Deep reading

Did indulgences cause the Reformation?

The promises we make first

  • We will not shrink the real abuses in order to defend Catholicism. The promotion that tied indulgences to donations, the entanglement of church office with money, and the financial structures of senior clergy and of the papal court all bore responsibility, and we say so plainly.
  • At the same time we distinguish “what the doctrine actually taught,” “how people preached and administered it,” and “the impression the faithful were left with.” That these three could differ does not by itself lessen the responsibility of the leaders.
  • We will not make this the heroic tale of one man, Luther, or the villain's tale of one Catholic party. We treat it as a history in which theology, printing, imperial politics, regional economies and demands for church reform all moved together.
  • We will not use expressions that set children from Catholic and Protestant homes to mocking each other. We offer accurate criticism together with the shared reflection Christians need today.

A note on this conversation

This piece does not repeat the short answers already published, “Isn't this the religion that bought and sold heaven with good works and indulgences?” and “A Church that sold indulgences and abused its wealth — does it get to talk about poverty?” It follows, with historical sources, the questions those answers invite next: what exactly was an indulgence? how were St Peter's Basilica and a banking debt connected? what happened after 1517? what did the Church correct, and what remains unfinished?

For accuracy the basic term used here is indulgence, the word the Catholic Church uses today. The popular phrase “selling forgiveness” — familiar from history textbooks and polemic — is used only in quotation marks, as a critical description of the preaching, fundraising and certificates of the time. Where a document is meant, this piece writes letter of indulgence.

For parents and catechists

  • Ask first where the child heard the question. It is better to look at the sources together and ask why such an impression arose than to refute the sentence “Catholics sold heaven for money.”
  • Have them read the 95 Theses, the Tetzel preaching material and the documents of the Council of Trent side by side. Do not let one side's claim stand in for the other side's thought.
  • Do not end the conversation at “it was not the official doctrine.” Go on to ask whether the leaders could have foreseen the misunderstanding, whether they exploited the fear of the poor, and whether the flow of money was transparent.
  • Luther's criticism, the later Protestant traditions and the Catholic reform each had internal differences and developments. Do not attribute every word and act of the sixteenth century to Catholics or Lutherans living today.
  • Do not teach purgatory and indulgences to children as a frightening ledger. Explain them in this order: the forgiveness of sins, the restoring of relationships, the healing of the wounds that remain, and prayer that entrusts the dead to God.

1. Was an “indulgence” a ticket that forgave your sins and got you into heaven if you paid?

The question: “Is it true that the Church stamped a piece of paper, took money, and made sins disappear?”

The short answer: In official doctrine an indulgence was neither a ticket that forgave sin itself nor a receipt for buying salvation. It was the teaching that someone whose sins had already been forgiven receives help with the temporal punishment left by sin — that is, with the need for purification and repair. But some indulgence preaching and fundraising in the early sixteenth century blurred that distinction, and really did leave the faithful with the impression that money and salvation were being traded.

Historical background: The medieval Church had a practice of confessing sin, receiving forgiveness, and then performing satisfaction such as prayer, fasting or almsgiving. The practice of indulgences developed, by which the Church remitted part or all of that satisfaction and of the temporal punishment, and it became linked with crusades, pilgrimages, public works and charity. Over time the letter of indulgence, prescribed acts, donations and anxiety about purgatory were all bound together. A preacher's short, forceful promise spread more easily than the fine distinctions of doctrine.

What the sources establish: Today's Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471, defines an indulgence as “a remission of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.” Luther's 95 Theses in the original and in English, theses 21, 27, 32 and 36, directly criticize indulgence preachers for talking as if they promised remission of all punishment and salvation itself. Two facts must be held together: “the official definition was not the sale of the forgiveness of sins,” and “language that could easily be heard that way really was in circulation on the ground.”

Common misunderstandings: Neither “the doctrine mandated the sale, so every indulgence was a fraud” nor “the doctrine said otherwise, so the sale is only a Protestant exaggeration” is adequate. Official doctrine and abuse have to be distinguished, but the institution that permitted the abuse and profited from it has to answer for it too.

What the Church learns from this: The words of faith are not judged only by what the leader meant. We have to check how the poorest and most frightened person actually hears them, and whether spiritual authority is working as pressure to hand over money.

In one sentence: An indulgence was not a ticket to heaven, but the preaching and the fundraising of the day committed a real wrong by making it sound like one.

