Sunday, 5th October 2008
Fat Cats. Greedy Pigs
It seems that our brothers and sisters that are members of the feathered kingdom are very popular with the readers of timesofmalta.com. My piece on geese and ganders became the second most commented item in this part of the virtual jungle of the web. Such love and dedication is also witnessed by the fact that the number one in the Most Commented league is a piece about the shooting of protected members of the feathered kingdom and the number three a video clip of the shooting of another member of this kingdom i.e. a stork. Alas this is no longer the case! A blog entry written by an eminent member of a THAT profession ruined the whole symmetry. And to add insult to injury this happened on October 4 which happens to be the feast of the great animal lover St Francis of the ‘Brother Sun, Sister Moon’ fame. Some people have no respect at all.
Let me again this week sing the praises of our brothers and sisters: the beasts, especially the furry and the underdressed J i.e. cats and pigs. While I profusely apologise to all cats and pigs (and their owners), I propose to use these poor animals to label those who wreaked upon us the present international financial crisis. I hope these animals won’t hold it against me.
Greed – the root of this evil
One can consider the crisis from several perspectives and viewpoints but I think that few would doubt that greed was one of its (if not the most important) roots. The desire to voraciously covet more in the shortest possible time frame at the expense of others and with little regard towards the needs and the rights of others is at the heart of greed. A certain brand of practical atheism taints this attitude and behaviour. The greedy do not believe in a provident God who provides. They want to take Her place as the providers since they either fear that they won't have enough or because they do not believe that God will provide everything that we need.
For the extravagance of the few the many were sacrificed. Common folk who toiled and sweated to put something aside for their pension funds or a rainy day face abject poverty because of the excesses of unscrupulous financial dealers. As weeks and months pass by, the little folk will feel the pinch that will eventually become a punch. Meanwhile the Fat Cats and Greedy Pigs whose speculation coupled with irresponsibility drove up the price of fuel and food and caused all this hardship will most probably be still enjoying the ill-gained fruits of their greediness.
Recently, I listened to an interview on the BBC with a former financial dealer who now writes regularly about the excesses that are rife in this sector. He mentioned a case where four dealers took a weekend off in Ibiza, an island that is the byword for unbridled excess. They spent US$25,000 each mainly on prostitutes, drugs and the VIP places in the best nightclubs. The tab was picked up by the investors of the funds they manage!
Let me share with you some reflections on this crisis from the Christian perspective.
Unable to guarantee wealth
The September 24 edition of L'Osservatore Romano published an article by the Italian economist Ettore Gotti Tedeschi who teaches financial ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy.
Gotti’s criticism of our economic system (which I read through a report of CNS ) is scathing. "Despite various attempts, the Western world does not know how to map out a model of development that is capable of guaranteeing stable wealth.”
Gotti believes that the West has not succeeded with its new economy project; it did not succeed with accelerating growth in Asia by transferring low-cost production (there), and it did not succeed after inventing a boom in the GNP through risky financial models that were poorly conceived and badly regulated.
The Italian economist noted that in order to maintain this sham GNP, the banks financed projects that were not guaranteed and that should not have been financed, like sub-prime loans. Financial institutions created an economic growth out of debt and, therefore, (created something) very risky.
Capitalism: ability to self destruct
THE TABLET’s editorial of September 20 described the catastrophe under the title “Ill wind of greed.”
“The fate of Lehmans was a dramatic demonstration of the principle of moral hazard in financial markets. Those who take large risks should have to face proportionately large consequences if things go wrong; it is moral hazard to remove risk by removing those consequences, for instance by Government intervention, thus encouraging irresponsible behaviour. That has been one of the major arguments against interfering to alter the natural outcome of market forces. But another principle has had to be given even higher priority: that governments have to ensure that financial systems do not collapse altogether.”
The Tablet went on to write that these striking failures show that the capitalist system, has an inbuilt tendency for self-destruction. It concluded: “The proposition that the common good should always trump market forces, which is at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching, has, albeit belatedly, been vindicated.”
