Thread by @FrTotleben92742

The Pillar has a pretty good article on indulgences. But I do have to quibble with their explanation of "detachment from all sin, even venial."

pillarcatholic.com/p/indulge-us-o…

This particular phrase has an interesting history, but if you look into how it got formulated, what it really means is that you are sorry for all the sins that you have committed, even venial ones.

The traditional principle is actually, "the punishment cannot be remitted, unless the fault is remitted first." The idea is that if you have committed a venial sin for which you are not sorry, the plenary indulgence cannot remit the temporal punishment for that sin.

Actual works on the theology of indulgences--from the 16th century all the way through Vatican II--only ever refer to this traditional principle (which Suarez took from St. Thomas, who had used it in a slightly different context).

No work on the theology of indulgences ever makes reference to the "free from all attachment to sin" principle. This includes classical theologians like Suarez, Lugo, Bellarmine, and Liguori, as well as modern manualists like Prummer, Merkelbach, and Doronzo.

The "free from all attachment to sin" language was introduced into the first (unofficial) edition of the Raccolta in 1807, but it was introduced as an interpretation of this traditional principle. The Raccolta became official in 1877, with this "attachment to sin" language.

But popular writers, not referencing formal theological works, took up the "attachment to sin" language and invented their own interpretations of it. Which is what most people know today.

Some popular writers even misapply this language to give a rigorist approach to plenary indulgences, claiming that they are virtually possible to obtain.

But this is a minority view, which, as far as I can tell, only has support from a passing remark of St. Catherine of Genoa in her work on purgatory. But she generally did not approve of the practice of gaining indulgences (though she did not dispute the doctrine).

(Unfortunately, Charles Journet followed this view in his otherwise excellent and important 1966 article on the theology of indulgences).

In fact, after the passage of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and a reorganization of the Congregation for Indulgences, the Holy See put out a new version of the Raccolta and Enchiridion, which, in conformity with the theological tradition, dropped the "attachment to sin" language.

This "attachment to sin" language was re-introduced by Paul VI in his 1967 reform of indulgences, and is used in the present form of the Enchiridion of Indulgences.

But all that this language means is that an indulgence can only remove the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven (i.e. sins that you have expressed sorrow for).

For mortal sins, this obviously requires confession. But, of course, you have to be in a state of grace anyways by the time you complete the indulgenced work, and you have to go to confession as a condition for getting the indulgence, anyways.

But if you only have venial sins, what is required is sorrow for the sin.

The basic idea is that in the practice of indulgences, we want to avoid two extremes. On the one hand, the rigorist interpretation of plenary indulgences, which makes them virtually impossible to obtain.

(Which doesn't even make sense, because why would the Church grant plenary indulgences so easily, but then make them virtually impossible to obtain?)

And on the other hand, we want to avoid making the practice of indulgences automatic and mechanical. We want to connect the practice of getting indulgences for our sins with the practice of Christian repentance and conversion.