Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When comparing the Canadian data to Canada's euthanasia data, at that time, I stated:

More articles concerning loneliness:

• 41% of older Canadians experience loneliness (Link).
• Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life (Link). 
• Loneliness as a root cause for symptom distress among older adults (Link). 
• A wish to die is most often linked to loneliness and depression (Link). 
• Study uncovers euthanasia deaths based on loneliness in the Netherlands (Link).
  

This article was published by National Review online on April 14, 2025

Peter Singer, the internationally influential emeritus bioethics professor from Princeton, is known as a moral philosopher — which in his case is an oxymoron. Not only has he repeatedly endorsed the moral propriety of infanticide, but he has also yawned at bestiality and suggested experimenting on cognitively disabled people rather than animals if they are not “persons,” among other ethically depraved opinions.

Singer and another philosophy professor — Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek — just took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to endorse geriatric suicide. It seems a noted 90-year-old psychologist named Daniel Kahneman committed assisted suicide last year at one of Switzerland’s death clinics. Kahneman wasn’t seriously ill or debilitated but feared the infirmities that he believed were coming, so off to Switzerland he flew. Singer and Lazari0-Radek heartily approve.

 Listening to the Gospel we heard--the heart of our Faith --

Makes me fall silent. Maybe you, too.

That’s why we do this every single year.

If you’ve come this far in Lent, 

it may be that you feel you missed the boat.

You can still make Holy Week your Lent.

If you ever said, I wish I knew my Faith better, 

may I suggest that taking time during Holy Week,

to come on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil?

These days will help you go deeper into our Faith,

because this week is the heart of our Faith.

If you wish you’d gone to confession—it’s not too late. 

There are confessions Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

To accommodate everyone, we added a Sunrise 7 am Mass 

here at Our Lady of Good Hope just for Easter. 

And, if Masses are crowded, let’s try to have good humor and patience.

We’ll have folks we don’t see very often;

Yes, your favorite seat may be filled.

Our generosity of spirit can only make it more likely 

we’ll see them again.

Also, as the Mother Church for our parish family,

Our Lady of Good Hope is the site of our shared Easter Vigil.

We have a large group of men, women and children 

Who will be baptized and confirmed 

and receive Jesus in the Eucharist the first time.

This is the week of salvation. His week; our week.

It’s about what we did to the Lord; even more, what he did for us.

This Gospel provides an opportunity to deal with a question 

that sometimes people ask about us Catholics: 

Why do we talk about death so much?

Why is an image of Jesus dying on the Cross so prominent?

Many say we should focus on the Resurrection.

Sure: but you can’t talk about resurrection without talking about death.

One answer might be: well, death is just part of life.

That’s true, but only to a point.

It ignores something else we Christians believe: 

that God, in the original plan, did not want us to die. 

Let me say that again:

God’s original plan did not include death!

The world we live in – which includes sin and death –

is not the world God wanted for us;

And it isn’t the new world he is preparing for us.

Sin means that our life is a shallow, shadow kind of life. 

Let’s remember that death came into the world 

because of human rebellion against God.

That rebellion, however, doesn’t mean living without God; 

it means replacing the God who actually made us,

with the god of my own will, my own desires, making myself god. 

And that means not a world centered on one God,

but a world of seven or eight billion gods – one for each of us;

and what do you think that world looks like?

That’s a world of greed, injustice, murder and indifference. 

And that kind of so-called “living” – Jesus came to tell us – 

is a shadow experience of life; a kind of “deathly” living.

Whereas Jesus came to give us true life; the fullness of life.

And to have that fullness of life, 

you and I must die to what this world thinks is life. 

This is where God’s mercy is at work.

As you and I get a little older, our eyes aren’t so good, 

our hearing fades, our body doesn’t do all it used to…

this experience has a way of humbling us, and teaching us: 

you really aren’t God, you know that? 

And if we listen, and accept the lesson, we grow wise. 

And we are reminded: this life isn’t my destination; 

I’m on the way to something bigger and better. 

It is in letting go of this world that we gain the world to come.

