Skip to content

Indulge Me

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

I mentioned a few days ago that Mr. Infallible (that’s the Pope, for you non-believers) has been playing to his base by rehabilitating Nazi loving clerics, among other things. Well now we learn that he’s bringing back some old traditions, namely, Indulgences.

I can still remember trolling through my Missal during Mass, looking at the bright color pictures and checking out the number of days off of my sentence I could get by saying various prayers.

For the untutored, let me explain, as I have done at more length in the pages of my old blog some time ago.

There are three places where we can go after we die, now that the Church has abolished Limbo. Here they are in ascending order of probability:

1. Heaven. Don’t waste your time shooting for heaven. You have to be absolutely sinless to get into heaven, and the fact is that no properly raised Catholic can exist for more than a few minutes without sinning in some way or other. Certainly no male can do it. The average male thinks about sex about every other minute, on average, and every one of those impure thoughts is a sin. Your only hope is to receive absolution and then get shot as you walk out of the confessional.

2. Purgatory. Eminently doable. Just avoid the biggies. The aformentioned impure thoughts are fine. Just don’t kill anyone or miss Mass on Sunday. Those are mortal sins. Downside: you have to endure punishment for eternity, or until the end of the world. After that, having been purged of your sins, and no doubt feeling well disposed toward the god who has been torturing you for the past several eons, you go to Heaven.

3. A piece of cake. Anyone can get in. Downside: You are tortured absolutely forever.

The choices aren’t so great, but it’s pretty obvious that your best hope lies in Purgatory. My ambitions were always modest, so Purgatory was always my objective, which is why I liked the idea of indulgences. What are indulgences, you non-Catholics and under 50s may ask? Well, the Times has it about right:

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

But not quite right. Take a Hail Mary for instance. That might get you a 300 day indulgence. I can’t remember any prayer getting you much more than that. Nothing got you out completely.

Now, there are a few problems with indulgences, of the logical variety. First, if we assume that we really do have to spend eternity in Purgatory before we get to heaven, and we lop off 300 days at a time from the sentence, how does it get shortened? Isn’t that a bit like subtracting something from infinity? The problem is somewhat amelioriated, of course, if we assume that the maximum Purgatory term is until the end of the world, which scientists currently estimate at a mere 7.5 billion years. If we assume you can say a Hail Mary every minute, and you don’t do anything else (except think about sex once -to qualify for Purgatory in the first place), including sleep, for a life that lasts 100 years, you could successfully reduce your sentence by 43,274,400 years, approximately 0.576992% of your total term, which makes our penal system look generous-time off for good behavior wise. It’s pretty clear that one rosary a day isn’t worth squat.

But wait, the percentage goes up if the end of the world means the end of the existence of humankind, which, with any luck to the folks in Purgatory could come almost any day. In fact, that’s the main objective of the Left Behinders, if I’m not mistaken: To hasten the end time so all the Good Christians can ascend into heaven, and the rest of us can spend eternity in Hell, since at that point there will be no need for Purgatory. If that’s when Judgment Day is held, our hypothetical Indulgence gatherer can accumulate enough good time to get out of Purgatory free, with time to spare to spring a flock of other folks.

Speaking of logic, some might also wonder how it is that the Church gets to control an otherwise omnipotent God. For after all, it’s the Church that decides how many days a Hail Mary is worth, and God just has to go along. Some might think that God would want to preserve a little freedom of action, but apparently that’s not the case. Like so many things Holy Mother Church teaches us, this is a Mystery, that we must take on faith.

For my own part, I think Benedict is being too timid by half. Why go back to the early twentieth century, when you can go all the way back to the 13th. Times are tough, and the Church is having trouble making ends meet, what with all those lawsuits. Why not sell the indulgences, like in the good old days?


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Obama Press Conference

Monday, February 9, 2009

How low our expectations have fallen. I thought Obama did great. Nonetheless, I was struck by the number of comments at Americablog about how refreshing it was to see a president speak in well formed sentences, strung together to form coherent thoughts. Don’t get me wrong. It was refreshing. But how sad is it for us that we have grown to expect anything less.

On another, but related note, I am begining to believe more and more that my wistful hope that Obama is thinking long term is going to turn out to be true. I thought he did a good job of making the Republicans look bad, while being perfectly respectful of them, at least on the surface.

I really wish, however, that he would be a little more forceful on the torture issue. But then again, maybe he believes that’s an issue where he can lead most effectively from behind. Franklin Roosevelt once, or perhaps many times, told groups advocating various reforms that he agreed with them and would like to do what they wanted. His advice to those groups: make me do it. Maybe this is an issue where Obama needs and wants us to make him do it. After all, he never quite closes the door.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (1)

Waterboarding the least of it?

