Pazdziernik II

American Decentrialization

I just finished Senator Jim DeMint's (R-South Carolina) book The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changes America, Washington, and Me (2011) on the rise of the Tea Party and principled conservatism in 2009. I highly recommend this well-written and short book.

In keeping with the "short" theme of Senator DeMint's Book I decided to limit my self to a single citation which, in my estimation sums up, the Tea Party and principled conservatism: decentralization.

Decentralization is not a new idea for American government; it is the idea. It's called federalism. In America's original design, individuals held most of the authority and responsibility in America. From the individual, authority moved to families, churches, and volunteer organizations. Local and state governments provided a framework of law and order, and the federal government was created by the states to provide for the national defense, ensure justice, and to facilitate interstate commerce. But very little of what federal government does today was ever intended to be functions of a centralized national government.

There are two good reasons why we must restructure the federal government and devolve many federal programs back to the states: (1) we can't afford them, and (2) it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the federal government cannot manage programs effectively or cost-efficiently.

The question Americans should be asking is not what else the federal government should do to solve out problems, but what the federal government must let go of to save our nation.

Blessed Angela of Foligno (1248-1309)

After reading some excerpts of Pope Benedict XVI's General Audience of October 13, 2010 on Blessed Angela of Foligno I discovered that I found the motivation to add her writings to my next cycle of personal spiritual readings. I am well aware of the dangers of a layman reading mystical writings because in the normal course most laymen do not have mystical experiences. Such experiences are a singular gift from God for the individual who receives them. One who is scrupulous can easily discouraged. One who is lax can easily get cynical.

Nevertheless, the writings of a Church-proclaimed Blessed are sure to bring fruit. I was fortunate to have received the Blessed Angela's Complete Works as a Christmas gift and have begun my reading. So far I think I have made a good selection. The author begins by placing Blessed Angela in context of her times with an emphasis on the ecclesial and spiritual currents of women in late 13th century Italy. I hope to have additional posts at a later time.

 

 From Pope Benedict's Address of October 13, 2010...

People are usually fascinated by the consummate experience of union with God that she reached, but perhaps they give too little consideration to her first steps, her conversion and the long journey that led from her starting point, the "great fear of hell", to her goal, total union with the Trinity. The first part of Angela's life was certainly not that of a fervent disciple of the Lord. She was born into a well-off family in about 1248. Her father died and she was brought up in a somewhat superficial manner by her mother. She was introduced at a rather young age into the worldly circles of the town of Foligno, where she met a man whom she married at the age of 20 and to whom she bore children. Her life was so carefree that she was even contemptuous of the so-called "penitents", who abounded in that period; they were people who, in order to follow Christ, sold their possessions and lived in prayer, fasting, in service to the Church and in charity.

Certain events, such as the violent earthquake in 1279, a hurricane, the endless war against Perugia and its harsh consequences, affected the life of Angela who little by little became aware of her sins, until she took a decisive step. In 1285 she called upon St Francis, who appeared to her in a vision and asked his advice on making a good general Confession. She then went to Confession with a Friar in San Feliciano. Three years later, on her path of conversion she reached another turning point: she was released from any emotional ties. In the space of a few months, her mother's death was followed by the death of her husband and those of all her children. She therefore sold her possessions and in 1291 enrolled in the Third Order of St Francis. She died in Foligno on 4 January 1309.

...

Blessed Angela's life began with a worldly existence, rather remote from God. Yet her meeting with the figure of St Francis and, finally, her meeting with Christ Crucified reawakened her soul to the presence of God, for the reason that with God alone life becomes true life, because, in sorrow for sin, it becomes love and joy. And this is how Blessed Angela speaks to us. Today we all risk living as though God did not exist; he seems so distant from daily life. However, God has thousands of ways of his own for each one, to make himself present in the soul, to show that he exists and knows and loves me. And Blessed Angela wishes to make us attentive to these signs with which the Lord touches our soul, attentive to God's presence, so as to learn the way with God and towards God, in communion with Christ Crucified.

 

 

Image: Angela of Foligno : Complete Works (Classics of Western Spirituality) Amazon.com

Psalm 37 NIV

I've always liked Psalm 37.... 37:11 is referenced in St. Matthew's Gospel "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5 KJB ) This is one of my favorite verses of Scripture. I was thinking of the current financial crises of credit, personal responsibility and government intervention as I came across verse 37:21 : "The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously". 

So, here's some inspired text for your day as an alternative to braying.

1 Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 

2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. 

3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 

4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 

5 Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this: 

6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. 