Values before profit
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, added another tenet to the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church just referred to by The Tablet. In an address to the Italian chapter of the Aspen Institute, he said that when profit becomes the supreme value and when God is ignored the ability to recognise the common good wanes.
"When a person's only goal is his own quick profit and when short-term profit is practically identified as a good in itself, one ends up wiping out the profit itself," the Cardinal said.
Target Malta
We, being part of the world, are being affected and will continue to be affected negatively by this international crisis. Fortunately we are being assured that our financial institutions are strong enough to withstand the onslaught. We are lucky that this is so. But we have to guard against the enemy within. We witness among us clear signs of the ethos of greed and the glorification of personal and sectorial good above the common good. This ethos is the real enemy.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
Does the cap fit you?
If the cap fits you, wear it - otherwise pass it on.
Here we go again. Perhaps you'd do well to read Ms Galea's comment about my posts (just beneath your own post).
You'd also do well to notice that I never questioned the existance of God in my comments below. All I did was ask reasonable questions. Most Christians I know do not mind when people ask such questions. The most that can be said in this instance would be that my questions are off-topic. But then again, it is not me who brought the subject up.
I sympathise with you very deeply. Some blog commentators have made it their mission in life to nit-pick passages from the Old Testament intending to cast doubts about the existence of God or to question the reforming impact of Christ's messianic mission on the Moaic Law. These are the people who really deserve to be called "bible thumpers" or better still "bible bashers". It is they who are the real "fundamentalists" in the original sense of that word because they insist on a blinkered literal interpretation of bible texts ignoring the new light thrown on them by the advances of modern exegesis and scientific knowledge.
For arguments' sake I will assume that these commentators are well-intentioned and that they would be genuinely interested to discover the correct relationship between Christianity and the harsh strictures of the Old Testament that they habitually dredge up on every conceivable occasion. I respectfully suggest that they read conscientiously St Paul's epistle to the Galatians (Ch 3:13) where St Paul describes the OT Law as a "curse" from which Christ ransomed us by his crucifixion.
I'm sorry you were censored. In no way have you ever proved to be offensive in your posts, present or past. That is not my intention either.
@Charles Buttigieg.
Your inkling is incorrect :) This has developed into a very interesting discussion however I have no doubt that we are being frowned upon by the other readers who prefer to continue discussing the financial scene. Maybe in the near future, Fr Joe will present us with an opportunity to develop this subject further?
Could it be that whoever wrote the Corinthians epistle was being heavily sarcastic when he said that women should not be allowed to speak in church? I read somewhere that St Paul had a great sense of humour.
Seeing that I was already censored twice, even though my posts were not in any way offensive or libellous, I shall not attempt to reply, even though I have a lot to say on the topic.
I'll only ask you to take back your claim that "Those who have seen the light of day and discovered that real freedom lies in distrusting anything that is religious and Catholic, use their fickle knowledge of the Bible only to whip Catholics with it", which is rich coming from someone who said that "Catholics have a very strong sense of reverence towards the Bible, and they show this reverence by keeping as distant as possible from it".
Therefore, I find Christine Galea's claim that "Those who have seen the light of day and discovered that real freedom lies in distrusting anything that is religious and Catholic, use their fickle knowledge of the Bible only to whip Catholics with it", to be very unfair, particularly when she also says that "Catholics have a very strong sense of reverence towards the Bible, and they show this reverence by keeping as distant as possible from it".
I would think that it is people who "keep distant from the Bible" who have "fickle knowledge" about it.
Rest assured the Word of God is not sexist.
