Replies

Back at ya

The following is from a reviewer of the Amazon book you cited. Unlike the book, the reviewer cites history not Catholic apologia:

"Based on Simple Historical Error Reviewed in the United States on September 11, 2010 Though many non-Catholics might well do a double-take when they see the words "Modern Guide" and "Indulgences" in the same title, it is well to consider that our cultural moment, vis-a-vis the billion or so Catholics in the world. cannot be understood without them. As with so many aspects of Catholic praxis historically, a lot of work by diligent intellectuals has gone into presenting it in the most palatable light in the modern world. The extent of that diligence may surprise some, but not those who watch the trends of Catholic intellectual life with a wary eye. One of the most salient trends has been what can only be called a historically fantastical one. No person of goodwill wants to limit others' beliefs per se. But in our shared cultural-intellectual world it is reasonable to expect a basic intellectual honesty in what purports to be serious scholarship. On one of the most central issues pertaining to indulgences this book contains simply false information. That is, it is false within the implied assumption of the book: Namely, that there is continuity between of modern beliefs on indulgences and their long history in Western culture. This is an important level of focus. Once again, if modern Catholics one to believe and define their ideas now in particular way it is no one else's business to stop them. But it is quite another thing to present their current understanding as if it were congruent with our long shared history of Western development, in which the Catholic Church of course played a very definitive role. Here is a crucial case in point that clinches this matter. After an introduction by a professor named Fastiggi treating the history of Indulgences and in every way evincing that there is such a continuity between current understanding and the past, the author Edward Peters really enters into the realm of sheer historical fantasy and revision. He says the following on p. 13, "Indulgences are applied only to sins that have been forgiven so that there should be no misunderstanding that indulgences "'let people off' without admitting that they have done something wrong and seeking forgiveness for it..." Now, I don't think that one even needs to be a devoted scholar of religious or even general cultural history to see the pure error in this when applied to the matter as part of the historical understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, if this is what Catholics want to believe now that is fine. But to present this idea as if it were the view that generally obtained historically -- and what other conclusion can one draw after the didactic historical introduction of Fastiggi- -is pure nonsense and an insult to even basically educated people. There is simply no question historically that, on the whole, the view of indulgences that obtained everywhere was the reverse. Indulgences were so enormously profitable precisely because, inter alia, they did forgive sins that had not officially been forgiven. This dovetails very well with the cultural phenomenon of rising scrupulosity in the general climate of the age leading up to the Reformation. People were simply worried about being condemned for sins they had simply forgotten to seek forgiveness for. One marvels that the author, Edward Peters, can assert this when it a simple fact of historical detail of the general history of the Reformation no less, either from a Catholic or Protestant perspective! And the wan mention by Fastiggi that there were "abuses' hardly gives anything like accurate focus. This matter is not a subject of debate amongst historians. This error is so great that one can only assume that it is part of a more sad general trend amongst Catholic intellectuals. The effort to simply rewrite their own history, and to do so by establishing their own quasi-intelligentsia to do it. But this is not a matter of religious freedom. It is a matter of historical responsibility. If books like these are to function at the same level as silly perfervid blogs, with sheer propagandistic intent then that should be an alert for those outside the Catholic world. The alert tells us that what is being undertaken is simple violence to the facts of our shared cultural history. That is simply an unforgeable sin in scholarship."

You’re ignorant about the subject and now you’re (once again) relying on someone else who is grossly ignorant about the subject. Let me show you.

You said: “The following is from a reviewer of the Amazon book you cited. Unlike the book, the reviewer cites history not Catholic apologia”

You either don’t know what “cites history” means or you’re outright gaslighting people here. If he’s citing history, then he should be actually citing documents, specific events, naming specific people, and citing dates of incidents. Does he do any of that? NO!

Here’s an example of just how ignorant and duplicitous the reviewer is. I’ll go through this long passage a few sentences at a time:

“Here is a crucial case in point that clinches this matter. After an introduction by a professor named Fastiggi treating the history of Indulgences and in every way evincing that there is such a continuity between current understanding and the past, the author Edward Peters really enters into the realm of sheer historical fantasy and revision. He says the following on p. 13, “Indulgences are applied only to sins that have been forgiven so that there should be no misunderstanding that indulgences “’let people off’ without admitting that they have done something wrong and seeking forgiveness for it...””

The reviewer makes a real blunder here and you apparently aren’t aware enough to notice. First of all, it is clear the reviewer has an agenda - and it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. Secondly, and this is my real point here, the reviewer makes the mistake of assuming that because there is historical continuity concerning indulgences in general (and there is) that that would mean historical continuity about a specific kind of abuse of indulgences (and there isn’t). I can understand why an ignorant person would make this mistake. An ignorant person would not only not know about history, but about clear thinking and logic as well.

The moron continued:

“Now, I don’t think that one even needs to be a devoted scholar of religious or even general cultural history to see the pure error in this when applied to the matter as part of the historical understanding of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The ignorant moron literally just undercut himself by insisting that someone didn’t have to be knowledgeable when he just made a blunder because he isn’t knowledgeable.

“Once again, if this is what Catholics want to believe now that is fine. But to present this idea as if it were the view that generally obtained historically...”

And it was “generally obtained historically precisely because that was what the arrangements were. In other words, when people preached what they should have, there was no issue. Were there unscrupulous people? Yes, on both sides even, but when what was supposed to be done was done it was clear what the teachings were.

“... — and what other conclusion can one draw after the didactic historical introduction of Fastiggi- -is pure nonsense and an insult to even basically educated people.”

But as we see, the reviewer doesn’t even have a basic education - at least he’s not showing it.

“There is simply no question historically that, on the whole, the view of indulgences that obtained everywhere was the reverse.”

Actually the historical evidence goes against what the moron just said there. All you have to do is read the historical records about indulgences being preached in towns and the huge number of confessions that took place so people could participate in those indulgences to know this is true. We see a similar thing in parishes that preach boldly about Divine Mercy Sunday - there are more confessions in the preceding week.

“Indulgences were so enormously profitable precisely because, inter alia, they did forgive sins that had not officially been forgiven.”

Except that that wasn’t case - and historical records make this plain. Indulgences were “profitable” because they were regarded as such a blessing. Remember, indulgences really got their start as a way to encourage people to go on crusade. There was no money involved whatsoever. Yet people heartily embraced the indulgence at risk of their own life because it was considered such a blessing. See Paulas, chapter 6. (In that one citation I literally cited more historians that prove my point than the moron reviewer that you’re relying on to fail at proving yours).

Remember, the moron doesn’t cite a single historical text, incident, or person in what you posted here while attacking those who did. Who is more believable.