This might be a good exercise for each of us: 

to look ourselves in the mirror, and ask the question: 

“Who is God?” And then tell ourselves: “Not you.”

Dying to self is the very hardest thing we do: 

we fight it from the first word many of us learn – “No!” – 

to our last breath.

And yet: think of those whose sacrifices gave us our freedoms.

Think of those who, when disaster strikes, run to the fire.

Think of your own parents.

Only when we die to ourselves do we become life-givers.

At this Mass, we are joined by those preparing to be baptized in two weeks.

Baptism is dying with Jesus, so that we can live for him forever.

Dying to shadow-life; rising to eternal life.

They are here to pray, 

but also, to seek our prayers, for the grace of conversion.

God has called them; and their witness reminds us: 

he’s calling you and me too!

Next week is Palm Sunday and then Holy Week:

if the Cross is the most important thing that ever happened, 

then Holy Week recalls the most important week in history.

We’ll have all our normal activities this year!

Make the most of it.

If you need to go to confession, but have been procrastinating, 

there are plenty of opportunities over the next two weeks. 

Do I live for me, for here, for this? Or do I want to live forever?

The situation in the world today is so intricate as to require great tranquillity of spirit and clarity of mind of anyone who wishes to find his way. The pandemic, the Russian-Ukrainian war and the election of Donald Trump have upended a false international balance. The political and intellectual class that has governed the world […]

The post International crises: the Church is never neutral appeared first on Voice of the Family.

But what does Jesus do? What does He say at the sight of all the outrages which He received? He prays for them that maltreat Him: “Father,” He says, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Jesus also prayed from the Cross for us sinners. Let us then turn to the Eternal Father, […]

The post Words that Jesus spoke from the Cross appeared first on Voice of the Family.

On November 16, 1955, Pope Pius XII issued Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria on the reform of Holy Week and the Triduum. Those attending the Holy Triduum according to the Pian reforms of 1955 experience an abridged liturgy. Having undertaken the music and liturgical planning for both, there is no doubt, at least in my opinion, that the structural reforms were unnecessary and represent a significant loss and disconnect. What was necessary, in my view, was a restoration of the hours so that the liturgical action coincided with that of the LORD's suffering and ancient practice and shedding the ridiculous practice of Holy Thursday in the morning and the Vigil eliminated on Holy Saturday to a morning service for the very reasons the Pope described in the above linked document. Further, the structure of society was changing, and the faithful could no longer attend these sacred services. They became the realm of clericalists.

The current Pope, Francis, granted permission for the pre-55 Holy Week to be used on an experimental basis for three years by the FSSP. The ICRSS has, for many years, conducted the services according to the older books. This experimental permission was not granted to diocesan priests. However, both of these used the prior liturgical books, but with the new hours as evidenced here:

The very idea that in 2025 a Holy Thursday Mass and procession is held after noon at 3 o'clock or Good Friday at 8 o'clock at night is a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XII and every pope that has come after. It is an insult to the liturgy and to the people who cannot attend these hours. It is completely in defiance of Pope Pius XII and the rubrical law for either the Missal of Pius XII, John XXIII or Paul VI. Interpreting liturgical rubrics of prostration meant for clerics to the people forcing people who may not be able to get down or get up to prostrate to kiss and venerate the cross, is an abomination to human dignity, weight, age, even back-braces don't matter. The blatant passing on the requirement to "name" the present Pope in the public prayers is completely and utterly reprehensible within the Roman Catholic liturgy, no matter what one may think of the actions of any current Pontiff and reveals a serious deficiency in thinking.

Sadly, clericalism and fetishism have both invaded the traditional movement.

Two momentous days have passed: On Monday there was the cleansing of the Temple and the laments over Jerusalem’s lack of faith; Tuesday featured exhaustive teachings by Jesus and interrogations by His opponents.

Today, Wednesday, it would seem that Jesus stays in Bethany. According to Matthew’s Gospel, the day begins with an ominous warning:

When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” (Matthew 26:1-2).

The scene then shifts across the Kidron valley, where we “overhear” this conversation:

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people” (Matthew 26:3-5).

