Thomas Merton, O.C.S.O

Thomas Merton’s 100^th birthday is worthy of comment since he was such a profound influence in my early life. His “Seven Story Mountain” has remained a classic inspirational account of his transition to become not only a believer but also a monk in one of the most rigorous monastic orders, the Cistercians of the Strict Observance.  (A more detailed account of his extraordinary life can be accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton).

My reading of Merton gave me an insight into meditation without words. I cannot say that I became good at it, but the idea that I could relate to God without words was enthralling. It inherently made sense that words were irrelevant to the Divine Other. It started me on a journey that kept evolving for the remainder of my life.

My second treasure was knowing his growing awareness of, and, eventually, participation in Eastern spirituality (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism). His growth sanctioned my efforts to reach beyond my comfort zone.

One can only speculate how much more he would have contributed to spirituality if his life were not tragically ended.

I cannot help remembering his birthday, happy that he was born and generous with his gifts. I am so much better for them.

Second Reading of "Chain of Blame"

When I first read “Chain of Blame” six years ago, the information regarding the breakdown of the mortgage market and collapse of financial markets blew my mind. Reading the book again was still mind-blowing!!

Recalling that my parents bought “our house” in 1939 for under $4000 and paid the monthly mortgage to the Campello Cooperative Bank, the originator and holder of the mortgage, the cascade of events since the 1980’s continues to amaze me.

Securitizing mortgages into bonds was “invented” in the 1970’s by Lew Ranieri. In the 1980’s, Mortgage-backed securities (MSB) were developed by Angelo Mozilo, the father of Countrywide Financial Corporation. In subsequent years, the business of originating, financing, and servicing mortgages changed dramatically. In a sense, the fact that non-banks, e.g., Countrywide, was in the mortgage business was itself revolutionary.

There were a series of developments that materialized due to “why not” and “no reason not to”.   People started to think of more ways to maximize the mortgage industry. Loan originators (separate from the actual mortgage granting firm), collateralized debt obligation (CDO), asset–backed security (ABS), collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO), structured investment vehicle (SIV) became various facets of the industry. Since federal regulators only had responsibilities for insured banks, none of these new operations were monitored in any serious way. The only method of oversight of the packaged mortgages issued as bonds were the agencies rating the bonds, e.g., standard and Poor, which were themselves biased since they were funded by the various investment firms.

Even when subprime mortgages developed, no one thought that lending (with a second mortgage) more money to a homeowner for more than the house was worth would become a problem. Even Alan Greenspan admitted later that he never thought that the industry would implode. The thought that house prices would rise, apparently ad infinitum, seemed to be the common thread accounting for such crazy behavior.

My reading the book the second time only reconfirms my conviction that government oversight in essential to every aspect of human life that we consider of value. If no one is looking, there will be people who will create new opportunities to make money regardless of the ultimate cost to society. When money is the primary motivation, people will slide into any opportunity to make more. And for this reason, I support the likes of Sheila Bair, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

"Jesus in the New Universe Story" by Cletus Wessels, O.P.

One of the books read while in the warmth of Jamaica was “Jesus on the New Universe Story”. For years I have been a devoted reader of anything relative to the implications of evolution. Surely, religion is no exception to the realities of evolution.

While few (I realize that there are many who continue to see creation as depicted in Scriptures) contest the validity of evolution, they are less informed about impact of evolution on traditional theology.

As the author, Cletus Wessels, I was educated as others in the last two centuries that creation was an external act of God, albeit later modified by more liberal interpretations of the seven days, Garden of Eden, and other sections of the Jewish tradition.

After ordination to the priesthood (1963), I started reading more and more theology written by European theologians who tended to be far more advanced in their interpretation of Scriptures. Evolution entered the framework of understanding Christianity.

The first person influencing me was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest and paleontologist. His work ultimately led to his being chastised by the Vatican, symbolized by his simple burial in the back left side of a Jesuit cemetery in Poughkeepsie, NY, as though he was insignificant. In time, he was recognized for his fantastic intellect and insight to the theological implications of evolution.

With this background, I was then involved with all sorts of writers (Diarmuid Murcho, Roger Haight, Karl Rahner) who advanced more credible interpretations of God within the context of evolution.

Cletus Wessel is not an original thinker but he succeeds in articulating a more complex and nuanced understanding of God in the context of evolution.

Without attempting to do justice to his insights, I advance a few of his basic concepts.