7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 

8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil. 

9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. 

10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. 

11 But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace. 

12 The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them; 

13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. 

14 The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright. 

15 But their swords will pierce their own hearts, and their bows will be broken. 

16 Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked; 

17 for the power of the wicked will be broken, but the LORD upholds the righteous. 

18 The days of the blameless are known to the LORD, and their inheritance will endure forever. 

19 In times of disaster they will not wither; in days of famine they will enjoy plenty. 

20 But the wicked will perish: The LORD's enemies will be like the beauty of the fields, they will vanish—vanish like smoke. 

21 The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously; 

22 those the LORD blesses will inherit the land, but those he curses will be cut off. 

23 If the LORD delights in a man's way, he makes his steps firm; 

24 though he stumble, he will not fall, for the LORD upholds him with his hand. 

25 I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. 

26 They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed. 

27 Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever. 

28 For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off; 

29 the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever. 

30 The mouth of the righteous man utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks what is just. 

31 The law of his God is in his heart; his feet do not slip. 

32 The wicked lie in wait for the righteous, seeking their very lives; 

33 but the LORD will not leave them in their power or let them be condemned when brought to trial. 

34 Wait for the LORD and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off, you will see it. 

35 I have seen a wicked and ruthless man flourishing like a green tree in its native soil, 

36 but he soon passed away and was no more; though I looked for him, he could not be found. 

37 Consider the blameless, observe the upright; there is a future for the man of peace. 

38 But all sinners will be destroyed; the future of the wicked will be cut off. 

39 The salvation of the righteous comes from the LORD; he is their stronghold in time of trouble. 

40 The LORD helps them and delivers them; he delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they take refuge in him.

Psalm 37: New International Version 

Tags: Psalm 37

The Brothers Karamazov

 

I’m happy to report that I have finally finished Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s (1821-1881) The Brothers Karamazov (1880, David Magarshack translation). The Brothers Karamazov was the last of Dostoyevsky’s novels. Sigmund Freud, Franz Kafka, James Joyce and Kurt Vonnegut, among others, have all praised it. Freud and Kafka, in particular, have cited it as an influence for their own works. Recently The Art of Manliness listed it on their compilation of “manly books”: 100 Must-Read Books: The Essential Man’s Library . 

The Brothers Karamazov is about Fyodor Karamazov, 55, and his three sons Dmitry (Mita), 28, Ivan ,24, and Alexy, 20, by two legitimate wives. The oldest son, Dmitry, is impetuous, wild and violent. He is engaged to Katerina but is in love with Grushenka as well. His father is also in love with Grushenka. Dmitry is abusive towards his father and feels that he has been cheated out of his inheritance of 3000 rubles. Dmitry is accused of parricide and stealing the money from his father. Although “overwhelming” evidence point to Dmitry’s guilt, he maintains that he is a “blackguard” [n. (dated) a person, particularly a man, who behaves in a dishonorable or contemptible way] but not a murder and a thief. 

Some suspect that Smerdyakov, Fyodor Karamazov’s lackey, servant, cook, and perhaps also his illegitimate son with “Stinking Lizaveta”, could have been the murderer. I won’t give away any spoilers here as to who actually committed the murder. 

Although Mita’s ordeal is the main focus of this novel, Dostoyevsky gives equal time to all three brothers. The youngest, Alexy, is a Russian Orthodox novice who befriends many children and holds the respect of all. His friendship with many of the schoolboys as well as his relationship with the monk, Zossima, the elder, provides for many other threads to this novel. 

The centerpiece and perhaps also the masterpiece of The Brothers Karamazov is the poem-story Ivan tells to Alexy: “The Grand Inquisitor”. It is the story of Christ returning in visible bodily form to Seville, Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. People recognize his for who he is but do not want him to “meddle” with them. They arrest Christ and he remains silent throughout their interrogations. Dostoyevsky through “The Grand Inquisitor” provides a great piece for spiritual reflection. 

Any worthy novel should provide both recognition of us and many departure points for a fuller contact with a range of realities. A good story may always have much more effect that rhetoric. Dostoyevsky uses The Brothers Karamazov to express ideals in his art of narrative that are much more effective than today’s television pundits, for example. 

Through the Elder Zossima, Dostoyevsky gives great spiritual direction in the Christian tradition.