Monday, February 9, 2009

This is one of those stories that you have to hope isn’t true, while more or less assuming that it is. Via Firedoglake from the London Daily Telegraph, writing about evidence that the British government has attempted to suppress:

A British official, who is regularly briefed on intelligence operations, said: “The concern was that the document revealed that intelligence from the British agencies was used by the Americans and that there were British questions asked while Binyam Mohamed was being tortured.

“Miliband is being pushed hard by the intelligence agencies to protect the identity of those involved.”

The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,”the official said.

The blogger over at Firedoglake makes the point that it would be hard for anyone to believe that an act like that was legal, even if it was blessed by John Yoo. He also points out that Dick Cheney has said that each torture technique was individually approved at the White House. It makes you sick just to imagine Dick and George discussing whether slicing someone’s genitals was torture. It makes you even sicker to think that they may have decided that it wasn’t.

Meanwhile, Pat Leahy has called for a Truth Commission. War crimes trials would be better, but the Truth Commission approach is not unprecedented. We just need to avoid the type of bi-partisan coverup we got from the 9/11 Commission.


Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Misunderstood

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Those who read the New York Times electronically missed something in today’s print edition: A full page ad “signed” by Wells Fargo President John Stumpf (what a perfect name for the head of a failing bank) bemoaning the mean-spirited public outcry about the Las Vegas junket Wells Fargo was forced to cancel after the aforesaid outcry.

After all, Stumpf said, this junket was not for the executives, it was for the little people; the front line soldiers who did the day to day work that enabled people like him to drive the bank off a cliff. Without “recognition”, in the form of a 12 day Las Vegas bacchanal, how will these precious darlings find the courage to go on? Perhaps they should learn to get motivated by the thing that gets the rest of us out of bed and into our cars every morning: a paycheck.

But no Wall Streeter has completed his work without adding insult to injury. In this case, the insult is to our intelligence. This is an actual quote: “The funds to pay for recognition events such as these do not come from the government. They come from our profits”. To which, of course, the initial response that comes to mind is: What profits? If Wells Fargo is profitable, why did it need $25 billion of our money. Moreover, does he think we are so stupid as to not know that money is fungible, whether we know that specific word or not?

Which all leads up to a final question. Why is this Stumpf spending taxpayer money for full page ads in the New York Times?

UPDATE: Something is strange when this blog gets a slew of comments about anything. My observations stand. That’s our money they’re spending. Whatever Wells Fargo’s motivations, it is getting taxpayer money. I googled the issue raised by the commenters and found that the same sort of pack comments, often using the same or nearly the same language, appear wherever this story is reproduced. In fact, it was almost impossible to find an actual news story that dealt with this issue. Indeed, Wells Fargo is paying a dividend: to the government. It’s also likely to cut its dividends this year and will probably need to enter the capital market. In addition, its purchase of Wachovia was indirectly subsidized by us taxpayers. What I find interesting about this is that this concerted defense, which appears all over the internet, does not seem to be the line the company is officially taking. Who are all these rabid Wells Fargo fans?

UPDATE 2: Wells Fargo Reports $2.6 Billion Q4 Loss:

The company also reported that Wachovia, the struggling bank it bought Dec. 31 and didn’t include in its bottom line, lost $11 billion in the period


Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (6)

First as tragedy, then as farce

Saturday, February 7, 2009

In 1633 the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei on trial for heresy, for the crime of believing that the earth moved around the sun. Somehow, it had become an article of faith to believe that the earth stood still in the heavens, while the sun and the stars swirled around it. Legend has it that after publicly abjuring his statements, which just happened to be true, Galileo muttered, under his breath, “Nonetheless, it moves“. Whether he said that or not, there’s not much doubt that he continued to believe that the earth did move. The Church had done no more than force him to lie to save his skin.

In what is probably the most farcical of many farcical echoes of that famous case, this week the Pope demanded that a recently un-excommunicated Bishop renounce his views on the Holocaust, those views being that the holocaust never happened:

In a move designed to head off condemnation, Pope Benedict XVI ordered Bishop Richard Williamson to unequivocally and publicly renounce his claims that there were no gas chambers and that fewer than 300,000 Jews died in the Nazi death camps instead of the accepted figure of six million.

…

The Vatican said: “Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted.”

That last statement is no doubt a lie. Williamson’s positions were well known. But that’s not where the farce comes in. Once again we have the Church demanding that someone believe something on command. This time, the Church is right, and the target is wrong, but there’s no difference in principle between the two situations. You can force a person to do something, or say something, but you can’t force them to believe something. Williamson may abjure his public position, or he may not (apparently, he has agreed to look into the question again), but the least likely outcome is that he will actually sincerely change his opinion. If he does as the Church requires, he will, in a weird sort of way, be violating the eighth commandment at the Pope’s insistence. He will be bearing truthful witness while believing he is bearing false witness, which is the moral equivalent of a lie. For like Galileo he will be muttering under his breath, “Nonetheless, there were no gas chambers”.