Paul, or whoever was the inspired author of 1Cor 14,35, was very much aware of the dearth of preparation women had in those days. Allowing someone to speak in an assembly without having the necessary preparation is tantamount to inviting havoc. So he ordered that women should not speak in the assembly. Within the context of 1Cor, where Paul is arguing on the solidity of the community being built on love just as the Body of Christ is built, that makes much sense, since loving a community implies being duly prepared for a particular ministry. Maybe Paul was also criticizing the men in his community on the grounds of his argument in Eph5, wherein he tells men to love women as they do themselves. Within the whole Pauline Corpus, this links to what Paul says in Gal: there is now in Christ no Jew or Greek, no freeman or slave, no woman or man: all are one in Christ. Regarding equality, Paul was very clear! But performing a particular ministry (which the community has given you) is a responsibility that has preparation at its basis.
I think Kenneth is right on one thing........ its best if we agree to disagree on this!! We shall never reach an amicable conclusion on this issue :)
Our Church now allows women to handle the Holy Communion, some of the other denominations now allow females to became alter girls and priests, so on and so forth. Are we trying to convince that God is selective and\or changes his mind when He is bestowing his inspiration\s?
"So whether Paul or any one of his disciples wrote the Pastoral Letters does not make any difference as to inspiration. It still is the Word of God".
Sorry, but I insist that "Women should be silent in the church because it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be subject as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church” cannot be the Word of God.
We have to agree to disagree, since on my part, I cannot accept that any "Word of God" could be sexist.
I know I said I wouldn't go on but please permit me to make a few more remarks:
First of all, in every interpretation of any piece of the Bible, we cannot just pick up and apply without bridging the distance, context, and concrete situation. That would be sheer fundamentalism! 2Tim 3,16 says that ALL Scriptures are inspired (actually the Greek can mean: inspired passively by God, or they respire, breathe God – active inspiration). So whether Paul or any one of his disciples wrote the Pastoral Letters does not make any difference as to inspiration. It still is the Word of God.
Arguing on these issues in such a restricted forum such as a blog is insufficient. From experience Paul Claudel’s adage verifies itself all the time: Catholics have a very strong sense of reverence towards the Bible, and they show this reverence by keeping as distant as possible from it. Those who have seen the light of day and discovered that real freedom lies in distrusting anything that is religious and Catholic, use their fickle knowledge of the Bible only to whip Catholics with it.
Over to those discussing the financial scene.........
I think you know that I meant it as obvious in the opposite way. I honestly can't believe that anything sexist could ever be "inspired" by an omniscient and just God, unless inspired is defined in a way that completely loses its meaning. I also cannot believe that two contradictory statements could both be inspired by the same entity.
After all, you yourself claim that "the words contradict Paul’s acceptance and commendation of women’s leadership" in support of your claim that it was probably written by someone other than St Paul.
The way I see it, either St Paul was inspired, or the other person was.
The way out of this mess is for one to concede that someone got the wrong message.
The agenda of the rich world, fighting the financial crisis
The agenda of the developing world, fighting poverty.
One has to see how the first will impact the second. This is foremost on the mind of the UN Sec Gen who said that the international community’s resolve to help the world's "bottom billion" - those who live on less than $1 a day must not waver. Member states pledged $16 billion to help the U.N. meet targets of cutting poverty and disease worldwide by 2015. Donors in the past have already fallen behind their commitments, sowing resentment among African leaders. A notable case in point being the outburst in May by President Wade of Senegal.
"Everyone has felt the earthquake on Wall Street," said the U.N. chief at a recent meeting of member states, "But it has not shaken our resolve. Banks may be failing, but the world's bottom billion can bank on us."
I guess that it’s a “let’s-wait-and-see scenario” at this point. Let’s hope that this financial crisis does not become a human crisis since most on the planet are already merely surviving and not thriving.
Why spending say 2 or 3 Trillion dollars in a few years to control lessor value in oil, amognst the killing of lives? It is banking control, the power to control money supply is the greatest evil of all.
"A man distracted is a man defeated." Redbelt (2008)
I love the US, but they are so lied to, and most of the world too, are in ignorance, and more importantly spiritual ignorance.
"No country and no people can be free and ignorant at the same time." - Thomas Jefferson
Look up for yourself all about the New World Order, in order to free yourselves from the general media, that throws at you whatever they want to.