↑ Back to the list

2. If my sins are forgiven, why is there still talk of satisfaction, temporal punishment and purgatory?

The question: “If God has forgiven me and punishment still remains, doesn't that mean the forgiveness is only half?”

The short answer: In Catholic teaching the forgiveness of sin and the healing of the wounds sin leaves are not in competition. Forgiveness is God's gift, and satisfaction is not a price that completes the gift with money but an act of repair that puts damaged relationships and habits right. Purgatory is not a place where the unsaved buy another chance; it names the state in which someone who died in union with God is completely purified.

Historical background: The Western Church has explained a distinction between the guilt of sin, the eternal punishment that loses communion with God, and the temporal punishment that follows from the disorder and attachment sin leaves behind. The satisfaction given in confession included not only prayer but restitution and reconciliation where possible. In the later Middle Ages, however, the practice of speaking of satisfaction and indulgences as if they were quantities grew, and it became easy to receive the purification of purgatory as a calculation reducible to dates and sums.

What the sources establish: The Catechism, n. 1459, teaches that although absolution takes away sin, the harm the sin has done must be repaired as far as possible. N. 1030 describes purgatory as the final purification of those who die in God's grace and friendship and are assured of eternal salvation. N. 1472 and following explain temporal punishment not as God's revenge or a separate fee but as the need to be purified of the unhealthy attachment that sin has produced.

Common misunderstandings: Saying “enough satisfaction earns you forgiveness,” or “purgatory is a small hell where God punishes again the sins he has already forgiven,” departs from Catholic teaching. Conversely, “I have been forgiven, so I need not repair the harm or change my life” makes forgiveness cheap.

What the Church learns from this: When explaining indulgences we should speak of restored relationships and healing before we speak of penalty points in a court. It has to be clear that paying money cannot take the place of apologizing to the injured, making restitution, and changing one's life.

In one sentence: Forgiveness is given without price, but the forgiven person still carries the responsibility of healing, in God's grace, the wounds their sin has left.

↑ Back to the list

3. How can an indulgence apply to the dead, and does paying mean a soul leaves purgatory at once?

The question: “They say people preached that if you bought a letter of indulgence in a dead person's name, that soul went straight to heaven?”

The short answer: The Church teaches that the living may pray for the dead and apply an indulgence to them by way of intercession. That is a prayer that humbly entrusts the matter to God, not a contract by which the Church or a purchaser controls the state of the dead or guarantees a result. But the promotion around 1517 stressed the immediate effect rather than this careful distinction, and produced serious misunderstanding and exploitation.

Historical background: Prayer for the dead is a Christian practice older than the system of indulgences. In the later Middle Ages, the teaching that an indulgence could be applied to the dead combined with popular anxiety about purgatory. The desire to help one's family was strong, and a fundraising preacher could move it. That is why Luther attacked, in theses 27 and 28, the preaching that connected a coin directly with a soul.

What the sources establish: The current canon 994 provides that the faithful may gain an indulgence for themselves or apply it to the dead by way of intercession. “Intercession” means asking God; it does not mean verifying the state of a soul or selling a result. Thesis 28 likewise answered that the money in the chest may increase revenue, but the fruit of intercession rests with God.

Common misunderstandings: It is not the case that “all prayer for the dead is a money transaction,” nor that “the family's intention was good, so the fundraising of the time was fine.” Prayer that comes from love has to be distinguished from a sales method that exploits loss, guilt and fear by promising a guaranteed result.

What the Church learns from this: At funerals and memorials, spiritual comfort must never be tied to pressure to donate. Prayer for the dead has to be equally available to the poor, and no impression may be given that whoever pays more buys a greater spiritual benefit.

In one sentence: An indulgence for the dead is an intercession offered to God, not a guarantee that opens the door of purgatory for money.

↑ Back to the list

4. How were St Peter's Basilica, Albrecht's debt and Tetzel's preaching actually connected?

The question: “Is it true that Tetzel sold ‘pardons' to build the great church in Rome and to pay an archbishop's debt?”

The short answer: In essence, yes. The revenue from the indulgence campaign that Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz was authorized to run was linked both to the building of St Peter's Basilica in Rome and to the financial debt Albrecht had incurred in obtaining his church offices. Tetzel was the campaign's famous preacher. This cannot, therefore, be written off as one preacher's excess.