It is interesting that they say, “not during the festival,” because according to the Synoptic Gospels that is exactly when it ended up happening. This serves as a reminder that things unfold according to the Lord’s authority. Nothing is out of His control. No one takes the Jesus’ life; He lays it down freely. Even if one considers the Johannine tradition, which uses a different Jewish calendar to date the Passover (one day later), this all takes place right in the thick of the Passover. Why? Because the Lord is fulfilling Passover. The priests and elders can plan all they want, but God is in control.

The Lord Jesus and the Twelve likely spent a quiet sort of day and it is now later in the afternoon. Matthew’s Gospel places Jesus in Bethany, at the home of Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6-7). According to Luke (7:36), Simon was a Pharisee. His leprosy was in remission and he had been readmitted to the community. Could he have been one of the lepers Jesus cured? We do not know. The story here is complex; there are significant differences among the various Gospel accounts. Matthew records it as follows:

A woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her” (Matthew 26:7-13).

The act of anointing Jesus may have happened more than once; in the four accounts of it there are differences in both the details and the timeframes.

Luke presents this story (or a similar one) much earlier in his Gospel (Chapter 7). In his account it is Jesus’ feet not His head that are anointed. Further, Luke portrays Simon in a bad light.

Mark and Matthew place the incident on Wednesday of Holy Week, but report that it is those at the dinner (likely the apostles) who take offense at the anointing.

John’s Gospel places this event six days before Passover, but at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. In John’s account it is Mary who anoints the Lord (His feet, not His head) and Judas alone who takes offense.

For our purposes on this Wednesday of Holy Week, it is enough to note that Jesus sets the meaning of this woman’s action as anointing His body for burial. Jesus is clearly moved by her act of devotion and insight.

Jesus does not slight the poor in His response, but He teaches that the worship of God and obedience to His truth are higher goods than even the care of the poor. Serving the poor is not to be set in opposition to serving God. They are related, but God always comes first. For example, one cannot skip sacred worship on Sunday simply to serve the poor (except in a grave and urgent situation); serving the poor is not a substitute for worship. The worship of God comes first and is meant to fuel our charitable and just works. Further, set in the light of the looming passion, the dying One takes precedence over the poor ones.

One of the Twelve, Judas, has become increasingly disaffected. He has not been featured prominently among the Twelve; mention of him in the Gospels is minimal. Now he emerges, as if from the shadows, to betray Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to place Judas’ plans to betray Jesus as set into motion at some point on this day. The Gospel of Matthew recounts,

Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over (Matt 26:14-16).

Why did he do it? There were storm clouds gathering for Judas, by which he may have opened the door to Satan. Scripture reveals that he was a thief, stealing from the common money bag (Jn 12:6). Jesus also hints that Judas was grieved by the Bread of Life discourse, which led many to abandon Jesus when He insisted that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Jesus said, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot … (Jn 6:70-71).

We can only guess at Judas’ motivations. The most likely explanation is that he was disillusion when Jesus did not measure up to the common Jewish conception of the Messiah as a revolutionary warrior who would overthrow Roman power and reestablish the Kingdom of David. Judas may have been a member of the Zealot Party or at least influenced by them in this regard. Zealots are seldom interested in hearing of their own need for personal healing and repentance, let alone the call to love their enemies. This is obviously only speculative; Judas’ motivations remain to a large degree shrouded in the mystery of iniquity.

Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus for money—a significant amount—but compared to his salvation and his soul, it was but “a mess of pottage for his birthright” (see Gen 25:34). What will it profit a man that he should gain the whole world and lose his soul? (Mk 8:36)

The widespread belief that Judas might be in Heaven may be just a tad optimistic. The Church does not declare that any particular person is in Hell, however Jesus said the following about Judas: The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. (Matt 26:24). It is hard to imagine Jesus saying this of any human person who ultimately makes it to Heaven.

The more likely biblical judgment on Judas is that he died in sin, despairing of God’s mercy on His terms. One is free to hope for a different outcome for Judas, but while the story of Judas and his possible repentance does generate some sympathy in many people today, the judgment belongs to God.

