Now that, some of the degressives could probably get behind.
The NewYork Times as an article on the revival of interest in, (as a result of a revival of catechesis about... duh,) indulgences.
I am one of those who grew up more or less utterly ignorant of the practice as anything that existed in the modern world, though I did know what they were, yes, partly from history class (high school? not hardly.... middle,) but also from asking the Mom and the Dad what various .... offers? on the back of the scads of holy cards in their missals and hymnals meant.
Any way, thank you, Old Grey Lady, for the balanced, accurate (so far as a know,) and even respectful treatment of the subject.
The only disrespect comes from the sadly predictable Frs. McBrien and Reese.
The good news is we’re not selling them anymore, (it seems to go without saying, then, that the speaker finds any revival of the practice to be essentially "bad news.")
“Personally, I think we’re beyond the time when indulgences mean very much,” said the Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame who supports the ordination of women and the right of priests to marry. “It’s like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube of original thought. Most Catholics in this country, if you tell them they can get a plenary indulgence, will shrug their shoulders.”
I do find it laudable that in identifying exactly what kind of priest Fr McBrien is, the Times makes it clear what his thinking is. It would have been nice if they had also noted how infrequently his thinking is one the Church's, but you can't have everything, and if you did, where would you put it?
And they probably don't need to spell it out to those of their readers genuinely interested in the Faith.
That one has personally committed.
To ask the Almighty to forgive them.
In the certain knowledge that He is All-Merciful.
What a concept!
Why didn't Catholics think of this BEFORE??!??!?#??$???