THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN ON INDULGENCES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 25, 8 April 1892, Page 25

THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN ON INDULGENCES.

His Lordship the Bishop addressed a crowded congregation in St Joseph's Cathedral on Sunday evening :—: —

The Bishop said hie intention was to speak on the subject of indulgences. He feared, meantime, that he must appeal to the kind indulgence of the congregation as he found he was hoarser than he had believed himself to be. He knew he had a cold but did not think it was bo bad. He would not be able to speak as usual, He took up his subject not in a controversial Bpirit or a spirit of argument. He simply meant to explain what the doctrine of the Ohurch was. Beginning thus he would try to give them a distinct idea of what indulgences were not. He would ask a few questions and answer them in a few words. Was an indulgence a forgiveness for sin ? Was it a forgiveness of the guilt of sin and of the eternal punishment due to it 1 It was not. Did an indulgence give permission to commit sin t It did not. It was neither a pardon for sin nor a license to commit sin, and the astonishing thing was that any one could be found at that hour to say that it was anything of the kind. Such profound ignorance was hardly to be expected. If he had clearly and distinctly expressed himself he had now laid it down that an indulgence was not forgiveness for sin nor license to commit sin. He would aek another question. Did the Pope sell indulgences 7 He did not. Had he ever done so? He bad not. Anyone who asserted that he did, or ever had, stated an untruth, and uttered a calumny against the Church of God. When they found books written in English and other languages making such statements they must consider them as falsehoods, and such false statements must be made now deliberately because any man who took a little trouble could kcow these statements to be untrue. When men deliberately made fala j statement* such statements were what were in common language designated lies. Indulgences did not give pardon for sin ; they were not licenses to commit sin, and the Pope did not sell and never had sold them. Yet we found books used in the public schools teaching the children that the Pope sold indulgences, that indulgences were a pardon for Bin and a license to commit sin. This was a wrong an injustice, and a tyranny. Government took the money of Catholics to enable them to teach this deliberate falssbood to the children of the country. This was a wrong and an insult. It was deliberately to teach the children of Catholics and others what the Catholic Church did not teach. They were bound to raise their voices and protest against this They were bound to demand justice as their right, and to agitate and continue to agitate until justice had been obtained by them and the wrong had been righted. Now he would proceed to state what an indulgence was. The doctrine of the Church to-day had not altered Her doe'rine was the same to-day as it had been in all the ages in which she had existed. Let them take up a little catechism used here and they would find in it an exposition of the Catholic doctrine made clearly and distinctly. The teaching was what he had now stated that an indulgence was not a pardon for sin or a license to commit sin. On the contrary, the catechism (aught that a man in a state of sin could not gain an indulgence that in order to gain an indulgence he must be in the fri«n:!ship of Almighty God, that he must be in a state of grace The doctrine was laid down plainly, and the catechism could be had at the cost of Id. Every one could obtain it ; every one could afford to pay a penny for it. There was, therefore, no excuse for calumniating the Catholic doctrine. The moet rev preacher went on to say that he had this little book printed in 1888, but the same doctrine bad been taught in the diocese before it was published. The original bad been written by Dr Butler, Archbishop of Cashel, at the beginning of the last century. It was the catechism which he himself had been taught between 50 and 60 years ago ; his father had learned it before him, and his graudfather 100 years ago. There had been no variation in the catechism. The prelates of Australasia assembled at the Synod of Sydney in November 1885 had approved of it. He had not changed a word of it. A few chapters had been added oa subjects which he thoujht might be useful, but it contained the teaching