Rather than conceptualizing God as external to the universe, God is now viewed as internal to creation. God is manifested in and through the Big Bang and its ongoing splendor in its expansion and development.

While humans are viewed as the rising of consciousness, they are sited within the context of an incredibly beautiful universe. 

God, now no longer an external agent, but an inherent force within the universe brings together humans with the rest of creation. While the gift of consciousness is no small aspect of the universe, consciousness of humans is bonded with the rest of creation.

Such an interpretation counters the view that man is the master of the universe. We are clearly part of a larger reality of God’s emergence.

While it may seem that this thinking would be simply relegated to many views of pantheism, Wessel and others zone in on the complex distinction that God is more “other than, and infinitely more than,” the universe. God is more than but “intimately involved” with the universe.

Given the billions of years of the universe and the relatively late appearance of consciousness, I remain in awe that I (and we) exist! What an unbelievable trajectory within time of a universe becoming conscious through humans!

Within this framework, the notions of heaven and hell become discarded while trying to understand the implications of an inherently all-benign source of the universe. Even if we can anticipate no heaven or hell, we will remain part of the universe. Wessel views death, “the human person and human consciousness return to the earth and are folded into the implicate order.” Needless to say, I can glimpse at the validity of the notion within claiming to understand its meaning that is somewhat based on quantum physics. If all creation can be both “particle and wave” at the same time, per quantum physics, who am I to think that I cannot remain in some form in the universe that has manifested the power and love of an inherent Force, referenced as God.

"Capitalism in Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty

One of the benefits of being compulsive is that it becomes possible to read and complete Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty. The 577 pages of rather dense prose, made worse by its being a translation from the original French, is a test of endurance. However, I could not give into the reasonable idea that nothing is worth the pain of plodding through this rather esoteric search to an answer to a question staring us in the eye: “what are we going to do about wealth inequality?”

To approach this serious question, the author compiled microdata for decades for various nations (France, Britain, United States) that it then aggregated into segments to ground his basic thesis, viz., we have become more inegalitarian than ever!!

The data supports the major point that r>g, viz., the return on capital exceeds the growth of income. In general, wealth will generate 4-5% growth while income will at best increase 1-2% per year. Over time, the data supports the formula, viz., those with wealth become wealthier while others remain at best stagnant if not worse.

Recalling that his arguments are based on 200 years of data. Noting that inegalitarianism was prevalent in the past, it moderated dramatically between 1914 and 1975 due to the trauma and devastation of property during the world wars in Europe. Since 1980, the accumulation of wealth has accelerated enormously, now not by property generating rents (as in Downton Abbey) but through enormous compensation packages for those in major corporations and financial institutions.

The major point that drives his concerns is that this level of wealth inequities is ultimately unsustainable, but more pertinently, it is corrosive of any of the basic principles of democracy. Historically, as in the French Revolution, when the divide between the wealthy and others becomes big enough, some sort of unrest or social revolution occurs to address the inequities.

While he clearly calls for democratic debates to search for a method(s) to address this major and, potentially, catastrophic situation, he offers some suggestions, knowing full well how improbable they would happen.

Based on his research, the record of r>g inevitably results in all sorts of issues associated with wealth. Essentially the return on capital always will exceed income growth, short of some sort of a revolution. The most fantastic example is the wealth of Bill Gates whose fortune keeps expanding faster than he gives money away! We again are experiencing an oligarchy where the wealth of one generation only facilitates more wealth in subsequent generations.

Given his serious concerns about the wealth inequities and their continued growth, the most radical proposal is that there be a global (progressive) tax on wealth. Since all the nations would concur, there would no method to shelter capital. Capital would be taxed for the benefit of nations to address all sorts of real problems (national debt {considered sometimes necessary but should always be within fiscal limits to avoid exorbitant interest payments that could be better used for social goods}, educational costs, infrastructure). The amount taxed would be relative to the noted inequity with the goal of reducing the ratio of r>g, e.g., rather than r being 4-5% and income 1-2%, r would slow to may 2-3%. (Note that he does not “proscribe” as much as “suggest”, emphasizing the need for democratic debate).

In summary, the ordeal of reading the book was worth it. I am amazed that anyone would spend so much effort in extracting reams of data at the microlevel, e.g., annual tax returns, to ensure that history justified his mathematical calculations. I was also inspired that someone with this much brilliance had such a serious concern for our general well being. He wants nations to prosper for the sake of all. I share the concern.