As to Benedict, he either understands this or he does not. If he does, then he is giving a cynical and sinful (at least according to formal Catholic doctrine) pass to an avowed anti-Semite. If he does not, then he’s a fool . My money is on the first option.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Buddy Holly

Friday, February 6, 2009

A few days ago, February 3rd, was the 50th anniversary of the day the music died, so it seems only fitting that we feature the folks who died that day.

Buddy Holly on, of all things, the Arthur Murray Dance Party.


The Big Bopper:


Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a single video of Richie Valens, (one with actual video footage, as opposed to stills with music in the background) so he’ll have to remain unrepresented.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

What’s an Economy For, Anyway?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Periodically my friend Bob Roth contributes a piece of writing. As they are normally much longer than a typical post, I have usually placed them on a separate page, to be forever enshrined as a link on the upper right hand side of the blog. Recently Bob sent me another, in which I think he makes some good points. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the folks in our current Congress to take many of the steps Bob’s advocating, or even think about some of the issues he’s raising, but the more they’re discussed the more chance there is that some of them will seep into the debate. You can read the full piece by clicking on the link at the right, or by reading below and following the link at the bottom.

So what follows is Bob’s latest effort.

A New Political Economy 101

What’s an Economy For, Anyway?

By ROBERT ROTH

It seems to me we need a whole new economy. And to get one we need, as always, understanding, organizing, action. This article gropes toward understanding what an economy is and could be in the context of our present, multi-faceted dilemma, in the hope of facilitating organizing and appropriate action.

The economy – by definition, right? – is that matrix or network of institutions and interactions that meet human needs. Or, is it only about how human needs are met by means of transactions that involve money? Is the economy only about what is bought and sold? If so, what about barter, the exchange of goods and services? What about caring and caring activities that are not valued in the present economy? Where do we draw the lines?

I have thought for years of the economy as the sum total of goods and services exchanged for money. That’s what the Gross National Product is all about, and that’s how it’s measured, right? And the Quest of the Day (and perhaps the Decade) is how we’re going to “jump start” the economy. At present “the economy” is winding down, contracting, with unemployment rising by the hour thereby further decreasing demand for goods and services thus leading to further contraction.

But the idea that we can jump start the economy implies that what we were doing before the crisis began is capable of being continued, of going on as before. The idea that we should jump start it – by any means necessary, it would seem — assumes its operation is critical to our health and welfare, essential to our wellbeing and even survival.

As things now stand, leaving increasing numbers of people without money certainly threatens those people’s health, wellbeing and ultimately, survival. Granted, the Obama administration seems to be making an effort to integrate into the “stimulus package” a great many worthwhile activities, that will produce immediate or even lasting value. But the bulk of it, including the tax cuts, is intended simply to get the economy “going again,” in the same direction it had before the crisis. This will use up increasingly scarce resources on what may well be a fool’s errand. So maybe now is a good time to ask whether the economy we had, which is now contracting, can or should be revived.

Read the full post here.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Lieberman again

Friday, February 6, 2009

Joe Lieberman is becoming a parody of himself.

The full story is here at the Washington Monthly. Here’s the synopsis.

Every time Congress passes a law providing funds for school construction (including universities and colleges) it includes language that is probably constitutionally required: that none of the funds go toward constructing anything that is primarily meant for religious purposes, such as a chapel. The language has never been controversial. Until now, when Republicans eager to torpedo the stimulus package seized on the language and portrayed it as an assault on the right of college students to practice their religion. Of course, it’s no such thing, and an amendment to strip the language went down to defeat. Alarmingly it got 43 votes. Or, as Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly put it: “There are 43 senators who tried to change the stimulus bill because a TV preacher’s lawyer got confused and lied about what’s in the bill.”

Yes, you already guessed it. Our sorry excuse for a Senator was among the 43.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Joe being Joe

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Remember how Joe Lieberman told us all that he wanted to help Barack Obama succeed? Take a look at how “our” Senator has been voting on the stimulus amendments. (from Nate Silver):

It’s probably best to click on the image and see it full size in another window.

A silver lining: Nate says that the Democrats are holding together better than the Republicans.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Random notes from Drinking Liberally

Thursday, February 5, 2009

It was cold out tonight, and it was cold at our Drinking Liberally haunt, but we few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters) had a great time. We got a first hand account from one of our brothers about the inauguration. Here he is, a proud bearer of a purple ticket. He never made it to his assigned place, but looking at the bright side, he wasn’t trapped in the Purple Tunnel of Doom. Moreover, he helped stimulate the economy, for as he pointed out, he paid a couple of thousand dollars to spend 6 hours in the cold.

While we were there our very thoughtful waitress came in and let us know that the president was on the TV, giving a speech, so we all adjourned and watched Obama pummel the Republicans. A great speech. Per usual after our monthly meeting, I’m not really in great shape for deep thought, so I’ll close with the observation that Obama seems to be hitting his stride. Now, if only Harry Reid would learn how to control the Senate we’d be in decent shape.


Filed in Local issues, Obama | | Comments (0)