of the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, jest as he (tho most rev preacher) bad himself received it 60 or 60 years ago. People said, " Oh, yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Chnrcb now, but it was not always so." There was no foundation for this statement. He bad taken np a number of catechisms which be owned, bound together in a large volume, and some of them in different language?, and looking into their teaching respecting indulgences, he had found it precisely the same. Thete catechisms belonged to the 18th and 17th centuries. If they went back to the time of the Council of Trent, they found the doctrine of the Church, authoritatively laid down in works published then, exactly that which he bad placed before them . It was the same throughout the history of the Church, the same with regard to the conncil of Florence, the same with regard to the council of Nice. The teaching of the Church had always been the same. There had never been a tittle of change. He would ask again, what did an indulgence mean 1 An indulgence meant the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt of sin itself, and its eternal punishment were remitted by sincere repentance. No man could gain an indulgence whilst in sin. He must be in the friendship of God. He must be free from the guilt of sin, and have a determination by the help of God'agrace never more to offend Almighty God. It was a gross calumny to say that an indulgence was a license to commit sin. If a man were resolved to commit sin be conld not gain an indulgence. This had always been the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the first days of Christianity until to-day. An indulgence could only be gained if a man were truly penitent, and, through the merits of our Divine Redeemer, had obtained pardon for bis Bin. He mast confess bis sins, if mortal ; he must be truly sorry for having offended God, determined to sin no more and to avoid all dangerous occasions of committing sin. He must do penance when he had confessed his sins with sorrow and with a resolution never again to offend God . An indulgence would be of no avail to a man whose mind was made up to commit sin. How, therefore, it might be asked, was a contrary statement made in English histories. That, the most rev speaker said, he did not feel called upon to explain. All he knew was such statements were calumnies and lies. There was no foundation for such statements. Wicked men who had rebelled with the object of robbing the Church, as an excuie for their plunder, propagated these lies. And to-day these lies formed part of what was known as the Great Protestant Tradition. History for the last 300 j ears had been a huge conspirarcy against truth. All genuine students of history knew this to be the fact. Some of the more honest among Protestant historians who had studied original documents, expressed themselves disgusted at the lies and calumnies that had been unblushing] y published. They bad declared, moreover, that nowhere had this been done so mnch as in England. The huge lie had held its own although refuted thousands and thousands of times. Catholics had protested over and over again against it, but no attention had been paid to them by t,e Great Protestant Tiadition. The lie was still unblushingly told. It was told up to that tour. Money was taken out of the pockets of Catholics to teach their own children this lie, and to teach their neighbours' children to hate and loathe them. How could they do otherwise when they ware taught these calumnies and lies? When Almighty God forgave sin the economy was that those who were truly and sincerely repentant obtained the remissiouof theguilt and eternal punishment due to their sin. But a temporal penalty remained to be paid either in this life or the next. An indulgence had nothing to do with the guilt of sin. Remission of the eternal punishment must be obtained before any advantage could be gained from an indulgence. He would give them an example — every one knew that King David was the friend of God— bat, yielding to a strong temptation, he committed a grievous sin, and adied to his guilt that of murder. He remained impenitent for nearly a year. Then the Prophet Nathan came to him, and, under another appearance, placed ois own case strongly before him. David's sense of justice wa9 aroused and he became indignant. But the Prophet said " Thou art the man-" David saw bis fault and, yielding to the grace of God repented. Nathan, therefore, was authorised to announce to him the forgiveness of his sin. The eternal punishment, together with the guilt due to it was remitted, but » temporal penalty remained, The child, whom he dearly loved, died. David was deeply grieved and did penance and bewailed his eio, But Almighty God did not take away his temporal punisbment-thathewas obliged to bear.Tbe temporal punishment due to sin, was, however, sometimes remitted. The Ninivites furnished also an example of this. There were othci illustrations of the truth that Almighty God when He remits the eternal punishment dur^to gin reserves the temporal punishment. LoDg and terrible penances, in the early ages of the Church, were imposed to obtain pardon for the temporal punishment of sin as well aa to make reparation. The Church sometimes came to the assistance of the penitent and granted him an indulgence. This was the practice of the early ages— of the days of persecution. In the first three centuries of the Cnristian era public and long penances were frequtnt. Penitents who were anxious to obttin a remission, were in tht- hibit cf meeting the mar yrs as tbey were led to execution and begging from them a word of writing for the bishop to lighten their penance. This

