Question, do you therefore agree that this "satisfaction" theory of vicarious punishment isn't correct and that pain and suffering weren't "part of the deal"? Or are you going to split hairs and argue that God is punishing Christ in our stead, but this is different than taking out His wrath.
I don't think the Church has ever taught so-called "penal substitution" (vicarious punishment), which I think only came in with the Protestants. However, there is a subtle (but profound) difference between the Catholic "satisfaction" theory and the Protestant "penal substitution" theory.
According to "penal substitution" – God is angry at sinners and turns all this anger upon Christ until His anger is exhausted; instead of the sinner being punished, Christ is punished.
According to "satisfaction" – yes, God is indeed angry at sinners insofar as they have a debt which His Justice demands payment for, but Christ intercedes with an act of love & pleading that "compels" (so to speak) God to wipe the debt clean.
In the former, God's anger is redirected to Christ, and Christ (amazingly) becomes the object of His wrath. This contradicts what the scriptures say about Christ's sacrifice being a "sweet-smelling odour", because here Christ on the Cross is this abominable mountain of sin which God empties out His wrath upon. In the latter, Christ "persuades" the Father to forego His wrath in favour of mercy, through an act of love which cannot but convince. So Christ on the Cross is still the "adorable Lamb of God", more adorable than the sins of the world are abominable.
It may seem like only a small difference, but in fact it's enormous. If penal substitution is correct, the adoration of the Cross goes out of the window; and at that point, you might feel like staying away from Mass rather than assisting it. With satisfaction, on the other hand, it's clear why we go to Mass – the adorable Lamb of God is made present again on the altar, which infallibly draws down God's mercy & love.
Lots of questions. Then what precisely are these victim souls victims of? Or is the term a misnomer?
They're victims of the sins of mankind, ultimately. We all are to a certain extent. Children who die in infancy are victims of Adam's sin, because they have no sin of their own. Victim souls are those who voluntary take on suffering as an act of atonement for the sins of the world. It's not that God delights in seeing them suffer, it's that the love they show in the midst of their suffering is what delights Him and causes Him to blot out sins. Yes one does not need to suffer in order to love, but when you see someone you love suffering and pleading in the midst of their suffering, it becomes cruel not to grant them what they plead for.
And how can God be the author of such severe bodily and spiritual pain?
"I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
Gloss: "Create evil": The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin.And what does "offering herself up for sinners" actually mean if not vicarious punishment?
See above explanation of satisfaction.
And is there any concrete evidence of its efficacy? Surely we should at least have seen mass conversions in the town of Lisieux and the surrounding countryside? Or are you going to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The merits of the saints need not necessarily be restricted to any particular place or any particular time. In the case of St. Thérèse, she asked for: "a vast number of little souls . . . a legion of little victims worthy of thy love." She didn't specify any place or time, so I believe these merits of St. Thérèse are still active throughout the world even today.
As for someone who offered up prayers and sacrifices for a particular place & time, see the "Curé of Ars."
So there is a logical necessity between human suffering and misery and salvation, is that what you are claiming? This is manifestly false.
Let me ask you this: let's assume the moral and spiritual condition of humanity were much better than it is today. Would there be more suffering and misery, or less?
There's no logical necessity.
If men were in a much better moral and spiritual condition, then there would almost certainly be less suffering and misery. There is plenty in scripture which attests to this: when men repent, God makes life easier for them. However, this isn't absolutely necessary, because even if this were a generation of saints, we might still suffer more in order to atone for the sins of previous or upcoming generations. But in that case we would be rewarded in heaven.