If a saint vouches for us, that's his decision, and that decision isn't motivated by exploitation of love, as is the case with the mother and son.
The cynical view will be exploitation of love in one case, exploitation of fear in the other, as you have already pointed out. But as I've pointed out before, the possibility of a cynical view does not negate the merit of the charitable view.
It is wrong to drink alcohol because it might interfere with our free will.
It is right to take money from a poor mourning mother, because she of course understands all the theological intricacies about purgatory and indulgences, and the Catholic Church can do no wrong.
I have never said the Church, as construed as its members or clergy, can do no wrong.
I claim the Church can teach no falsity in its infallible Magisterium.
What I defend is the doctrine of indulgences, because it is defensible. If you think this doctrine was abused, maybe you're right - but that would be a fault of the abusers, not the doctrine, which is true in its own right.
(post is archived)