What went wrong on earth? We did not listen to the bible on the horrendous hazards of usury, that is interest (any even 1%) is prohibited. Imagine in 1917 one US dollar is now worth only 3 cents in 1990. What went wrong here?
In the US, the worst case scenario is with them and us in Europe. The Federal Reserve which is supposed to be its Central Bank, is neither Federal and nor a Reserve. Not Federal in that it is a cartel owned by private banks not by any government agency.
It has the appearance of a public entity, but it is not. This is why President Kennedy wrote executive order 1110 (or numbered simiilarly) to abolish the FED. This is why they killed him. The US could have borrowed money at no interest, should it wanted.
Did you know that banks create money and thus inflation? Is it not that inflation robs you and me of our wealth, by stealth?
The bankers wanted Iraq and Afganistan, and soon perhaps Iran. Continued
Yes, Kenneth, of course its obvious :)
Please see my previous comment: "all the Books of the Bible, including the Epistles are the inspired Word of God".
Over and out!
Fair enough, although I do believe that the answer to my question is pretty obvious.
Much as I am enjoying this debate it is far removed from the subject addressed by this particular blog. If you are interested in knowing more, may I suggest you read a couple of reliable biblical commentaries on the Pauline Epistles maybe by Fitzmyer or Brown.
Yes, your explanation clarifies things somewhat but leaves a very important issue unaddressed.
At this point, it's not important whether the passage about women remaining silent was written by St Paul or someone else. What matters is that it is still an integral part of the New Testament and, as such, is inspired by God.
This is not the Old Testament we're talking about, which is full of metaphors and many passages are not to be taken literally. In this case, I don't know how the "Corinthians" passage can be interpreted except literally.
So would it be correct to say that that particular piece attributed to St Paul was not inspired by God?
Yes, all the Books of the Bible, including the Epistles are the inspired Word of God and we continue to view them as such, however biblical scholarship uses a number of methods like historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author.
By today's standards, this could be considered a forgery-- much as would a modern day writer composing a letter and promoting the letter as having been written by someone else.
But that is judging 1st century CE traditions by today's ethical standards. As stated in the New Jerusalem Bible 1:
"The best explanation may be that the Pastoral Epistles are letters written by a follower of Paul, conscious of inheriting his mantle and seeking to give advice and instruction for the administration of local churches. This adoption of a revered name in such circumstances was a literary convention of the times."
I hope this clarifies my previous comment.
"Paul may be attributed to have said that, however it is today generally conceded by scholars that this was not part of the original text"
Do you mean to say that the excerpt is going to be removed from the Gospel? It was either written by St Paul or wasn't; in the latter case it's a fake. We believe that all the words of the Gospel, including the Epistles, were inspired by God so, what about this bit we're talking about?
They all agreed that they should all guarantee bank deposits up to Euro100,000.
This initiative provides a harmonious stand that produces a necessary common deposit platform.
The action to guarantee deposits is therefore NOT a Malta initiative but an EU initiative.
Why some can not understand this simple fact I have no idea. Or do I?
I don't think its a matter of picking and choosing who to believe. It's more a question of interpreting any given text wholistically rather than simply taking the words literally.
Why this announcement?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081008/local/dddd
What I mean is that we can only make clear distinction between humans and other ape species (for instance) only because all the intermediaries between the two species happen to be dead (and extinct). If natural selection allowed for all intermediaries to continue to exist, it would be an impossible task to make out the dividing line where the other species ends and the human one begins.
From the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/business/economy/07lehman.html?bl&ex=1223611200&en=6c2c0d7539595be6&ei=5087%0A
The idea of Divinely ordained stewardship predates knowledge about evolution.
If one believes in evolution, humans as we know them today, branched off from common ancestors with another species, the branching off being gradual and taking perhaps millions of years. It is only with hindsight that we can make a clear distinction between (for instance) humans and other apes. There must have been a time (at the branching point) where the distinction was quite negligible, before which point, the ancestor was common to both separate branching out species.