| the bishop often did out of consideration for the merits and satisfaction of Christ and the martyrs. Such was in virtu** of the communion of saints The teaching of the Church was that in the Church there was a treasury consisting of the merits of our Divine Bedetmer and of His saints. Not that the merits of onr Divine Eedeemer re. quired any addition, but the merits gained by the saints through Hi* merits were placed in the common treasury. The Church formed tbe body of which Christ was the head. Our bodies were composed of many membeis, but a property owned by one member wa» possessed by all— what the bead owned belonged also to the bands and feet— and so it waß with the Church, the mystic body of Christ. What belonged to our Divine Redeemer belonged to tbe Church. Any act of the humiliation suffered by Christ would have been sufficient, and more than sufficient, for the salvation of the world, or of a million of worlds. His merits were super-abundant. These merits bad not been lost. Tbey were the property of the Church . Our Divine Redeemer had said to His Apostles : " What ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," He had also said to them : I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In virtue of this, the successors of the Apostles were the dispensers of the mysteries of God. By the power of the keys, by the dispensation of our Divine Redeemer, His merits, His supei-abundant merits were applied by them to the remission of temporal panishments. But it was said this was making things easy. To obtain the remission of sin was not making things easy. Catholics had to do more than other people did. They bad to confess their sins. This was not easy. It was a severe and humiliating discipline, a great sacrifice of feeling, to avow their guilt to a fellow-man. If the/ had done wrong or i a justice they must repair it. Consequently we sometimes found a Catholic priest making restitution oa the part of a penitent. Catholics must do penance, pray, and fast, and give alms. But let them consider what the members of other churches did. They had no confession, not much fasting, not much restitution, or at least not much was heard of it. They put themselves into aa excited state, aroused their feelings, and something told them they were forgiven. If they died, they believed they would go straight to heaven. Which was the easier way 1 If once they obtained the conviction of pardon, tbey believed they could never lose grace. The subsequent guilt neither of murder nor adultery nor anything else would be an obstacle in the way of their going to heaven. Their doctrine was that they could not fall from grace. Was it not a wonaer that people whj held such a doctrine and proclaimed it should calumniate Catholics respecting indulgences? It was told in history that Cromwell, when he was dying, asked a minister who stood by his bed if it was true that a man could not fall from grace. On receiving an answer in the affirmative, he declared himself confident of salvation, as he said he knew he had once been in a state of grace. All his wickedness, all his slaughters bad gone for nothing. Yet men who taught this doctrina held np Catholics to scorn as if purchasing licenses to commit sin and pardon for their sins. The most rev preacher went on to protest against the manner in which Catholics were forced to contribute to tbe support of schools in which such calumnies on taem and their Cnurch were taught. They were told that the country could not bear tbe exp me of sectarian teaching. Catholics did not want it to do so. They had no acruple in taking the money of Catholics to give their own children sectarian teaching. Tbey had no scruple about taking money to teach godlessness. But that was not sectarian ? That was all right and proper. He, the most rev speaker, would make an offer. Let them remit the £400,000 that education cost, on the customs duea, and let every denomination support its own schools. Catholics would accept that willingly, and ti.sn there could be no pretence of paying by public money for the religious instruction given in their schools. If that were done Catholics would not be behind hand in the work of education. The professed love for education would then be tested. These secularists had Dever made any sacrifices for education and were not prepared to make such sacrifices. But they would take the money of Catholics to teach the children of the colony their own if not those of Catholics— that the Pope sold iadulgencea. Nothing could be heard of so monstrous or so UDJust. The most rev sp«aker repeated that there was not one word of truth in the calumnies to which he had referred. What the Church taught now she had always taught. He did not deny that abuses had existed. There were abuses probably now somewhere or another. But the Church was not responsible for them. Abuses were introduced into tbe college of Apostles by Judas— who when he sat at the table of the last supper had been plotting his crime. They need not be surprised that abases existed wherever pDor human nature was to be fonnd. The B shop declared in conclusion that he had done his best to explain the matter clearly and distinctly. If he had failed, or if he had left any point obscure he aaid ha would be happy to return to the subject and endeavour to explain it better and more plainly.

The recently-appointed Hungarian Primate has bsen nomintaed a Cardinal by the Pope.