Above all, don’t lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and who listens to his own lies gets to a point where he can’t distinguish and truth in himself or in those around him, and so looses all respect for himself and for others. Having no respect for anyone, he ceases to love, and to occupy and distract himself without love he becomes a prey to his passions and gives himself up to coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, and all this from continual lying to people and to himself. A man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. For it is sometimes vary pleasant to take offense, isn’t it? And yet he knows that no one has offended him and that he has lied just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated to make himself look big and important, that he has fastened on a phrase and made a mountain of a molehill — he knows it all and yet is the first to take offence, he finds pleasure in it and feels mightily satisfied with himself, and so reaches the point of enmity…

In Dmitry’s trial, Dostoyevsky, through his defense counsel, has much to say on mercy, justice and the Spirit of the Law.

There are men who in their narrow-mindedness blame the whole world. But crush them with mercy, show them love, and they will curse their past deeds, for there are a great many potentialities for good in them. Their hearts will swell and they will see that God is merciful and that men are just and fair. Such a man will be horror-stricken, crushed by remorse and the great debt that he has to repay henceforth. And he will not say then, “I’m quits,” but will say, “I am guilty in the sight of all men and I am more unworthy than all.” With tears of penitence and poignant, tender emotion, he will cry: “Other people are better than I, for they wished to save me an not to ruin me!” 

… Let other nations adhere to the letter of the law and exact punishment, we will adhere to its spirit and meaning — the salvation and regeneration of the lost.

Dostoyevsky presents, burden, guilt, mercy, justice, passion, ideals, love, truth masterfully in The Brothers Karamazov. 

Related: The Brothers Karamazov: An Onion , Active Love In Russia , Spe Salvi: Greatest Hits 

Photo: Russian village ©Maxym Boner 

Tags: Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, David Magarshack

Jesus of Israel

“Intellectual humility is the most important rule for whoever seeks to penetrate supernatural reality, starting with sacred writings.” (Pope Benedict XVI, June 2, 2008 St. Peter’s Square)

“We can understand Christian experience only with difficulty if we are unwilling to relive the history of the people of Israel, in all its aspects and all its drama.” (Monsignor Luigi Giussani, Founder of the Communion and Liberation Apostolic Movement, The Psalms, Crossroad, 2004) 

Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body. In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them." (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, Nos. 102-104) 

Jesus of Israel: Finding Christ in the Old Testament by Fr. Richard Veras (Servant Books 2007) is an excellent resource for helping one to understand God’s activity in the world before the Incarnation. It is written at a high-school level but even younger readers could benefit as well. In particular, Jesus of Israel draws out the numerous Old Testament foreshadowings of God-become-man, Jesus Christ. 

So just to be sure we are all on the same page here, let’s remember what the Catholic Church teaches authoritatively on the value of the Old Testament (a.k.a. Hebrew Scriptures):

“Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).” (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, Nos. 123)

With all good presentations, motivation is the key. (Full disclosure: I was also “motivated” to get this selection off of my Amazon wish list!)

If we do not understand and remember all that God did to prepare the Jewish people and the world (in that order!) for the coming of Jesus Christ, if we don’t recognize Jesus as the fulfillment of this long history, then Jesus can seem to us like just any other religious figure, not much different from others whose altruism and godliness have distinguished them. His claim of divinity can seem a bit outlandish. We can think of Christianity as “my religion” the way America is “my country” or my old high school or college is “me alma mater.” We can see our devotion to Jesus as not much different from the devotion of those of other faiths. Our faith can become generic and our worship formalistic.

With 46 books in the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one), Fr. Veras has much material to choose from. Fr. Veras in Jesus of Israel gives a most profound and yet simple reconciliation of the two creation narratives found in Genesis (1:1-2:3; 2:4-25). It is certainly the best explanation that I have come across to date.

The two stories show us that man himself is a mystery, a paradox, a reality that needs to be revealed to us. 

… 

The first description reveals a “divine” God: mysterious, powerful, beyond. The second description reveals a very “human” god, a physical person who walks among us. A God who is divine and human? Is this what you expect in the opening pages of the Old Testament?

 When we put the two descriptions of man together, we see a true revelation of who man is. When we put together the two descriptions of God, we see the beginnings of the revelation of who God is, for we have the foreshadowing of the fullness of God’s revelation: Jesus Christ. The stories together show us the unimaginable mystery of God, which will be fully revealed in a way we can see and touch at the Incarnation, the literal unity of divine and human. 

… 

[T]he two creation stories are no more separable than the divinity and humanity of Christ. They exist together as one, and only in this way do they reveal the mystery of God and man.

Fr. Veras writes in a very easy style with anecdotes from his own life and from his experience as a teacher and priest. His comments on contemporary students and Catholics really “hit the mark” in terms of motivating one to go deeper into the Old Testament in order to discover the New Testament. 

