Christmas 2015

When young I could never imagine
A life as beautiful as mine.
Never has it been taken casually,
Always a gift beyond measure.

Christmas is so different,
No longer the holy day of old,
Now a time to celebrate
The gifts never deserved.

Surrounded by people
Who love and are loved.
A family caring for one another
Even when living apart.

Aware of the moment,
Precious in its flight through time,
Our reverence of the day remains,
Now with new meaning but as sacred.

Islam

I have been struggling with my view of Islam. I am accustomed to being tolerant of others. I want to be tolerant. However, Islam has become a serious problem to me (and others, to be sure). While recognizing that most Muslims are peace loving and law abiding, we are witnessing the violence that many have committed based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur’an. We cannot tolerate such behavior.

From my personal history, I can identify with rigid adherence to a belief system. I have documented my transition from a rigid believer to one who views all religions as inherently a problem because each considers its views as “true”. Religions promote intolerance. If my version of truth is by definition from God, then your version must be wrong. Belief systems are essentially intolerant of other beliefs. In modern society, we do not let our disagreements end in violence. We have learned to live with such disagreements and differences. In fact, most of us enjoy living in world of different people.

Islam could be lumped into the general category of “religion” with all the negative dimensions associated with religions in general, e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity. However, Islam seems to represent a distinctly different problem, testified by its violence demonstrated throughout the Middle East, Boston, and now Paris. I am indebted to Ayaan Hirsi Ali whose personal history is incorporated into her book, “Heretic”. Her views from within her history are ones that make sense to me.

Before focusing on the problems associated with Islam, I surely am aware that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. They want no part of violence demonstrated in recent years.

They are mortified by the hatred exemplified by extreme interpretations of the Qur’an. What I am concerned about is the extreme adherence to the literal words of the Qur’an. All religions interpreted by literal adherence to words written in the past, often distant past, represent a major problem. While most adherents of Christianity and Judaism adopt a more selected interpretation of scriptures, there is clearly a large minority of Muslims who remain rooted in the adherence to Qur’an. This is a very serious problem. 

Religions often have had historically violent pasts. In the history of Christianity, there has been violence against Christians, especially during the first and second century. In turn, Christianity demonstrated horrendous violence during the Crusades and, later, Christians were violent with one another following the Reformation during the 30 Year War.

Stories in the Old Testament document violent struggles as the Jews sought to live with a different God than the ones endorsed by civil rulers. And, to survive, Jews committed atrocities. Jews suffered the worse of violence during the Holocaust. Blame is mostly attributed to Hitler, but he was supported minimally by the silence of other religions, e.g., Catholicism. Jews today are fighting the Palestinians, but one could argue it is less attributed to religion than ownership of land. The violence between Jews and Palestinians is generally not justified in the name of God or religion.

What distinguishes Islam from other religions is its lack of adaptation to modern society. Within Judaism, toleration of differences resulted in the establishment of different “branches”, e.g., Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed. While these various congregations differ, at times radically, from one another, their differences do not result in violence against one another. They may argue with others, but generally, no one advocates killing those who differ.

When I was growing up, I was told that being Catholic was special. I was taught that heaven was easier to attain for me than those belonging to other beliefs, including other Christian religions. When Scripture was taught, even when I entered the seminary (1955), it was spoken as Truth personified. God’s word was always true. Literal interpretation was understood to be reliable. However, no one sanctioned killing another in the name of religion. Civil order demanded a level of tolerance that exceeded the literal interpretation of Scripture.

In addition, as social values changed, the stories in Scripture were now interpreted within a more complex understanding of their origins. Scripture was now interpreted more as a document based on belief than history. The religious truth was incorporated into a story. This development of understanding beliefs within the context of history disturbs some, but generally no one today advocates killing those who differ.