This effectively means that the capacity to act as stewards would have been built gradually (one ancestor being less capable than his/her descendant), and going back enough in time, the capacity for stewardship would have been none at all.
Now, if one postulates the introduction of Divinely ordained stewardship of "animals" (to Adam and Eve (A&E), for instance), one would have to believe that A&E (the "first humans") would have been significantly different from their immediate ancestors, and so on back in time.
Of course, if one rejects evolution (despite the evidence), this problem is avoided.
Part one
The question on everyone’s lips is: Who is responsible for the astonishing turmoil seen on the world’s financial markets?
Is it the Gordon Gekko-style “spivs” mentioned by Fr Joe?
Is it the new generation of buccaneering bank CEOs who came of age during a period of unprecedented optimism and were too young to remember that what goes up must come down?
What is causing widespread indignation is that those who should have exercised greater prudence have already banked the gains from these good times and have a nest egg to sustain them even if they do lose their jobs. Many still have their hands on the rudder even if the ship has sunk. They have taken rewards while not risking their own necks. Many ordinary people who lost everything or are at the verge of losing everything are bewildered that those who are most culpable are not.
For example, that Andy Hornby, the chief executive of HBOS and the wunderkind of British finance, will still keep a role with the new merged bank will do little to assuage this sense of disbelief
Is it the mortgage brokers who joked about the “ninjas” to whom they lent money? (The acronym means no income, no job, no assets.)
Most say that it is the cheap credit that leaked into every crook of finance, just as in the 1929 crash. It detonated a speculative boom that hedge funds and short-sellers merely exploited.
Wealth without work is a fantasy unless it is inherited or won; some have not yet learnt that in order to obtain something we covet, it is necessary to put something aside towards it.
In the Oliver Stone film Wall Street (1987), Gekko says: “Greed is good, greed is right, greed works”. Indeed, some of it is required to lubricate the wheels of capitalism. But too much greed is destructive because it chips away at trust. Many lay the blame at the US government’s door for failing to step in and regulate the over- the-top loans that went over an average salary by ten times.
To quote the film’s tagline: Every dream has a price.
The tragedy is that eventually the whole world will be paying it.
I agree that we shall be negatively impacted by the slowdown(or worse) of the global economy made worse by the credit cruch.
What we hope to avoid is the credit cruch itself if we can keep a level of confidence. This we have managed to date.
We certainly can not avoid the consequences of recession or worse. We are not at all rich and that may in a funny way mean less turmoil as fewer people will/are losing massive amounts as borses contract to significant degrees. Hopefully inflationary pressures will ease as oil will stay in the 80 dollar bracket and interest rates are brought down as demand shrinks. If we manage to hold on to our personal income it may not be too bad for the have-little.
Regards and greetings
The second account of creation found in Genesis, emphasizes the idea of stewardship. Man, as the "imago Dei", cannot use the things of this world in ways that demean their value or violate the natural moral law.
Thus, as moral theologian Germain Grisez points out, humans “are responsible for [nature] but not to it, as if it shared in the dignity and fundamental rights which they themselves enjoy as persons made in God’s image.”
Man was certainly not "given this earth to greedily consume" it . Rather, humankind are charged with authority over the material world, and the responsibility of exercising it in ways that allow God’s original creative act to be further unfolded. In this sense, human beings are co-creators with God.
Paul may be attributed to have said that, however it is today generally conceded by scholars that this was not part of the original text, since the words contradict Paul’s acceptance and commendation of women’s leadership. They also contradict an earlier passage, where Paul assumes that women do both pray and prophesy in the Corinthian community (Cor 11:5). The silencing of women does not make sense coming from Paul. Women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia – upon whom Paul largely depended to help him in his ministry - could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.
I think we can pin Paul's general attitude towards women on historical and cultural considerations: as an educated Jew and intellectual heir to the Hellenism that was prevalent at the time, Paul was, after all, as much a child of his age and upbringing as everyone else. Nowhere in the Pauline texts do we have an extended exposition on the subject of women; all we have are brief references in his Letters, which were devoted to a variety of issues, and in none of them were women his primary concern.