In nearly every page Jesus of Israel successfully dismissed the silly claim — unfortunately still found in some Catholic catechetical circles — that that God of the Old Testament was one of "destruction and wrath" while the God of the New Testament is completely different: one of "love, peace and forgiveness".

Recall the Jewish notion of memory. The Passover, which remembers and makes present the Exodus, and the Mass, which remembers and makes present the death and resurrection of Christ, are both repeated for this very reason: that we never make the grave mistake of losing hope in God, whose mercy endures forever and is present and operative now. 

How sad that so many people image God to be like a stern judge, ready to condemn us with our long list of evil deeds. This is not the God Jesus Christ revealed, and this is not as many mistakenly believe, the God the Old Testament reveals to us. Abraham merely had to say yes and trust in God’s promise.

Jesus of Israel is Fr. Veras’ first book publication. I hope that there are many more to come, else I suppose I may have to subscribe to Magnificat , of which he is a frequent contributor. 

For all the added value of wonderful insights Fr. Veras brings to connecting the Old Testament and the New Testament, perhaps the most insightful can be overlooked by a cursory reading: “Every personal sin begins with doubt.” 

Tags: Richard Veras, Old Testament, Sacred Scripture, Catholic Apologetics

The Brothers Karamazov: An Onion

I’m continuing to read Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov [Братья Карамазовы] (1880) and hope to have it finished this summer. Dostoyevsky, a real genius, cleverly weaves reflections of theology and philosophy into his story of The Brothers Karamazov. It’s a real nice novel with depth on the human condition — as all good novels should be. So here I just want to present a quick snippet of his fairy tale in his chapter titled “An Onion”. 

The Onion fairy tale is far from either Catholic or Orthodox theology; Dostoyevsky’s (1821-1881) writings, like Dante Alighieri’s (1265-1321), certainly are not magisterial in any degree. Yet this fairy tale is a good image to illustrate mercy — and worthy of being presented here! 

‘Once upon a time there was a peasant woman and a very wicked woman she was. And she died and did not leave a single good deed behind. The devils caught her and plunged her into the lake of fire. So her guardian angel stood and wondered what good deed of hers he could remember to tell to God; ‘she once pulled up an onion in her garden,’ said he, ‘and gave it to a beggar woman.’ And God answered: ‘You take that onion then, hold it out to her in the lake, and let her take hold and be pulled out. And if you can pull her out of the lake, let her come to Paradise, but if the onion breaks, then the woman must stay where she is.’ The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her; ‘Come,’ said he, ‘catch hold and I’ll pull you out.’ And he began cautiously pulling her out. He had just pulled her right out, when the other sinners in the lake, seeing how she was being drawn out, began catching hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she was a very wicked woman and she began kicking them. ‘I’m to be pulled out, not you. It’s my onion, not yours.’ As soon as she said that, the onion broke. And the woman fell into the lake and she is burning there to this day. So the angel wept and went away. 

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Matthew 5:7 (NIV)

Photo: Star of Persia, ornamental onion (Allium christophil). © Zoran Ivanovic 

Tags: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Fairy Tale

Peter Kreeft in The Boston Globe

Boston College Professor Peter Kreeft , 70, was interviewed recently by the Boston Globe (Expressing love when we're still able by Rich Barlow) on his new book, Before I Go : Letters to Our Children About What Really Matters (Rowman & Littlefield).

I’ve read several of Kreeft’s works including, Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing (1989), C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium : Six Essays on the Abolition of Man (1994) and A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews With an Absolutist (1999) and have met him once in person. I have nothing but high regard and confidence in his work. I’m sure his latest book will not disappoint either. He certainly writes in a popular and enjoyable style for so-called “ordinary folk” like myself.

Anyway, his responses to some questions in the Boston Globe interview are well-worth remembering. Hopefully I will be able to give the same responses “off the cuff” someday as well!

Q. You start the book saying you wish you'd been a wiser and more present parent for your children. What regrets do you have as a parent? A. Like most parents, we had good will but not the expertise we wish we had. Back in Victorian days, the father was the paterfamilias who would lecture at the dinner table and have absolute authority. Nobody wants to return to that, but we don't have an adequate substitute, so we muddle around.

Q. You find much wisdom in your church. Is there any area in which you think the church misses the boat?
A. One of the reasons I became a Catholic when I was in college is my discovery of the astonishing gap between what the church teaches and what she practices. Her practice has been extremely spotty - she hasn't lived up to her ideals very well at all - and yet her ideals have remained the same and consistent and faithful and very high.