Even though atrocities have been committed by Myanmar’s Buddhist majority against the Muslim Rohingya population and the Hindu majority in India at times commits violence against the Muslim minority, Islam clearly is an outlier today in the world of religious beliefs. In fact, Islam will remain a problem as long as Shias and Sunnis are enemies. Saudi Arabia is more concerned by the advances of Shia domination envisioned by Iran. Saudi Arabia’s support of the Madrassas which, in fact,  has promoted extremists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali differentiates the writing of the Qur’an between the time when Mohammed was in Mecca and in Medina. While in Mecca, he was clearly trying to persuade people to identify with his writing. He was more tolerant of differences since he wanted to attract new followers. By the time Mohammed arrived in Medina, he was now supported by many people, resulting in more intolerant views expressed in the name of Allah.

While some Muslims have adopted the Qur’an through the lens of more tolerant interpretation, e.g., Salafi, or through the guidance of individual Imams, Muslims generally identify with the literal interpretation the Qur’an. Even though most Muslims in the Western World have accommodated to civil law, Muslims generally support, and surely do not disavow Sharia as the rule of law in accordance with the Qur’an.

Ali’s understanding of Islam makes sense. Adopting Sharia results in problems for women and non-Muslims. If the only way of following the teachings of Mohammed is strict allegiance to the literal interpretation of the Qur’an, the violent  history that we are witnessing will continue.

Ali considers herself a heretic, as her book is titled. She wants to promote a necessary reform of Islam to enable everyone to participate in cultural progress, as in the rights of women. She has identified five precepts that must be satisfied if reform will be realized.

Ensure that Muhammad and the Qur’an are open to interpretation and criticism.

In today’s world, most people committed to their religion either ignore or reinterpret parts of their belief system to accommodate to daily life. Most Catholics do not believe that birth control is sinful even though the pope and hierarchy, in general, still support the position. Many Catholics disagree with the official position on women in the life of the Church, viz., they cannot become priests. Yet, they continue to adhere to the community of believers without any reservation. They can differentiate between what is considered important and the trivial.

Give priority to this life, not the afterlife.        

The Qur’an promotes a focus on the afterlife. When dying, especially in the name of Allah, becomes more important than living, there is a serious problem. In today’s world, religious leaders promote the virtue of making this world a better place for all. No one is encouraged to become a “martyr” for the sake of God. The reports of savage atrocities committed by ISIS and other extreme Muslims are associated with the notion that they were looking for the rewards of the next life.

Shackle Sharia and end its supremacy over secular law.

Muslims, in general, are brought up assigning a priority to obeying the rule of the Qur’an, the Sharia, rather than the laws of civil society. Most Muslims in the Western world have adjusted to the norms of modern society. However, for those who are adhering to the strict interpretation of the Qur’an, the Sharia is the norm. This must end if Muslims are to become part of modern society. Even though the Hasidic Jews live in essential a ghetto, they honor the demands of the society in which they live. Muslims have to assign a higher priority to adherence to civil law.

End the practice of “commanding right, forbidding wrong”.

Mohammed’s journey from Mecca to Medina resulted in his becoming less tolerant of non-Muslims. In Mecca, he tolerated Christians. He was looking for followers. In Medina, he changed his views with the support of many followers. While non-believers could live if they paid a tax, it was now the policy that behavior considered wrong could be repudiated by violence. Killing in the name of Allah was now a virtue.

Abandon the call to jihad.

We have current knowledge of the effects of the call to jihad. Given the world we live in, it is enticing for those who are struggling with poverty and isolation to adopt the path of jihad to achieve some meaning and significance to an otherwise broken environment. Such an interpretation of jihad has to be abandoned as intolerable.

Even though I have an intellectual problem with religions, including Islam, I realize that many people find all sorts of benefits from the beliefs and religious practices. However, I am totally aware that there is a serious problem associated with Muslim extremists. I surely do not agree with those advocating war. The military is great for what it can do, but it is not designed to deal with extremists. In fact, I agree with those that attribute much of current episodes of violence to the history of military interventions by the West. War may be appropriate between nation states, but there is no evidence that it is capable to dealing with groups of individuals intending to commit violence.

I do see the military involved in specific actions, coupled with the intelligence and manpower of other nations, in addressing specific targets, e.g., sites of ISIL manpower and distribution centers. However, the present mess will ultimately have to be dealt with by the Middle East nations that are directly involved in the majority of the reported violence. There is no evidence that the military, by itself, can accomplish “victory”. We did not do it in Vietnam, nor Afghanistan, and not Iraq. The history of the Middle East itself flawed from the time of WWI when the Caliphate was destroyed and nations were somewhat arbitrarily delineated.  Violence will remain until the nation states of the Middle East are sorted out and Shias and Sunnis accommodate to their differences without resorting to violence. 

