In the mean time if you are looking something like the RC perspective, selling annulments so people are free to remarry, you won't find that in Geneva. I understand that is quite the cash cow for Rome BTW.
An annulment is a finding and declaration by a Church tribunal that an attempted marriage never met canonical requirements: the vow was defecting ("null") from the git-go. It is based on a this-worldly investigation and judicial judgment of "no bond."
Not even the King of England could buy an annulment. The best he could do, alas, was to charge the Archbishop with treason and kill his exes.
An indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment due to already-confessed, forgiven sins. There is no investigation, no tribunal, no judgment made. It is a person already in a state of grace, making restitution for a wrong done in the past. It is other-worldly in the sense that if you don't make reparation for the harm you did, here, you'll be obliged to get things squared away in the hereafter.
I's true that Popes Leo X and Julius II sold indulgences, employing such enterprising agents as Johannes Tetzel; however, that's acknowledged to be an abuse and a serious sin (simony) and the three of them may be frying in hell for it, for all we know, right next to Simon Magus.
Conceptuallly, in a Venn diagram, these things don't overlap.
If I, a recovering moron, have understood you correctly!!
:o/
And BTW, thanks for that graphic, Gamecock, much to the dubious distinction of the Church in the USA. Our canon lawyers have relied heavily on "psychological immaturity" as a way to find the vows to be null.
I have never figured out how a normal person in his 20's or 30's considered mature enough to sign a 20-year mortgage, join the armed forces, hold a political office, etc. could be deemed too "immature" to make a valid marriage vow. If I were a Tribunal Judge there's be some changes made.
And if I were Pope ...((((((sigh)))))))