Q. Are there ideals the church holds to that you think are wrong?
A. No. The church claims to be the authentic voice of Christ and his apostles on earth. If that claim isn't true, it's arrogant and blasphemous. If it is true, well, you eat all the food that Mother Church puts on your plate. Which does not mean it's a complete meal. The church never claims to give you all the answers.

Q. In the book, you say trusting God is essential to getting to heaven. Do you ever look at the world's tragedies and doubt God?
A. Who doesn't? Doubts are the ants in the pants that keep faith moving. It's similar to our relationship with other human beings. The decision to trust them is a gamble, and we can lose if we're wrong. God doesn't give you a guarantee.

What really matters? ... We all need to be reminded from time-to-time (or taught anew if we forgot or were never taught in the first place). Sometimes we need the calm meditation on this topic that only a book form can give.

Anything that can remind us (or teach us) that God is not a monster is something that the world needs to hear and take to heart. That this "message" comes from a mind and heart like Peter Kreeft is all the more worthy!

Related post: Charles Malik (1906-1987)

Photo: Before I Go : Letters to Our Children About What Really Matters by Peter Kreeft
Tags: Peter Kreeft, Boston Globe, Rich Barlow

Our First Revolution

After reading Michael Barone’s Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheavel That Inspired America’s Founding Fathers (Crown Publishers 2007), Maureen Waller’s book on the same topic (Ungrateful Daughters , blog: part 1 and part 2) now appears in even greater relief as an anti-Catholic screed.

Our First Revolution is on the events of The Revolution of 1688-89 or so-called Glorious Revolution in which King James II was ousted from the English throne by Prince William of Orange from the United Provinces (Netherlands). It is the way a good history text should be written. In the first place Barone helps 21st century readers to understand the seventeenth century in context in order to avoid an anachronistic perspective of these times. He also readily presents the perspectives of other historians who either come to different conclusions or have other possible interpretations on events and so forth.

Unlike Waller’s book, Barone focus not so much on personalities but on the events themselves, their significance, and possible motivations all of the key characters. Barone does not excoriate anyone. He keeps the text at a professional level. He readily delineates the consequences of The Revolution of 1688-89 and applies them to the present. (This is the main thesis of Our First Revolution.)

What kind of world would there be if Britain and then the United States had not gotten into the habit of opposing tyrannical hegemonic powers? The question is unanswerable. But it does seem clear that it would have been vastly more potential for expansion of the reach of Louis XIV and Louis XV, the revolutionary Jacobins and the Emperor Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Führer Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and his Communist heirs, the terrorists of Osama bin Laden and the mullahs of Iran. Of course we cannot say that Britain or the United States would have declined to oppose such hegemonic powers if James II had remained on the throne and William of Orange had remained in the Netherlands. But we do know that the shift of England and Britain from a policy of isolation and noninvolvement to a policy of active opposition to tyrants and hegemons occurred at one moment, as the result of one highly improbable event, the Revolution of 1688-89. (p 241)

So why did the Dutch Calvinist William accept the "invitation" from prominent Englishmen and set sail to invade England on October 30, 1688 with 15,000 Dutch and German troops (many Catholic) and 500 naval ships? Barone answers that it was a “pre-emptive war” and an exercise in "nation building". In short: William wanted to check the ambitions of France. France under Louis XVI was Europe’s superpower at that time and William wanted to prevent England under James II from allying with the French against the Dutch.

"William’s chief purpose in coming over was to enlist England in the war against France; for that he needed [the English] Parliament to vote revenue." (p 195)

William certainly took advantage of the anti-Catholicism in England to his benefit. The Catholic monarch James II pushed for toleration of religious freedom. James did not want all his subjects coerced into to the Church of England. James wanted anti-Catholic laws and laws against Protestants not in the Church of England repealed and so forth.

In addition anti-Catholic sentiment could not ignore that Catholics James II and Louis XVI supported one another. France, for example, gave much financial aide to the English crown. When James II finally had a legitimate successor in James Francis Edward, the Prince of Wales, in 1688, many in the established Church of England feared that Catholicism would once again flourish if a Catholic line of monarchs were established. (James’s brother, King Charles II (1630—1685), converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.)

Politically, William feared that England was headed toward a French-style absolutism. A Catholic line of kings would "seal the deal." To achieve his ends James "packed" Parliaments with his supporters.