Most Muslims are essentially peace-loving members of their communities. Muslims associated with Wahhabism, e.g., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, represent a major problem that can be addressed by diplomatic and economic strategies. For example, United States and other western nations should stop supporting Saudi Arabia unless they curtail the promotion of their version of Islam, including their following Sharia and its offensive punishments and control of women.

Ultimately I think that the Muslim world will moderate with time and identify with the reforms advocated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The Muslim world will eventually look back at these horrible times as Christians view the Crusades. For some, like myself, they will become non-believers. In either case, in time, moderation will prevail. Until then, armed resistance directed to specific targets, diplomacy aimed to address the nations that are splintered by their Shia and Sunni beliefs, and economic strategies to promote moderation.

4 Feb 2016
Mustafa Alkyl's column is in synch with my blog. From his point of view, Islam and the Caliphate are not inherently linked to each other. Removing Islam from the issue of the state is similar to the history of Christianity that needed to remove itself from the Roman Empire. Islam would then focus more on the inherent spiritual message which would promote more tolerance of others.

Thanksgiving 2015

Today not needed to give thanks,

When you stare into the eyes of your best friend.

Each day has been a gift, 

Traveling from here to there,

Energized by children and work,

We enter an era marked by age,

Now cushioned by grandchildren. 

Words never match the experience.

Awed that life has been so good. 

Thanksgiving 2015

"Christianity Without God" by Daniel Maguire

“Tu est sacerdos in aeternum[1]” opens Maguire’s book as he thinks back to another moment in time when he was ordained a priest in Rome. He has traveled a long way to this point in his life when he has virtually transversed the entire spectrum of theological thought to one that now is clearly identified with a “No God” understanding of life. It is not a new position, but it has caused some commotion at Marquette University where he has been tenured for many years in the theology department.

His journey from the day when he was ordained is not that much different than mine, albeit, I am not as competent as he. Some may find it difficult to comprehend how one’s understanding of such basic statements of life can change so radically. I surely understand since I am totally amazed at the comparison of my current views and understanding of life with those identified at the moment I was ordained on 2 February 1963.

I write this blog not as a review of the book (review http://ncronline.org/books/2015/03/lower-case-god-and-revolutionary-vision), but as another chance to note the history of my change in beliefs.

I am sure that I was not unusual to be convinced that my belief structure was solid since the “faith” was built on “truth”. I had not a shred of doubt about my beliefs when I was ordained. Yet, I knew that that there had already been change while in the seminary. There was, in fact, dramatic change when Pope John was elected pope. All of a sudden, we became aware that the Bible was not “history” but a record of beliefs captured by stories or “myths”. This was a major change from the literal interpretations presented by our professors during the prior two years. It initiated me into a relatively sober need to distrust what my professors taught by reading the writings of the more progressive European theologians. There remained a conviction that the “truth” remained with Christianity, but maybe there was more to understand than I then knew. There was never a thought that I would essentially become a non-Christian, far less an atheist.

I recall the awakening when I recognized that a basic moral tenet of Catholicism was wrong. Parishioners who questioned the morality of birth control spent time with me arguing about its validity. I was forced to read more until I finally reached the point that I agreed with them! It was such a major moment to openly disagree with a basic element of moral theology. It occurred to me, then, that other basic understandings promoted by the Church could also be wrong.

Involvement with the civil rights movement in 1965 ff. promoted an understanding that “God” was clearly present in the people dedicated to racial justice, independent of their belief systems, if any. There was such a broad range of humanity who identified with the sacredness of each human being, regardless of color or ethnicity. If “God” was present in such a range of different beliefs than it became apparent that there might be no basis for any one faith or understanding being unique by virtue of understanding truth. An element of relativism impinged my understanding that religious “truth” was absolute and this truth resided uniquely in the Catholic Church.

