission, before divine justice, of punishment due for actual sins; and in proposition 17 the same Supreme Pontiff condemns this: "The treasures of the Church, from which the Pope gives indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the Saints."¹ Hence there exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions which in itself suffices for blotting out before God the temporal punishment due for sins. Besides this, the existence of such a treasury is clear from the superabundant and infinite satisfaction which belongs to the works of Christ, as being a divine Person, and which He offered to God the Father for us.

2. The said satisfactions are applicable to the faithful. This is clear from the condemned propositions cited; as regards the satisfactions of Christ, it is furthermore clear from the work of redemption, by which the Savior satisfied God for us; as regards the superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, it follows from the dogma of the communion of Saints, by virtue of which a mutual participation of goods is had in the Church.

3. The Church enjoys the power of applying them; this is proved in Section II.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 757.

What is an indulgence? "Indulgence is accustomed to signify remission and facility, or, so to speak, condescension, in the holy Scriptures and in other authors..." Bellarmine, de Indulg., book 1, chap. 1. Hence Indulgence, taken theologically, is defined: the remission of temporal punishment owed to God for sins remitted as regards guilt, granted by a legitimate minister outside the sacrament of penance, through the application of the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints.

Remission of temporal punishment: for remission of eternal punishment together with remission of mortal guilt is not obtained except through the sacrament of penance, or through charity and perfect contrition with the vow of the sacrament. But when guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted, temporal punishment, also owed to sin, is not always remitted. St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 4. Now this temporal punishment is that which is then remitted through satisfactory works and through Indulgence in this life; otherwise it will be paid after this life in Purgatory. The same must be said, by proportionate reasoning, of venial sin, to which only temporal punishment is owed. St. Thomas, loc. cit. Its guilt is remitted by charity and other pious acts, by which temporal punishment is also remitted; but again this is not always wholly remitted, whence it must be remitted either by other satisfactory works or by Indulgence in this life, otherwise it too will have to be paid in Purgatory after this life. Trent, sess. 6, canon 30; sess. 14, canons 5, 8, 9, chaps. 12, 15; St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 16, q. 2, art. 2, q. 4; dist. 17, q. 2, art. 5, q. 2; supplement, q. 15, art. 3. Therefore indulgence is neither remission of the guilt, Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 13, chap. 18, n. 7; Suarez, de Poenit., disp. 50, sect. 1, n. 14, nor is it remission of the debt of eternal punishment; rather it is only remission of the debt of temporal punishment still owed to sin. Of temporal punishment, namely to be inflicted by God in Purgatory, and therefore it is remission before God. It is by no means a mere remission either of penance imposed or to be imposed on the penitent by the confessor, or of canonical penance, which the Church formerly inflicted. Indulgence would not then be most salutary for us. Trent, sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences. "This opinion," says St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 20, q. 1, art. 3, q. 1, "does not seem true, first because it is expressly against the privilege given to Peter, that what he would remit on earth would be remitted also in heaven; whence remission which is made as regards the forum of the Church is valid also as regards the forum of God; and besides, the Church, granting or giving Indulgences of this kind, would harm rather than help, because she would remit to graver penalties, namely of Purgatory, by absolving from imposed penances." But although indulgence is remission of temporal punishment, and from this head frees us from other satisfactory works, nevertheless we cannot for that reason absolutely neglect these; since they serve at the same time both for satisfying for sins committed and for preventing sins in the future. St. Thomas, Quodlibet 2, art. 16, ad 3.

This remission of temporal punishment is made through application of the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints, by force of the communion of Saints which is present in the Church, and of the power by which one can satisfy for another. "The work of one," says St. Thomas, Quodlibet 2, art. 16, "can be satisfactory for another, to whom it is referred by the intention of the one doing it. But Christ poured out his Blood for his Church, and did and sustained many other things, the valuation of which is of infinite value because of the dignity of the person... similarly also all the other Saints had the intention in those things which they suffered and did for God, that this would be for the utility not only of themselves, but also of the whole Church." Cf. Contra Gentiles, book 3, chap. 158, n. 4. Now the satisfactions of infinite price of Jesus Christ, to which accede the satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin and also the superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, constitute the treasury of the Church, of which we participate through indulgences. Extravagant Unigenitus 2, de Poenit. et remiss.; Benedict XIV, Constitution Pia Mater, April 5, 1747, at the beginning. Superabundant: "And therefore," says St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 20, q. 1, art. 3, q. 1, "it must be said that [indulgences] are valid both as regards the forum of the Church and as regards the judgment of God, for the remission of the punishment remaining after contrition and absolution and confession, whether it has been imposed or not. But the reason why they can be valid is the unity of the mystical body, in which many have supererogated by works of penance beyond the measure of their debts; and many have also patiently sustained unjust tribulations, through which a multitude of punishments could be expiated, if they were owed to them; and the abundance of their merits is so great that they exceed every punishment owed by those now living, and especially because of the merit of Christ, which, although it operates in the sacraments, nevertheless its efficacy is not included in the sacraments, but by its infinity exceeds the efficacy of the sacraments. But it was said above, art. 2, q. 3, that one can satisfy for another. But the Saints, in whom a superabundance of works of satisfaction is found, did not perform works of this kind determinately for this man who needs remission; otherwise he would obtain remission without any indulgence. But they did so commonly for the whole Church, as the Apostle says to the Colossians 1, that he fills up those things which are lacking of the Passion of Christ in his body for the Church to which he writes. And thus the aforesaid merits are common to the whole Church. But those things which are common to some multitude are distributed to individuals of the multitude according to the judgment of him who presides over the multitude. Whence just as someone would obtain remission of punishment if another had satisfied for him, so also if the satisfaction of another is distributed to him by one who can do it." Cf. Quodlibet 2, art. 16; supplement, q. 25; L., book 6, n. 531; E.M.