"Packing Parliament" consisted of James and his men asking three questions of candidates: 1. Would they support the repeal of the Test Acts and penal laws? 2. Would they support candidates for Parliament who supported repeal? 3. Would they live in peace with their neighbors regardless of religion? It was a plan that backfired.

With the English opposition to James "packing parliament", William also feared that James would be ousted and a republic established like in the Cromwell years after beheading James’ father King Charles I in 1649.

Barone summarizes the consequences of The Revolution of 1688-89:

1. Guaranteed liberties by way of the 1689 Bill of Rights which he sees as an inspiration for the 1791 American Bills of rights.

2. Religious liberties. Laws after the 1688-89 revolution encouraged worship outside of the Church of England. This certainly encourages the splintering and growth of new protestant communities. However, laws against Catholics remained in force. A "small gain" for religious liberty? In short, in my estimation William’s legacy was the continuation a long history of states interfering with the affairs of the Church and other religious communities.

3. Economic changes which encouraged growth in England by establishing a national debt (1693) and a Bank of England (1694) principally to fund William’s wars through a bond market, etc. The center of economic life and trade shifted from Amsterdam to London.

4. Foreign policy changes from British isolationism to greater involvement in European and world affairs.

Another significant legacy of William III was the 1701 Act of Settlement. This law specified that Catholics can not hold the throne. King William III died in March 1702 (Queen Mary died in 1694) to be succeeded by Queen Anne, James' daughter. Many Catholics were bypassed in favor of Sophia of Hanover, sister of Charles I, who was 21st in line for succession at the time of the 1701 Act. Although she did not come to the English throne, her son George Ludwig of Hanover, became King George I in 1714. Needless to say, British and European history would have been very different without the Act of Settlement.

Likewise the history of Ireland would have been different without Jacobites supporting the restoration of James II, his son James Francis Edward (1688—1766) and his grandson, Charles Edward ("Bonnie Prince Charlie", 1720—1788). Barone and others speculate quite reasonably that the potato famine of the 1840's may have been avoided if Ireland had had the economic and political benefits ejoyed by the rest of Britian during these times rather than enduring the punitive measures because of their Catholic Faith and support of Jacobites "rebels".

Overall, I am well pleased with Our First Revolution. I will certainly give Barone's other works a look. In my estimation, it was a fair and balanced presentation of the Revolution of 1688-89.

Tags: Michael Barone, Our First Revolution,King James II, William of Orange

Investing in Bonds

Like many others, monitoring an IRA or 401k can be certainly nerve-wracking (so to speak?). Last August’s market turbulence got me thinking thoughts of “just how much will I have at retirement?” “Did I pick my funds correctly?” “Should I re-adjust my portfolio”? “How often should I re-adjust?” “What risks are my monies actually taking?” “How can I increase financial certainty?”

This motivated me to seek out alternatives. For some time, I have been interested in giving bonds and bond funds a closer look. To this end, I chose Bonds: The Unbeaten Path to Secure Investment Growth by Hildy and Stan Richelson (2007 Bloomberg Press) to help me dive deeper into this area.

Hildy and Stan Richelson readily deliver on their stated “main purpose” of Bonds: “to debunk the many myths surrounding investing in stocks and bonds and to provide new thinking for you to consider when developing and carrying out your financial plan.”

Stock investing provides for an unknown future value. In short, investing in stocks is highly speculative. Investing in bonds is predictable. At a future date one knows the value of his investment and one is certain that the bond will pay a certain rate, although the bond itself may rise or fall in value in its lifetime. This is mostly a concern if one wants to sell the bond early.

The Richelsons, through Bonds, certainly provide contrarian — and quite refreshing — thinking about investing. (I like “contrarian”!) They advocate an all-bond (plain vanilla, high-grade, no junk) portfolio to all classes of investors and provide case studies of how to carry these plans out in concrete terms. I found Bonds extremely helpful in understanding the fundamentals of bonds, the variety of bonds available and concrete ways to invest in bonds.

Except for U.S. Treasuries, individual bonds, like corporate and municipal varieties, must be bought through a broker. They can not (currently) be bought individually on-line through the internet, like stocks. The Richelsons focus on the purchase and investing of individual bonds, not bond funds, although they cover bond funds as well.

Here are the fundamental “myths” that the Richelsons take-on:

1. Old Assumption
The historical annual return of stocks is around 10 percent.

New Thinking
The actual annual historical return on stocks is much less than 10 percent when taxes, transaction costs, and bad timing of the stock market are taken into account.

2. Old Assumption
Stocks will outperform bonds in the future.

New Thinking
It is uncertain that stocks will outperform bonds in the future.