Events started to steamroll. It became a source of humor when it became clear that one of my priest associates in my first parish assignment had a mission to contradict in his sermons whatever I was saying in prior homilies. He felt, as he once told me, “ I was very dedicated but was being used by the devil to destroy the Church”.  While the notion that I had that kind of power was ridiculous, it clearly represented a step in my alienation. Shortly, thereafter, I was transferred into an extraordinarily conservative parish where one of the priests apparently (unknown to me at the time) had the assignment to “straighten me out”. The contrast between my fellow priests and myself was so strong that alienation would be too mild a term to describe the situation. I was forbidden to teach Christian doctrine to the children because it was felt that I was not presenting the doctrine correctly.  Meetings with the bishop only heightened the differences between the power structure and myself. I saw no one way to resolve this degree of estrangement and I decided to leave the ministry.

Scholars, as in Dominic Crossan, Yves Congar, Bernard Lonergan, Edward Schillbeeckx, and many others had now impacted my thinking to the point that I was essentially on the road to become a non-believer. It was not a sudden awakening. Rather, it was a slow erosion of any rationalization I had for continuing to identify myself as a believer. I continued to attend Catholic liturgies by casting a liberal interpretation of what transpired.

Gary Wills’ book, Papal Sin, started the final turn towards the end. His bald, but true, claim that the pope was lying about many of the claims of the Catholic Church, e.g., Jesus established a church or a male priesthood, which were blatantly false and known to the authorities. To repeat claims and to enforce practices, e.g., birth control, that were not credible pushed him and me beyond levels of rationalizing what I heard stated either at Sunday services or other public venues. It would be hypocritical to continue to identify myself as a Christian, far less a Catholic.

However, I left open the possibility that “God” who was unknowable by definition could reference a reality that would remain unknowable but real. Such a reality would not be personal, a reality that would have a relationship with anyone more than the cosmos in general. Such a reality would be a constant, benign factor, as the Ground of Being, that would be incorporated into the interpretation of life itself.

Daniel Maguire’s latest book has moved me to the position that there is no “God”. I recommend his book for a more detailed understanding of a very complex topic. In general, however, he sets Christianity within the history of man’s history of seeking meaning to experiences in their world. Christianity builds on earlier interpretations, as a means of giving meaning to a world that appears threatening.

Maguire does not discard the value of metaphors used in Christian writings. But, metaphors are not reality. Moreover, much of Christianity falsifies Jesus by making him other than he saw himself. He did not see himself as a builder of a new religion who had to die as a sacrifice to a God who demanded justice. He did not establish a new religion with a priesthood that was designed to convey the “Truth”. He was one of many people of history in the Middle East who were prophets traveling to point out injustice in the name of the downtrodden.

Christianity, as known today, is a product of a legion of followers who saw possibilities of adding meaning to the lives of their contemporaries. The scaffolding was incrementally built during the period between Jesus’ crucifixion, resulting from his being a thorn in Rome’s pursuit of control, and Constantine who used Christianity to establish greater control of his empire.

I come, then, this point in my life when all the historical underpinnings of my understanding of existence have disappeared. There has been a slow and steady transition from a firm, if not intolerant, commitment to Catholicism, to my present understanding that there is no God, far less the apparatus of religions, including Christianity. The transition has not been sudden. There were incremental changes over fifty years.

I now revel in my understanding of the evolution of an amazing and beautiful universe in which I am fortunate to experience life. The gift of life remains as significant, if not more significant, without a God. Without a conviction of a life after death, this life becomes more precious. To remain part of this cosmos, even in dust, makes me want to do my best to love this moment in time. When considering that my “moment” in time has been relatively long, with such an array of beautiful experiences with Joan, our children and grandchildren, and so many others who have contributed to my personhood, including the authors of so much creative work, I can enter the last segment of life as one who traveled life with a willingness to learn from others and experience, itself, that change is part of life.

---

[1] You are a priest forever

"We are Better than This" by Edward D. Kleinbard

“We are Better than This” was a very difficult book to read even though the essence of the author’s intent was relatively simple.  The author, Edward Kleinbard, is not a radical person who advocates for major changes in our system of financing our nation’s interests.