Shades of Schadenfreude
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161649
and an article by Francis Fukuyama
The Fall of America, Inc.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401
"they do not believe that God will provide everything that we need."
if you really think that god provides you with everything then please explain why millions die from famine?
Perhaps while trying to impress us with your knowledge of ‘The letters of Paul’ you should attempt to disprove some of the most popular negative thoughts about Paul's abstractness, abrasiveness, dogmatic stance, and his patriarchal, chauvinistic, anti-feminine characteristics . You ought to give it a shot. Have a go at a passage in the first Letter to the Corinthians which runs: “Women should be silent in the church because it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be subject as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Cor 14, 34.35)
I do not disagree with what you write but I note an air of self-satisfaction that Malta will escape the current problems sweeping over both the USA and Europe-and indeed Asia.
I am aware that Malta is a rich country but in a peculiar fashion and it will be most surprising
if it is not affected by the problems suffusing Europe.
Time will tell in this matter.
1.The aggresive Home-loan policy by American and British institutions (influenced by profit-pressures to satisfy financial markets) resulted in chunks of loans becoming stale (toxic).
2. Investment Banks attractively packaged these sly loans (some sitting on their books) and sold them off to other financial institutions.
Part2.
1. Some banks finance normal growth through the inter-bank market (ie banks lending to other banks). Many banks have surplus cash to lend out to other banks.
2. When it became known that some institutions bought toxic US home-loans, Banks were afraid to lend to other institutions not knowing who was exposed to toxic loans.
3. This caused a credit-crunch on institutions relying on short-term bank-loans, as other banks are highly liquid.
4. Some of the highly liquid banks (exLloyds) actually bought out other banks.
In principle, many banks are comfortably liquid. It now all boils down to confidence. We do not afford not to be confident because we sink or swim all togther. There are no exist-routes for anyone.
Local authorities have confirmed that none of our banks rely on short-term borrowing to finance their business and none carry toxic debt. Not reason to be smug perhaps but reason to be confident.
"Doing nothing to sustain oneself is also to be abhorred. In another NT text (2 Thessalonians 3, 11) we find a scathing rebuke to those Christians who were sitting around doing nothing while waiting for the second coming of the Lord: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies”"
I'm glad you wrote this, and I think more people should take this more seriously. I personally am very worried when, for instance, some people have more children than they can afford, and say "God will provide" (actually we do, through our taxes).
As for the rest of your post...I'm basically in agreement.
That's why 'God Bless America'.
So I do not wholly trust our financial institutions when they assure us that we will not be affected.
In his blog Fr Joe made an allusion to a New Testament text, namely 1 Timothy 6, 10 (a letter by Paul) when Fr Joe wrote ‘greed is the root of all evil’. We all know the saying ‘Money is the root of all evil’ and maybe few of us know that we are actually misquoting Paul for the latter made a very important qualification. He actually wrote “for the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.
This leads to a question: For the believer, how much is enough?
Paul tells us that the Christian's goal with respect to material things is godliness with contentment. Godliness in Paul's vocabulary means the genuine Christian life, a faith-relationship with God and a new way of life. Contentment is a Pauline word in the New Testament (2 Cor 9,8; also Phil 4,11). Paul, being cosmopolitan and immersed in Hellenistic culture, must have borrowed it from Stoic philosophy, where it defined an attitude of "self-sufficiency," meaning detachment or independence from things or possessions.
To ground his view of contentment, Paul also draws on Old Testament wisdom. Both Job 1,21 and Ecclesiastes 5,15 expound the principle that material things belong only to this world. Things have no lasting value and provide no eternal advantage. Therefore one's contentment cannot stem only from things.
An obsession with acquiring wealth is a self-feeding fire. It consumes not only time and energy but also values. As John Chrysostom said, "Riches are not forbidden, but the price of them is."