3. Old Assumption
Stocks are not risky if you hold them for ten years.

New Thinking
The risk of a severe stock market decline increases as the investment period increases. Stocks are riskier and less predictable than bonds.

4. Old Assumption
Bonds are for income and stocks are for growth.

New Thinking
Bonds can provide both growth and income.

Bonds confirms that bonds are a nice alternative to bank money markets and CDs because of the comparable or better interest rates and because of their similar liquidity. They are surely more liquid than stocks especially if one has monies tied-up in either an IRA or 401k.

Bonds also has me re-thinking the flat tax. Municipal bonds are attractive to those in higher income tax brackets because these types of bonds are generally free from federal and state taxes. These tax advantages encourage people in these higher income brackets to invest their monies in these municipal bonds even if these bonds pay less than corporate or other type of bonds. Makes sense to me.

However, a flat tax would eliminate these tax advantages. The municipal bond market would certainly suffer greatly if a flat tax were enacted because people would divert their funds to higher-paying corporate bonds and the like. For cities and towns to compete with the corporate they would have to raise taxes. Yet tax rate increases are limited by law in many places. (Massachusetts residents … Prop. 2 1/2 anyone) Cities and towns would be pressed for funding of public works and communities would suffer.

Perhaps I should modify my thinking from a flat tax to a flatter-but-not-exactly-flat so-called flat tax? In any event, Bonds was an enjoyable read. I’ll be returning to it to shore-up my understanding of bonds. In a stock market decline I may just be sitting pretty!

Bonds is extremely well written. (Their text is very precise in wording so careful reading is required.) For a novice with little or no experience in bond investing this book is a great primer. Bonds is well organized that it can readily serve as a reference manual with great ease.

Finally, the internet web-sites that Bonds presents are worth the price of the book itself. The fruit of the 1999 Bond Price Competition Improvement Act (H.R. 1400), investinginbonds.com , is a great place to compare prices of individual bonds. A broker will certainly take his cut for corporate and municipal bonds and the like. However, U.S. Treasuries (I bonds, for example) can be managed through individual accounts for free.

Related posts: The Mortgage Crisis: SIVs and M-LEC, Stem Cell Cover-up

Tags: bonds,Stan Richelson,Hildy Richelson,investing

Ungrateful Daughters (part 2)

The first part of my review of Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown by Maureen Waller (St. Martin's Griffin 2002) can be found here. It presents my motivation for reading Waller's work and also gives a primer on this period of Stuart history (c 1641-1714).

Ungrateful Daughters can be divided into three parts:

The first part presents the childhoods of James II, and his daughters Princess Mary, and Princess Anne. Waller tells the story of the same events from different perspectives. The average reader may be left fatigued after this point and tempted to abandon the effort altogether.

The second part is a complete near hysterical, hyperbolic, tendentious "pig pile" on King James II (reign 1685-1688). James might not have been a popular King but the only kind words about James we can find here are that he was a "kind and indulgent father". It also presents William of Orange's usurpation of James II in 1688 and his coronation as King William III and of James's eldest daughter, Mary, as Queen Mary II in 1689. It is in this section that Waller betrays her prejudices or at minimum displays her inability or unwillingness to approach these historical events and personalities even-handedly. A nuanced perspective seems to be too much out of reach for Waller at say the least.

The third part is on Queen Mary II (reign 1689-1694) and Queen Anne (reign 1702-1714); their quarrels with each other and their quarrels with ladies of their courts.

Ungrateful Daughters as popular history (as contrasted with professional history) presents a personal account of the characters through their personal letters. Waller nicely ties these personal letters with the turmoil of the events of this period.

Ungrateful Daughters was disappointing in multiple aspects. Where to begin? Well, Waller often presents characters and only later gives us their background — as if we are supposed to know who they are. Annoyingly she refers to the characters through multiple circumlocutions, e.g. "Duke of Gloucester" for "William" or "Anne's son". As soon as someone is introduced, the reader is expected to readily track all of their titles and familial relationships.

The Catholic/Protestant divide was a major issue of the day. Ungrateful Daughters, although unintended, is a book-length anecdote on the consequences of what happens when the state interferes with the affairs of the Church.

In 1669, James abandoned Anglicanism and became Catholic. In 1673, James married fourteen year-old Italian Princess Mary Beatrice of Modena by proxy. (Yes, Their vows were made by proxy. It is intent of these vows that makes a marriage valid. According to Canon 1104 (1983 Code of Canon Law), "by proxy" is still a licit way to contract marriage.) Mary Beatrice eventually fell in love with James nonetheless.