The first point is that this nation was built around the general proposition documented in our Constitution that “Congress shall have Power to Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” [Article 1, Section 8]. The general welfare of the people is the underlying principle for which everything else is exercised.  I agree with his observations, voiced by so many others, that our nation’s well-being is being threatened by shabby infrastructure and poor education for many. Compared to other nations, our problems result in our being ranked very low in comparison to others.

The second point is that our taxation system is screwed up. Again, this is not news since others commonly voice their objections. Without belaboring the criticisms, there are issues with deductions and subsidies which are grouped under the general topic of tax expenditures. While anyone with a mortgage sees a personal gain in having mortgage interests deductible, all of these tax expenditures represent costs to the government. When we read that we need to raise more revenue to address our national debt, it causes us to think that the problem can be solved by raising taxes. It surely is one method of addressing the problem, but if we reduced the tax expenditures (total of $1 trillion annually), we would achieve the same end without changing the tax structure. In short, there are methods to address our nation’s fiscal problems that can be addressed by some changes in either the tax structure or tax expenditures. Note that we are the only advanced nation that does not have a single-payor healthcare system which would address our extraordinary costly fee-for-service system with a series of private health insurances.

Until the nation is willing to say “enough” to the delay in addressing our infrastructure needs and our educational problems, acutely noted in urban areas, there will little incentive for political leaders to take action. The author’s recommendations are relatively modest since there is such a huge amount of monies involved in the tax structure as well as tax expenditures that we could address our nation’s needs relatively painlessly. Some pain is inevitable. If we don’t address our nation’s infrastructure and education needs, we will suffer. The pain in introducing some changes in our tax and expenditure system seems to be relatively minor compared to the consequences of more deterioration of our infrastructure and failure to educate all of our young people.

For anyone interested in reading a great review of this book, please refer to http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2015/05/28/book-review-we-are-better-than-this/.

"This Changes Every Thing" by Naomi Klein

I have read many articles and books of Naomi Klein. I find her provocative and enlightening. One of the many books and articles I read about the fiscal crisis was her “Shock Doctrine” which focused on the ramifications of policies and actions by major funding sources, e.g., World Bank and IMF, on the target countries. Her data supports the view that often the countries in need of support become saddled with huge debt or structured policies that negatively effect generations. She has written about the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, pointing out the role of major corporations as they pursue economic gain while putting the environment at risk.

Her new book, “This Changes Every Thing”, zones in on global climate, a topic that I am most interested in. She did not have to clue me into a scenario that I often belabor, viz., we are in the process of making Mother Earth uninhabitable by human beings. It is a sad story to think that our future generations will look back at us and wonder how could we have been so irresponsible. I have ruminated about these problems on FaceBook and in prior blogs. What particularly engaged me were her views of the implications of the changes that would be required to address the onrushing devastating scenario.

Klein essentially minimized many of the efforts to lessen the release of carbon, e.g., cars with better fuel economy. It was not so much that these efforts were not better than nothing. Rather, the problem is so much bigger. And, I did become more depressed as I read her version of a world that realistically confronted the problem.  For global warming to be addressed meaningfully, it would require a world-wide change in how we grew and distributed food, met our domestic need for housing, and major changes in how our need for heat and electricity are met. She would envision a world that would produce food more efficiently with less use of chemicals and a distribution of the food that minimized transportation. She would want a world where people chose living arrangements requiring less energy and less dependency on automobiles.

Ultimately, she overwhelmed me! It is not so much that I considered her arguments and solutions in error, but rather the hopelessness of ever imaging not only our nation, but all nations cooperating in this effort to save our earth. At times like this, I may feel terribly sad about the future, but it makes being closer to death less an issue.

Fortunately, it is good that I am not left marooned on my island of despair. In discussing the book and my general agreement with the necessity to revamp the world’s way of living (and rather quickly at that), my daughter’s friend was more tolerant of the apparent slowness of the world’s governments to respond. As he referenced the relatively short history of major destruction (essentially that last 200 years since the steam engine started the series of inventions that transformed our way of living that has been destroying the planet), he felt more optimistic that we will achieve solutions that will permit humans to continue to live well on Earth. Even he could not predict the scenario that transitioned us to a better world, I was pleasantly relieved that my doomsday scenario may not be inevitable. Whether right or wrong, I will hold onto that more benign view as I continue to read about the status of our Earth’s well-being.

