"Indulging Indulgences"
A short letter to a friend about Church corruption and indulgences
Dear Friend,
I went to a few online resources and found some answers that surprised even me regarding your questions. Although I have a feeling they weren’t your questions originally, but someone else’s who had you stumped. These answers should help, put in claim/answer format:
1. "If the Church is under the authority of Christ then why are all of its leaders corrupt?
In answering any question, one must take Socrates’ advice and "define terms." Words and specific terms can have different meanings for different people. The questioner’s use of the term "corrupt" must be addressed. According to Dictionary.com corrupt means:
cor·rupt adj.
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid.
If the Church leaders are indeed "corrupt" then there must be some standard of morality that they are falling short of. Unfortunately, the only standard of goodness that is objective is God’s:
"For I, the LORD, am your God; and you shall make and keep yourselves holy, because I am holy." (Leviticus 11:44)
However, Paul said that:
"All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
So the answer is that if Christ is the authority of the Church and his Word is true, then of course the leaders will be sinners or "corrupt."
2. "That’s not what I meant, sure everyone sins, but what if the sinning leaders of the Church insert wrong dogma, or corrupt practices into the Church teachings."
The simple answer is that it won’t happen. Christ said:
"I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) and St. Paul further elaborates this point when he says that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
3. "How can you say that when it has already happened! Think about the corrupt popes of the middle ages, the inquisition, and the selling of indulgences. Face it, the Church is run by men and it can become corrupt."
The Church is run by God and that will never happen. As for the "claims" of corruption in the past, an objective look at history can show that the Church as a whole was not in doctrinal error:
Worldly Popes: In contrast to our modern example of holiness, John Paul II, some Popes have been very immoral while in the papacy, such as having affairs and practicing nepotism. But they never altered the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church by Christ, you don’t hear of any ex cathedra statements saying, "You know, that whole chastity thing, don’t worry about it! Have fun!"
The Inquisition: A very misunderstood part of secular and Church history. The inquisitions were sanctioned by the Church to root out heretics and those causing social disorder in the Spanish and French governments. One heresy was Catharsism, whose adherents believed that matter was evil and that fornication was acceptable, but not marriage. They also believed that contracts were evil and that they had no obligation to pay taxes or obey a secular ruler.
However, even though abuses were incurred under the inquisitions it was the condemnation of the Popes that finally put it to an end. (More in depth article on the inquisition to come)
The Selling of Indulgences: First let us "define terms" an indulgence is:
" . . . a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints."
(Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).
Second, indulgences were never "sold" during the Middle Ages (this one threw me!).
In order to receive an indulgence one must first do a good deed (there are many to choose from). Second, one must say prescribed prayers. During the middle ages one act that counted, as a good deed was the giving of "alms" or donating money to the Church or a charitable cause. Now, there is nothing immoral about the giving of money for a good deed. If one makes a sacrifice to share their wealth then it is very virtuous. However, one can see the potential for abuse when people begin to think that they can "pay off" their sins with some spare change they had at home and not bother to say the prescribed prayers. It is because of this potential for abuse that the Council of Trent in 1567 under Pope Pius V cancelled all indulgences that included financial transactions.
So the short answer is that nobody bought indulgences by meeting their local priest in a backroom of the church and slipping him a fifty. Instead they acquired them through acts of charity, but money by its very nature tends to corrupt (1 Tim 6:10) so the process was cancelled.
We’ll I hope that answers your question friend and if you have any others feel free to ask me. Good luck and may God’s light shine through you.
Your faithful lowly Core member
Sources:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible
The Catholic Church Has the Answer by Paul Whitcomb
Back to The Refutation Station
|Home|Life Is...|Pictures|Calendar|Parents|Extras|Contact
Us|
Last updated on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 |