Paul sets out for his readers the dangers of the love of money in both general and specific terms. In Greek, Paul emphasizes with a verb that means to plunge (as if to drown) and two nouns that combine to describe complete destruction.
The ‘root’ metaphor contains an important truth. The hidden root is the source of life. If one is to rid a garden of weeds, the roots must come out. Similarly, Paul's hearers must not simply treat the problems caused by greed. They must tear out the root that produces the problems.
Fr Joe also said that the greedy do not believe in God that provides. But the believer who totally depends on God for his or her sustenance is not to be admired. Doing nothing to sustain oneself is also to be abhorred. In another NT text (2 Thessalonians 3, 11) we find a scathing rebuke to those Christians who were sitting around doing nothing while waiting for the second coming of the Lord: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies”
In a nutshell, greed is a ‘love’ that consumes. It is up to each of us to see what is being consumed…what values are being consumed - family life, health, altruism etc.
In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953). It is not difficult to discover the truly astonishing wealth of the church, once we add the riches of the twenty-eight archdioceses and 122 dioceses of the U.S.A., some of which are even wealthier than that of Boston.
It is partly amusing, and partly painful, seeing the church posing as some kind of giver of economic values when it refers to events fuelled by money that has 'In God We Trust' printed over it.
So the Church wants a heads you lose tails I win situation. Please let us get real.
Quite apart from the "no man is an island" syndrome I have observed over the decades that what happens in the USA moves over to the UK and trickles down to Malta (supermarkets and so on) now Malta is free of the UK but attached to the EU-and the EU is in turmoil.
If only through tourism-your lifeblood- Malta is going to suffer and since there isa little beyond construction to invest in Malta that particular bubble is due to burst.
You heard it here first!
I think you will find that the most vociferous and hard-deaded in favour of unregulated capitalism are often the most religious-minded verging on fundamentalism. It is no coincidence that the majority of those who voted AGAINST Bush's bail-out plan are Republicans, precisely because they sensed that such a bail-out plan would be the beginning of the demise of unregulated capitalism.
"Practical atheism" has nothing to do with this. Atheism is defined as unbelief in God, and has nothing to do with ignoring God.
While it may be true that "the greedy do not believe in a God who provides", you must be careful about making such assertions without qualifying them with an explanation. Such a simplistic assertion would lead to the conclusion that the religious are lazy because they know that God will provide.
In the case of the United States, regulations were lax and on top of it they were not observed. Mortgages were granted just for the asking and inadequate applicant screening allowed unqualified applicants to obtain a home they could ill afford. The first incidence of illness or job loss made it impossible for these homeowners to keep up their payments. Thousands lost their homes with the result that house prices have plummeted. Those who thought that they had a 50% equity are now finding that their home is not worth any more than what they owe on it. This creates a vicious circle where these homeowners suddenly have no incentive to protect their investment because now they have none.
Hopefully in Malta this is not the case for two reasons. One. Grand scale borrowing for a home is relatively new and Two - It is believed that banks in Malta are more conservative.
In my opinion you demonstrate a befuddled understanding of events, yet I will only comment on your suggestion that our Church is a light on financial ethics.
For shall we have others test the statement:
'The greedy do not believe in a provident God who provides'
by going over events when the Holy See lost some $30 million following the collapse of the Franklin National Bank of Sindona who later died in prison after drinking coffee laced with cyanide?
Or the collapse of Banco Ambrosiano in 1982 and the Calvi affair following debts of up to 1.5 billion US dollars siphoned off via its main shareholder, the Vatican Bank (Institute of Religious Works), and how in 1984, the Vatican Bank agreed to pay US$224 million as recognition of moral involvement in the bank's collapse?
Decades in the making, the current international crises is a complex intertwining of commercial, physiological, financial, regulatory, economic, voracious etc. impulses. Putting it down to practical atheism is in my opinion simplistic, opportunistic and counter-productive to an extreme.
It is a pity that your mention of St Francis was limited to your preamble. For he should indeed a light that floods our path.