Holy Week is a Challenge

James Carroll's column in today's Boston Globe captures the central theme of his well documented book, "Christ Actually", viz., the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion is a primary source of the history of anti-Semitism. While church goers this week will hear versions of the crucifixion that depict Jesus as hated by his fellow Jews who wanted him dead. They will hear that Jesus died so that sinners could be saved. And, as documented by Carroll and others, it is all wrong, wrong, wrong!

Jesus was killed, along with many, many others, because he was a rabble rouser. He was a committed Jew who found the rule of the Romans to be offensive and unjust. He was one of many who protested the civil order of the day. To protect that order, Roman authorities did not think twice about crucifying the protestors. Crucifixion was just a common way of killing trouble makers.

Jesus, as were his followers for the next 40 years, was an ardent Jew. His mission was to bring the mighty down and restore the rights of the poor. After the crucifixion,  Jesus' followers continued their lives as Jews. They were "Jesus Jews", people who attended the Temple and synagogues regularly, while meeting in houses to remember Jesus. They were convinced that, in time, all Jews would be Jesus Jews.

When the hopes of Jesus Jews were dashed with the major war with the Romans around 70 AD, the Jesus Jews had to rethink their identity. The destruction of the Temple was a profound disruption in their lives. It became clear that all the Jews were not going to identify with Jesus. To make sense of what happened, they reconstructed Jesus's history to fit the events of 70 AD. They now rewrote history. Rather than Jesus being killed because he was an instigator of social unrest, they attributed his death to the Jews who became the "unbelievers". The events of history were now distorted to make sense of their horrendous suffering at the hands of the Romans.

Jesus, as now documented by so many, did suffer for his actions and validated the universal experience of suffering. Suffering was dignified and became a servant of a higher power of love. We could see in Jesus that suffering and death can be incorporated into life. We are part of a beautiful universe where "bad things happen" but then, the  bad things are ultimately coalesced into the larger power of love that is God.

While I do not claim to "know" or "understand" God, I share the convictions of others that all of us, regardless of religion, race, or behavior, are loved by God. All of creation is so loved also. Jesus did not have to suffer and die so that we could be loved by God. Jesus suffered and died and, as such, dignified the inevitable aspect of life itself. God loves because that is God. We are all united in this love and we will eternally remain as such. How all that happens is beyond me, but I am at peace knowing that I have been given a gift of life in a world that continues to expand in complexity and beauty, and I will remain in some form or other forever in the world of God.

Joan, My Gift!

Over our nearly 46 years of marriage, I have often expressed my gratitude for Joan’s loving me. (http://edwardjoseph.blogspot.com/2014/07/45th-wedding-anniversary.html,http://edwardjoseph.blogspot.com/2012/11/reflecting-on-our-mortality.html, http://edwardjoseph.blogspot.com/2014/05/mothers-day-2014.html) She has given me the ready presence of a friend with whom I can discuss anything. To have a companion that is able to deal with the various ideas bubbling in my head is a special treat.

Watching her interact with our children during their younger years is rewarded now by observing her with grandchildren. While it is hard not to love children, I realize that her gifts clearly overwhelm me. I am happy to be present and experience these moments.

When reading, I find at times a section that I want to share with Joan. This week was a portion of From Teilhard to Omega. Teilhard that captured his close relationship with a cousin (Marguerite Teilhard Chambon) while he was a student in Paris during his formative years as a Jesuit. The author of the essay, Kathleen Duffy, expressed his relationship as follows:

After not having seen each other since they were children, Teilhard and his cousin Marguerite Teilhard Chambon met and, finding that they had similar interests, immediately fell in love. From that moment, they developed a deep and lasting friendship and continued throughout their lives to relate to each other what was deepest in their souls. Teilhard confided in her; in particular, he shared with her his early mystical insights. She, on the other hand, knew his mind and provided him with the support and understanding that he needed. Yet, at the time, Teilhard, a priest and in his thirtieth year of age, was surprised by the strength of the passion aroused in him by the light shining in Marguerite’s face. In fact, he was profoundly affected by the experience. His love for Marguerite drew him out of himself, sensitized him, and stimulated his capacity for deeper and more intimate relationships.

After reading this section to Joan, I said that this matches perfectly my experience of her. As referenced in many blogs, the last thing that I expected when I was ordained was the series of experiences as a priest that radicalized me more and more to the point that I could not survive as a priest. Thinking of transitioning to an ordinary existence without any of props associated with the clergy was awesome, on one hand, but became quite ordinary since Joan was willing to walk with me.

We went to graduate school in Berkeley, CA and, later, to the University of Louisville. I had little money. Joan’s work as a pediatric nurse made do, even when it became part-time with two little children. Some how or other, I studied and worked (after the first two years), and there was still time to enjoy California. The fact that I did transition from a rather distorted environment to what is generally considered ordinary was due to Joan. She somehow made the experience seem great. And, in fact, it was.

She always provided an ear to listen to the various ideas I had. She listened and responded, as she felt compelled. Even though this type of interaction has gone on for these many years, she does not get tired of it. We seem to grow as we experience each other with our children and grandchildren. Through her, I have experienced life as normal, an accomplishment given my history.

I never have taken Joan for granted. I am constantly aware that she has been the greatest gift I could even have been given. I know that I am totally in debt to her. Whatever I have accomplished as a parent, I owe to her. Without her, I cannot imagine my life.

Dealing with Winter!

Since this weather has represented a major obstacle to daily living, I wanted to capture the positive aspects of my dealing with the weather. For sure, my experience cannot be much different from many others. We have become prisoners to the dramatically cold and stormy weather. We cannot run or walk as we normally do since the pile of snow has narrowed the streets. And even if the streets were safer to walk or run in, it has often been brutally cold. Dealing with the damage of a broken pipe, we have contributed to economic well being of a plumber, electrician and insulation professionals. The limitations caused by the weather were heightened by having four relatively young grandchildren for a week with minimal opportunities for fun outside of the walls of the house.

So what was the upside to the experience?

I used the opportunity to practice focusing on the moment. I know cognitively that there is only a series of moments that we all have. In each moment, I can be in touch with the entire universe. I can BE. It does not take bad weather to do this, but I surely realized that I was in better shape by focusing on the moment, rather than any frustration over what I could not do or what I had to do, that I did want to do, as in shoveling snow!

I treasured that I was not alone. With all the problems associated with the weather, there was this wonderful companion who always seems to deal with life so well. Watching Joan is comforting. If she can deal with it, I should be able to do so also.

With so many others, I look forward to Spring, green grass, and the routine of life crafted by many years of living. Until then, I will keep treasuring each moment, knowing that I am always loved and in that Love, I exist.

"The Shifts and the Shocks" by Martin Wolf

Martin Wolf deserves his reputation as a pre-eminent economist. In “The Shifts and the Shocks” he demonstrates his mastery over monetary and financial policies and critiques their interplay prior to, and after, the global financial crisis of 2008. He concludes with suggested changes, though with awareness that none are easy or possibly politically possible.

One has to wonder why I bother to read material that totally exceeds my capacity to comprehend. Wading through this densely written analysis of the global economic interplay between credit, debt, and assets results in an overwhelming awareness that the complexity of economics, especially when addressing how money works in a global setting, is crucially important if only understood by the few. It is good to know how much I don’t know!

After reading the book, I realize that my thoughts about the banking industry (need more equity, more regulation) are terribly simplistic. The interplay between surplus and debt is not simply an issue nationally, but it is important to consider the interplay internationally. When one nation has more money than it can usefully invest within the nation, the monies tend to be used by other nations with needs, creating debt. In an ideal economic world, it all zeroes out, i.e., surpluses and debts equal zero. Problems arise when balances are screwed up and there is a need for action by either using monetary interventions (adding money) or fiscal (policies to increase investment).

There have always been major differences in how these complex issues are addressed. And today, these differences still permeate our national politics. They are evident elsewhere, especially the Eurozone, but also in Asia and the developing nations.

If anyone wants to segue into Wolf’s most useful book, one can read the reviews in the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian, and the Economist.

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.