Historical background: Albrecht already held the archbishopric of Magdeburg and other posts when he sought the archbishopric of Mainz as well, and obtaining papal approval and dispensation cost a great deal. He borrowed from the Fugger banking network. Pope Leo X needed funds for the rebuilding of St Peter's. The two financial problems met in the indulgence campaign, and preachers such as Johann Tetzel travelled the region urging participation.

What the sources establish: The 1515 Mainz indulgence documents at Emory University's Pitts Theology Library show that this indulgence was tied to the cost of St Peter's and that spiritual benefits were attached to donations and pious acts. The material on Albrecht at German History in Documents and Images explains his holding of multiple sees and the background of his debt to the Fuggers. The Tetzel preaching material in the same archive shows that promotional language forcefully joining confession, the collection chest and full remission really was used. The revenue was broadly divided between the St Peter's project and the repayment of Albrecht's debt.

Common misunderstandings: The famous jingle “as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs” should be handled carefully; the sources do not let us state flatly that Tetzel first said exactly that sentence. But Luther criticized preaching with that content in thesis 27, and the Tetzel material does present money and spiritual effect as tightly connected. Uncertainty about how a phrase came down to us does not make the abuse of the campaign disappear.

What the Church learns from this: Even a church built for a good purpose is not justified by opaque debt, by the cost of acquiring office, or by fundraising that trades on fear. The share of responsibility among the papal court, the bishop, the financiers and the preacher on the ground — and the flow of the money — have to be disclosed together.

In one sentence: St Peter's Basilica and Albrecht's debt really were entangled with the indulgence revenue, and so the responsibility reached wider than Tetzel alone.

↑ Back to the list

5. Did Luther leave the Catholic Church the day he posted the 95 Theses, and was he excommunicated at Worms soon after?

The question: “Did the Reformation start all at once on 31 October 1517, and did the Church throw Luther out immediately?”

The short answer: No. The 95 Theses were a document requesting an academic disputation about indulgences, and over several years the controversy widened to papal authority, the sacraments, justification and the understanding of the Church. The excommunication came in January 1521, the Diet of Worms that April, and the imperial ban in May.

Historical background: Luther sent the 95 Theses to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz on 31 October 1517 and asked for an academic disputation. The document was printed, translated and spread faster than he expected. In 1518 he was examined by Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, and at the Leipzig disputation of 1519 the issues widened to the authority of pope and council. In 1520 the bull “Exsurge Domine” condemned a number of his propositions and demanded a recantation, which Luther refused.

What the sources establish: The joint Catholic-Lutheran historical document “From Conflict to Communion”, nn. 40–49, narrates together how a request for disputation grew into examinations and a dispute over authority. Leo X formally excommunicated Luther on 3 January 1521. The primary sources on the Diet of Worms show Luther's refusal to recant, the response of the emperor Charles V, and the Edict of Worms, which banned even the printing and distribution of his writings.

Common misunderstandings: Compressing a complex process into the single scene of theses nailed to a church door suggests that both Luther's thought and the Church's response were fully formed from the beginning. The familiar exact wording of “Here I stand” at Worms should be used only with the problem of its later transmission made clear. That he refused to recant is not in doubt.

What the Church learns from this: Treating a question only as a disciplinary matter and reading the other side's objection only as malice makes conflict grow. At the same time, dialogue must not be kind words that hide real doctrinal difference; it has to be a process of examining the grounds without the pressure of power.

In one sentence: From the 95 Theses to the excommunication and Worms was a controversy that widened over several years, not a parting of ways in a single day.

↑ Back to the list

6. Without printing and the politics of the German princes, would there have been no Reformation?

The question: “In the end the new print medium and the princes who stood against Rome made Luther succeed — so wasn't the theology just a pretext?”

The short answer: Printing and politics were decisive for how the Reformation spread and survived, but they do not make the theology a mere pretext. People argued in earnest about salvation, Scripture, the sacraments and the authority of the Church. That argument grew quickly inside a print market, a decentralized Holy Roman Empire, and the protection and interests of regional rulers.

Historical background: There had been theologians and movements demanding church reform before, but printing reproduced short texts, images and German-language sermons at a speed and scale never seen. The empire had many centres of power besides the emperor — electors, cities, bishops. The protection of Frederick, Elector of Saxony, mattered: it meant Luther was examined inside Germany rather than taken to Rome, and it gave him refuge at the Wartburg after Worms. Other rulers weighed faith, regional autonomy, church property and their relations with the emperor in different proportions.

