It is clear that you do not know what an indulgence is.
Would keeping that money be the medium view?
The orthodox view is that Luther's position (good works have effectively zero value) and Tetzel's position (good works have precise and measurable value) are false.
The orthodox view is that good works (like making a donation for the rebuilding of a church) have value as they proceed from faith - that they are not a means of salvation (like the saving grace that comes through faith), but they are a means of sanctification.
Do these guys? From the same link above:
How did something spiritual — an indulgence is after all a remittance of temporal punishment due to sin — come to be "sold"? The theory was that monetary offerings could count as a form of penance, when the donor truly gave sacrificially from his heart, with the proper motive.
Unfortunately, the practice easily degenerated into "buying" remittance of punishment for sin. Worst yet, "selling" of indulgences got linked to a misapplication of the principle of praying for the dead in purgatory. Catholic teaching was that one could offer one's penitential acts to God through Christ as a sort of "petition" on behalf of those who had died and were being purified in purgatory.
But five hundred years later, here one comes blowing smoke up our skirts about what was happening in those times. Luther was a professor of theology at Wittenberg, he was there and saw the abuse. Again, what was schismatic about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences.