About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

A Bit More ... (and Indulgences)

And Also: The Oyez Project provides audio of Supreme Court orals, though it is still far from complete as to past years. But, it still provides much interesting material, including multiple examples of how David Souter is pretty tough in questioning when he wants to be.


Just now, I referenced some comments I made about Nadya Suleman at a blog generally matching my p.o.v. about things.

One immediate reply was that it was really none of my business. This to me is absurd. First off, her case involves at risk young children, the public fisc, rules on medical care, media reporting, and more, that simply cannot be deemed totally private. Second, we can have an opinion on things that ultimately are the choice of others. In fact, our "private" choices are in part a response to our judgment that grows from such discussion. We cannot let this extreme case serve as a representation of IVF or whatever, but perspective clearly needs to be shown on both sides. It's useful to remember that sometimes.
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.

The NYT followed its article on indulgences with an interesting discussion among some religious talking heads, such discussions a useful resource in general. Given the medieval flavor of the practice, some might find the whole thing rather ridiculous. But, the discussion (and article itself) suggests things are a bit more nuanced. I found Colleen Carroll Campbell's comments concerning "a connection between the renewed emphasis on indulgences and a growing hunger among Catholics for deeper understanding of the mysteries of sin, grace and repentance" particularly interesting.

Amy Sullivan's writings (see, e.g., The Party Faithful) underlines this "hunger" is not just the realm of conservatives such as Ms. Carroll-Campbell here. One might not accept the obviousness of "original sin" (she argues that we "can see it in the street" -- what? harm to others? or, that the harm is a result of innate guilt present in babies?) and still see a need to address repentance and grace. The words to some have a conservative religious flavor to them, so they are loathe to talk about them.

But, many wary of former Bush speechwriters will still have things to repent, with or without using God per se to do so. The logic behind indulgences ultimately might be seen as a tad ridiculous if we take all of its baggage (including the afterlife stuff) into consideration. But, the more general concern remains, even if you do not agree with the specific mode of doctrine being used. And, quite often, even the firm believer in let's say the Christian faith is not really concerned about the nuances of the doctrine.

Their basic concerns, even if the specific expression is not yours, have broad appeal. This includes repenting and how one way our overall sense of grace is reached is by doing little things toward the end. Does not this theme seem logical on Valentine Day, one concerned with relationships in which various wrongs will be "indulged" by a partner via various acts that amount to repentance? We need not think there is some strict scoreboard we can follow here (act "x" erased by reaching a certain amount of points via doing "a,b,c.") or something.

The core of a practice might be wrong, but it just might be that the problem is the less important means to that end. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.