What the sources establish: The Library of Congress's description of the 95 Theses shows how fast the text spread — editions appeared in Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel before the end of 1517. The joint Catholic-Lutheran document “From Conflict to Communion” records the effect of Frederick's political protection and of the change of venue for the examination. The period overview at German History in Documents and Images explains that the religious change was entangled not only with theology but with the empire's dispersed power and with social, economic and cultural conditions.

Common misunderstandings: Flat assertions that “printing made the Reformation” or that “the princes had no faith and only wanted church property” erase the differences between people and regions. Conversely, saying there was only pure theological debate hides the power that decided who could speak and who was protected.

What the Church learns from this: A medium does not simply transmit a message; it carries short, forceful claims, anger and personality-driven stories further. The Church today should look past the slogans circulating on social media to the power and economic structures that amplify them — and to the real question inside them.

In one sentence: Printing and politics built the paths along which the fire of the Reformation spread, and the theological argument was the real content inside that fire.

↑ Back to the list

7. Did the Council of Trent admit the fault and abolish indulgences?

The question: “Did the Catholic Church admit Luther was right and get rid of ‘pardons'?”

The short answer: The Council of Trent did not abolish the doctrine of indulgences, but it ordered that every improper financial gain connected with obtaining them be ended and that the abuses be corrected. It also reformed the formation of priests, the residence and duties of bishops, and the abuse of benefices. It did not accept all of Luther's theological conclusions, but it confirmed institutionally that the real evils he had criticized could no longer be left as normal practice.

Historical background: The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 with several interruptions. It answered the claims of the Reformation doctrinally while also trying to correct long-accumulated problems of church discipline. That the question of indulgences was still being dealt with in the final session shows that the controversy of 1517 was not one preacher's mistake but an institutional problem needing long repair.

What the sources establish: The decree on indulgences of the twenty-fifth session, of 4 December 1563, retains indulgences while acknowledging that abuse had damaged the authority of the Church, and orders that all improper gain connected with obtaining them be entirely abolished. The reform decree of the twenty-third session required the establishment of seminaries in each diocese, and other reform decrees regulated episcopal residence, plurality of offices and benefices, and visitation and oversight. Implementation varied by region and took time, and the council's decisions did not automatically undo the harm already done.

Common misunderstandings: “Trent abolished indulgences” is not true. Neither is “it kept indulgences, so it admitted no fault.” Two facts have to be stated together: the doctrine was retained, and the financial abuse was explicitly cut off while the discipline was reformed.

What the Church learns from this: A single reform document is only a beginning. The harm and the structures have to be disclosed, conflicts of interest prevented, oversight and formation changed, and the implementation of decisions on the ground continually verified. Nor may a belated correction be used as an exemption for the past.

In one sentence: Trent did not abolish indulgences, but it banned the improper money attached to them and substantially overhauled church discipline.

↑ Back to the list

8. Does the Catholic Church still grant indulgences today? If so, what has changed?

The question: “If there is still a plenary indulgence, isn't it the old ‘pardon' under a different name?”

The short answer: The teaching on partial and plenary indulgences still exists, but they are not sold. They do not replace the forgiveness of sins. A baptized believer who repents, performs prescribed prayers, devotions, works of charity or penance, and meets the required conditions may gain one for themselves or apply it to the dead by way of intercession.

Historical background: Reforms banning financial abuse continued after Trent, and in 1967 Paul VI reordered the system with “Indulgentiarum doctrina.” Partial indulgences are no longer marked with numbers of days or years as they once were; there are only partial and plenary. The purpose of an indulgence was stressed as the growth of repentance, of charity, and of communion with the Church.

What the sources establish: The Catechism, nn. 1471–1479, and canons 992–997 set out the current definition and requirements. Paul VI's “Indulgentiarum doctrina” revised the norms while noting the abuses and improper gains of the past. A plenary indulgence requires not only the prescribed act but a disposition free of attachment to sin, sacramental confession, Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the pope. Paying money is not a condition for obtaining it.

Common misunderstandings: A plenary indulgence is not a “coupon that cancels sins you have yet to commit,” nor a shortcut that removes sin without confession. That charity is encouraged does not mean the size of a donation buys spiritual effect. Nor can an indulgence be applied to another living person regardless of their will.

What the Church learns from this: When an indulgence is announced, the meaning of repentance, the sacraments and love of neighbour should be explained before any attendance figures or special benefits. Where it has to be mentioned alongside a collection, it should be made even clearer that money is not a condition, and the accounting should be transparent.

In one sentence: An indulgence today is not a certificate that can be sold but a spiritual practice by which a repentant believer asks, with the Church, for purification and love.

↑ Back to the list

9. Is the criticism that “Catholics sold salvation for money” simply wrong?

The question: “Isn't the answer ‘it was not the official doctrine' a way of dodging simony, nepotism and church corruption?”

The short answer: The sentence “selling salvation for money” does not accurately summarize the Catholic doctrine of salvation. But its moral core cannot be dodged: there really were financial and structural abuses in the sixteenth century that warranted exactly that criticism. The tangle of clerical office, spiritual authority, family connections, benefices and income cannot be reduced to one man's exaggerations.

Historical background: Some senior clergy of the time held several dioceses or benefices together and drew income without living where they served. The cost of church offices and dispensations, the promotion of relatives by powerful families, the finances of the papal court and of princes, and patronage of building and art were all mixed together. Albrecht's plurality of sees and his Fugger debt are one concrete case in which that structure met an indulgence campaign. This does not mean every cleric and religious was corrupt; the same era also held reform within the Church and service to the poor.

What the sources establish: The present Catechism, nn. 2121–2122, states that simony — buying or selling spiritual things — is a sin, and teaches that no one should be prevented by poverty from receiving the help of the sacraments. That Trent's reform decrees dealt concretely with plurality of office, episcopal residence, clerical formation and financial abuse of indulgences also confirms that the problem was real. The joint Catholic-Lutheran document “From Conflict to Communion,” nn. 231–236, records that theology and power politics were entangled with each other, and that the Catholic side too has confessed the abuses and sins within the Church.

Common misunderstandings: The blanket charge that “all Catholics believed they were saved by money” is inaccurate. But the excuse that “the doctrinal formula was correct, so the leadership did not think of it as selling” is insufficient. If spiritual authority was joined to money in a way that made poor people feel their salvation depended on it, that is serious exploitation whatever it was called in law.

What the Church learns from this: Financial disclosure, independent audit, prevention of conflicts of interest, a ban on favouring relatives, and protection for whistleblowers are not administrative decoration unrelated to faith. They are the responsibility of a community entrusted with spiritual authority, so that it may proclaim the Gospel credibly. Confessing the past has to carry through to verifying whether the institutions of the present have really changed.

In one sentence: “Salvation for money” is inaccurate as a description of doctrine, but as a criticism aimed at the real corruption where money and spiritual power met, it cannot be waved away.

↑ Back to the list

10. Did the Reformation happen because of indulgences and corruption alone?

The question: “If the Church had only fixed the money problem quickly, would there have been no split — and is it all settled now?”

The short answer: That cannot be asserted. The abuse of indulgences was a powerful spark, but Scripture and tradition, justification, the sacraments, the authority of pope and council, pastoral reform, humanism, printing, and regional politics and economics were all entangled with it. Catholic reform had its beginnings before 1517 as well, and was greatly institutionalized after Trent. Today's ecumenical dialogue has recovered much common ground, but it has not removed every difference.

Historical background: The late medieval Church held deep devotion and growth in education and charity alongside war, struggles for power and failures of discipline. Humanists and religious orders, bishops and lay people called for reform in different ways. Luther's dispute over indulgences soon widened into questions of justification and church authority, and other reformers took paths different from his. Within Catholicism, new religious orders, pastoral and educational movements and the Council of Trent drove reform. So the one-line stories — “a corrupt Church against clean reformers,” or “a split caused by one rebel” — are both inadequate.

What the sources establish: The joint document “From Conflict to Communion” does not paint the late Middle Ages as a simple dark age but treats theological, political, economic, social and cultural factors together. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999 stated that Lutherans and Catholics had reached agreement on the basic truths of justification, and that the mutual condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to the teaching of the other as the declaration presents it. That is not a declaration that every doctrinal difference and every question of church unity has been settled.

Common misunderstandings: “Indulgences alone caused the Reformation” erases the theological conflict and political choices that followed. “Corruption was a pretext and doctrine was the only cause” cannot explain why the demand for reform became so explosively persuasive. And “there is a Joint Declaration, so there is no difference now” runs ahead of the dialogue as it actually stands.

What the Church learns from this: Unity is not a matter of covering over past wrongs or reversing who won. It is a process of stating the facts that can be verified together, understanding the other's faith from the other's own official documents, reflecting first on the sins of one's own tradition, and studying honestly the differences that remain.

In one sentence: The abuse of indulgences was the spark of the Reformation but not its only cause, and reform and unity today demand accurate memory and continuing repentance.