[Anglican] Bishop Compton and her chaplains had taught Lady Mary [Princess Mary] that Roman Catholicism was one of the worst evils in the world — and indeed, she had at first been very upset to hear her father [James] was marrying a Roman Catholic [Italian Princess Mary Beatrice of Modena] — but the young Duchess of York [Princess Mary Beatrice] worshipped privately and did not enter into discussions with her step daughters [Mary and Anne].

I was irritated that Waller continually ruined promising narrative by inserting anti-Catholic barbs into the drama of a situation and always — seemingly — to present Catholics in the worst possible light; all the while giving a relatively "free pass" to William, a Dutch Calvinist, and the other Protestants or at least presenting them in neutral terms.

Opinions on James are presented as facts throughout her polemic against James. For example, Waller describes James as "tactless" for saying grace at a meal when he was in captivity in December of 1688 and was being brought to London by William's troops!

In another incident, Waller unjustly excoriates James that he asked Pope Innocent XI for a Cardinal's hat for Queen Mary Beatrice's uncle Prince Rinaldo D'Este. James had every right to ask. Waller also needs some fact checking because she seems to be unaware that lay men could be made Cardinals in the Catholic Church according to "Canon Law" at the time. (Currently Cardinals need Holy Orders.)

Waller's near little sympathy for James and his fellow Catholics is offset here and there in the text:

When James said that he intended to 'establish' the Catholic religion in England, he meant that he wanted to give Catholics the same rights as Protestants, to allow them freedom of worship and to hold public offices. He was at pains to reassure the Anglican establishment that they would not loose out by granting Catholics equality.

Waller gratuitously reminds the reader at points of crisis — and in elaborating on the King James's personal problems — that James was Catholic. Meanwhile, William of Orange is described as "discrete in his extra-marital affairs".

Given that readers of Ungrateful Daughters live in the twenty-first century, Waller fails to explain why first cousins (Princess Mary and William of Orange) were allowed to contract marriage.

The political dimension of Ungrateful Daughters was adequately presented.

There were no checks on the power of the monarchy before calling of the Long Parliament in 1640, at the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, on James's accession in 1685, or at the time of William's invasion in 1688.

English Parliament "merely invited him [William of Orange] to restore English liberties and the rule of law." James believed in the principle of heredity succession and "divine right" of monarchs. Well, William of Orange was after the crown all along. The English Parliament gave it to him and James's daughter, Mary, as co-soveriegns. Anti-Catholicism is presented as a "matter of fact" as if it were ironically a "divine right". The 1689 Bill of Rights forbade a monarch or any heir to the throne to marry a Catholic.

Unlike other nations where the religion of the ruler determined that of the people, in England that of the people would determine that of the ruler. Catholics were barred from the throne. The principle that the Whig members of the Exclusion Parliaments [those who excluded Catholics from participation in public life] had fought so hard to put on the statue book had at last been accepted. The Torries had allowed James, the rightful hereditary heir, his chance, and he had let them down. At one stroke both Houses of Parliament agreed to set aside the claims of James and his son on the grounds of their religion and of any other Catholic heirs to the throne. Given the disastrous consequences of the marriages of recent Stuart sovereigns to Catholic consorts, specifically Henrietta Maria [consort of Charles I] and Mary Beatrice, it was also resolved that no monarch or heir to the throne might marry a Catholic either.

In 1701 when James II died, Louis XIV of France proclaimed James's son, James Francis Edward, King James III to no avail. King William III died in 1702 and Princess Anne became Queen while her brother and legitimate Stuart heir, James Francis Edward, was in exile in France. In the 1701 Act of Settlement stipulated that the English crown after Anne was to go to Sophie of Hanover, granddaughter of James I and her Protestant heirs. Sophie of Hanover died and her son George became king in 1714 thus passing over about 12 Catholics in line for the throne!

Both Queens Mary and Anne died unrepentant for their treason to their father James. Yet, Waller points out that James never granted them forgiveness. Well, forgiveness needs to be asked for before it can be granted in the normal course. Given Waller's presentation of this period — and of James II in particular — I searched in vain to discover what the daughters were "ungrateful" for?

Ungrateful Daughters requires critical reading skills. It can both easily remind one that there is "nothing new under the sun" and provide a further "comfort" in approaching contemporary crises. It allows one to further understand that history is made up of personalities and decisions that shaped our present world.

Tags: Ungrateful Daughters, Maureen Waller