INDULGENCES
787
INDULGENCES
sions. The same restriction was enacted by the Coun-
cil of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint
of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prel-
ates had put their own construction on the indul-
gences granted tothese Orders, Clement IV in 1268 for-
bade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it
was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In
1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely
asserted that the grants made in their favour were
more extensive than what the documents allowed:
John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and
imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of
Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain re-
ligious who falsely claimed that they were authorized
by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted
money from the simple-minded among the faithful by
promising them perpetual happiness in this world and
eternal glory in the next. Wlien Henry, Archbishop
of Canterljury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary in-
dulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was
severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized
his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrile-
gious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa,
Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers
asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of
sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due
to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a
poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of
Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea
of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to
sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holj' See a large
number of cases in which faculties had formerly been
granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et
remiss.).
Traffic in Indulgences. — These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them. In spite of all this, dis- orders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice, of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil ; indulgences were employed by mercenary ec- clesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article (see Reformation), it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine itself has no natural or neces- sary connexion with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety. Again, it is easy to .see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the buikling of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a cru- sade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go imre- warded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon be- came a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more import- ant conditions. On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences. This
class has happily disappeared, but the type has been
preserved in Chaucer's "Pardoner", with his bogus
rehcs and indulgences.
While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficidt to luiderstand why the C'hurch, instead of abolishing the practice of indul- gences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminat- ing the evil elements. The Council of Trent in its de- cree "On Indulgences" (Sess. XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that modera- tion be observed in accordance with the ancient ap- proved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened ; and further, seeking to correct the aliuscs that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of griev- ous abuse among the Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irrever- ence, or any cause whatsoever — since these, on ac- count of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions — the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the next pro- vincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption." After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (qucestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaslorcs should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favours of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and be- stowed gratuitously, so that all might at length under- stand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.
Apocryphal Indulgences. — One of the worst abuses was that of inventing or falsifying grants of indul- gence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded and called out severe pronouncements by ec- clesiastical authority, especially by the Fourth Coun- cil of the Lateran (1215) and that of Vienne (1311). After the Council of Trent the most important meas- ure taken to prevent such frauds was the establish- ment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V, regulating all matters pertaining to indul- gences. The Congregation of Indulgences was defin- itively established by Clement IX in 1669 and re- organized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and by its publications. The "Raccolta " (q. v.) was first issued by one of its consultors, Telesforo Galli, in 1807; the last three edi- tions 1877, 1886, and 1898 were published by the Congregation. The other official publication is the "Decreta authentica ", containing the decisions of the Congregation from 1668 to 1882. This was pubhshed in 1883 by order of Leo XIII. See also "Rescripta au- thentica " by Joseph Schneider (Ratisbon, 1885). By a Motu Proprio of Pius X, dated 28 January, 1904, the Congregation of Indulgences was united to the Con- gregation of Rites, without any diminution, however, of its prerogatives.
Salutahy Effects of Indulgences. — Lea (His- tory, etc., 111,446) somewhat reluctantly acknowledges