↑ Back to the list

A short timeline

WhenEventWhy it matters here
c. 1515Indulgence documents printed and distributed in the Mainz region
Why it matters here
St Peter's finances, Albrecht's debt and indulgence fundraising are institutionally linked
31 October 1517Luther sends the 95 Theses to Albrecht
Why it matters here
A request to debate indulgence abuse and its doctrinal premises quickly becomes a public controversy
1518Examination and disputation with Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg
Why it matters here
The demand for a recantation and the question of papal authority grow
1519The Leipzig disputation
Why it matters here
The argument widens from indulgences to the authority of pope, council and Church
15 June 1520The bull “Exsurge Domine”
Why it matters here
Condemns a number of Luther's propositions and demands a recantation
3 January 1521Luther is excommunicated
Why it matters here
The canonical break is made official
April–May 1521The Diet of Worms and the Edict of Worms
Why it matters here
Luther refuses to recant, and the empire bans his writings and his supporters
1545–1563The Council of Trent
Why it matters here
Defines Catholic doctrine and reforms church discipline together
4 December 1563Decree on indulgences, session 25
Why it matters here
Retains indulgences but orders the complete abolition of the improper money attached to them
1967Paul VI, “Indulgentiarum doctrina”
Why it matters here
Reorders the current norms and abolishes the reckoning of partial indulgences in days and years
31 October 1999The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is signed
Why it matters here
Catholics and Lutherans formalize their agreement on the basic truths of justification
2013“From Conflict to Communion” is published
Why it matters here
Ahead of the Reformation's fifth centenary, both sides write the history together and set out shared tasks

Key terms

  • Indulgence: the Catholic teaching that, through the ministry of the Church, the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven is remitted. There are partial and plenary indulgences.
  • “Selling forgiveness”: a phrase widespread in popular history and polemic that easily suggests “a ticket that removes sin itself.” This piece uses it only as a term of historical criticism.
  • Letter of indulgence: the certificate that documented the grant of, or participation in, an indulgence. It was never taught that the paper itself produces grace.
  • Guilt: the responsibility a person bears for a sin freely committed. Absolution in confession forgives the guilt.
  • Eternal punishment: the consequence of losing communion with God through mortal sin. It is remitted by true repentance and the forgiveness of sin.
  • Temporal punishment: the disordered attachment and the need for purification that remain even after a sin is forgiven. It is not a separate charge, and it is not calendar time in purgatory.
  • Satisfaction: not an act that pays the price of forgiveness, but the act — prayer, service, self-denial, restitution — by which, after confession, the wound of sin is healed and life is set right.
  • Purgatory: the final purification by which one who died in God's grace, with salvation assured, comes to complete holiness. Not a second chance and not a small hell.
  • Intercession: prayer that asks God on behalf of another. An indulgence for the dead is applied by intercession, not by control or guarantee.
  • Simony: the buying or selling of sacraments, holy orders, spiritual authority or spiritual things. Today's doctrine still names it clearly as a sin.
  • Nepotism: the practice by which someone in authority gives office, property or favours to relatives.
  • Benefice and plurality: the income and rights attached to a church office, or the holding of several offices by one person. Drawing income without actual pastoral service became a target of reform.
  • Excommunication: a grave ecclesiastical penalty excluding someone from communion and from certain rights in the community of faith. It does not by itself mean a penalty under civil law.
  • Imperial ban: a political and legal measure, like the Edict of Worms, that stripped protection under imperial law and forbade a person's writings and supporters. It has to be distinguished from ecclesiastical excommunication.

Primary sources to read together in class

  1. Read selected theses — 1, 21, 27–28, 32, 36, 43–45, 50, 82 and 86. Mark in three different colours “the preaching Luther criticized,” “questions he put to the doctrine of indulgences itself,” and “the ethical question about the poor.”
  2. In the Tetzel material, trace the order in which repentance, confession, donation and effect follow one another. Discuss what a listener would have felt they were guaranteed.
  3. Make a two-column table from Trent's session 25 decree on indulgences: what was retained and what was abolished. Ask also why “correction” and “exemption for the past” are different things.
  4. Compare the 95 Theses of 1517 with the Worms material of 1521 and see how the issues widened from indulgences to authority, conscience and imperial law.

Official documents and material for verification

Sources from the period

Official Catholic documents

Joint Catholic-Lutheran documents

University, library and scholarly references

Short questions that lead here