Does the Church have the power of granting indulgences? R. Affirmatively, and it is of faith. Trent, sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences; Pius IV, Bull Iniunctum nobis, November 18, 1564. But indulgences cannot be granted without cause, neither licitly nor validly. The reason is that the prelates of the Church are nothing other than delegates of Christ for dispensing the treasury of the Church. L., book 6, n. 532. Now "whatever cause is present which turns to the utility of the Church and the honor of God is a sufficient reason for bestowing indulgences." St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 20, q. 1, art. 3, q. 2. Indulgences can be granted "principally by the Pope; but by others insofar as they receive power from him, whether ordinary or committed, or delegated." St. Thomas, Quodlibet 2, art. 16; Suarez, de Poenit., disp. 53.

The Supreme Pontiff can delegate this faculty both to Bishops and to simple priests. Indeed, as St. Thomas says, Quodlibet 2, art. 16, ad 2, "an indulgence does not extend to the remission of guilt, because it is not sacramental; whence it does not follow order, but jurisdiction; for even one who is not a priest can make an indulgence, if it has been committed to him." Hence 1. the application of indulgences is made outside the sacrament. 2. A Bishop-elect and canonically instituted, although not yet consecrated, can grant indulgences, but by no means a titular Bishop, or coadjutor, or resigned Bishop. Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, January 12, 1878, to 4. 3. Personal indulgences granted by a Bishop can be acquired only by diocesan subjects, since no one can be bound or absolved by a judge not his own. Chap. Quod autem 4, de Poenit. et remiss. But a Bishop can grant indulgences to his subjects staying outside his diocese, because he has personal jurisdiction over them. St. Thomas, supplement, q. 26; L., book 6, nn. 532-533.

599. 1° Definition. Indulgence (from indu-licentia)² has the same sound as mildness, condonation; as it is used here, it is usually defined: the remission of temporal punishment, owed to sin, valid before God, made through the application of the treasury of the Church, by a legitimate Superior, outside the sacrament.

² Cf. M. Bréal, Diction. étymolog. latin, Paris, 1885, p. 134.

It is declared: (a) remission of temporal punishment, but not of guilt, whether past or future, whether mortal or venial, as Protestants falsely assert; since, although in some old formulas there occur words by which an indulgence is granted from guilt and from punishment, these nevertheless were inserted not by the Church but by some questors, against the will of the Roman Pontiffs, who reproved an abuse of this kind;¹ hence deservedly Cardinal Cusanus in the provincial Synod of Magdeburg said: "The Apostolic See has never been accustomed to give indulgences under the words from punishment and guilt." Nor is it an obstacle that in some Apostolic Letters indulgences granted are said to be unto the remission of sins: for these words are understood by all concerning the remission of the punishment owed to sins; nor is anyone ever freed from punishment unless he has first been absolved from guilt.²

¹ Cf. Clementin., bk. V, tit. 9, c. 2.

² A few older theologians, such as Paludanus, had said that venial guilt can probably be remitted through indulgences; but this singular opinion is commonly rejected; for from what was said, n. 197, venial guilt is remitted through contrition.

(b) Valid before God; namely the remission of punishment has force not only in the external forum, before the Church, but also in the internal forum, before God; otherwise, as St. Thomas says,³ the Church would harm sinners more than help them, because, by absolving them from imposed penances, she would condemn them to graver punishments, namely those of purgatory.

³ Supplem., q. 25, a. 1.

(c) Through the application of the treasury of the Church; for, in remitting punishment, the Church nevertheless offers to God a payment, or some compensation, drawn from her own treasury: for there is a spiritual treasury, formed from the superabundant satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints, whose supreme dispenser is the Pontiff, and from which, for a just cause, the debts of the faithful can be paid; therefore he who grants an indulgence does not simply relax temporal punishment, but furnishes to the penitent something from which he may pay, by applying to him the superabundant satisfactions of Christ.

(d) By a legitimate Superior ...; hence not any man whatsoever can grant indulgences, but only those to whom the care of the treasury of the Church has been committed, namely the Pontiff or a general Council for the universal Church, Cardinals in the church of their title, and Bishops for their own diocese; yet it is said outside the sacrament, so that in this way an indulgence may be distinguished from sacramental satisfaction.