It is the saddest story never told: The repentance of Judas and his restoration by Jesus. Think of all the churches that were never built: “The Church of St. Judas, Penitent.” Think of the feast day never celebrated: “The Repentance of Judas.”

Judas goes his way, freely. God did not force him to play this role. He only knew what Judas would do beforehand and based His plans on Judas’ free choice.

Thus ends this Wednesday of Holy Week. It was a calmer day, a day spent among friends, yet a day on which Satan entered one man, who set a betrayal in motion. The storm clouds gather.

The post What Was the Lord Doing on Wednesday of Holy Week? appeared first on Community in Mission.

State Farm Insurance Promotes Miscegenation

Another American company lost to DEI and destruction of ethnic white Americans as well as blacks.  Melding all into one disappears diversity.

The most profound and ominous aspect of the controversy surrounding the deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador is that the Trump administration has figured out a way to circumvent the right of habeas corpus, not just for foreigners but also for the American people.

Why is that important? Because without habeas corpus, a right that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, there is no free society. As British and American legal scholars have maintained for centuries, habeas corpus is the linchpin of a free society.

For example, freedom of speech is a fundamental right that the federal government is prohibited from taking away. Let’s assume that one day, an American citizen castigates President Trump for policies he has adopted. A few days later in the middle of the night, Homeland Security agents bash down his door, take him into custody, and incarcerate him.

That’s where habeas corpus comes into play. The victim, through his lawyer, files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a federal judge. The judge issues the writ, which a U.S. Marshal serves on the person who is holding the critic in jail. The writ commands the custodian to immediately produce the critic in court. At the habeas hearing, the judge orders the government to show just cause as to why it is holding the critic. When it fails to do so, the judge orders the immediate release of the critic. The critic walks out of the courtroom a free person.

Thus, it is the right of habeas corpus that enforces the right of freedom of speech and the exercise of other rights. Without habeas corpus, people’s rights become a dead letter. That’s how important habeas corpus is.

The Framers understood the critical importance of habeas corpus to a free society. That’s why they enshrined it in the Constitution.

The right of habeas corpus developed over centuries of resistance by the British people to the tyranny of their own government. For example, after Magna Carta, English common law courts developed and applied the writ against the king’s arbitrary imprisonment of English citizens. In 1679, Parliament adopted the Habeas Corpus Act, which clarified and codified much of what English courts were doing from the 13th century through the 17th century.

Needless to say, rulers who have dictatorial proclivities hate habeas corpus. They don’t want any judicial interference with their decisions to incarcerate people who question their decisions, who they sometimes refer to by the label “terrorist.”

In the midst of the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which enabled military officials to arbitrarily arrest and incarcerate critics of Lincoln. When the Supreme Court declared Lincoln’s act unconstitutional, Lincoln simply ignored the ruling.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA established a torture and prison camp at their base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reason they established it in Cuba was because they figured that it would be totally independent of U.S. judicial interference and the U.S. Constitution, including habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ultimately held otherwise, declaring that Gitmo remained within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

But the presumption of habeas corpus is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the officials alleged to be unlawfully holding the person. That’s where the arrangement that Trump and El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele have entered into comes into play. With this extremely clever — even ingenious — arrangement, Trump has figured out a way to circumvent the centuries-old right of habeas corpus.

Let’s assume that Trump initiates a real war with, say, Iran, much like President Bush initiated a war with Iraq. Trump declares a “national emergency.” Following the precedent set by President Wilson during World War II, Trump decrees that criticism of his war will not be countenanced. Anyone who violates his decree will be punished severely.

If a military commander starts taking people into custody, there is no problem, right? All that that the victims need to do is have their lawyer secure a writ of habeas corpus from a federal judge, right?

Not anymore. What would happen instead is that some well-armed military unit will bash down the door of the critic’s home in the middle of the night. They then take the critic into custody and quickly whisk him to a nearby airport, where a waiting military plane immediately flies him to El Salvador, where he is delivered into the clutches of Salvadoran officials who then incarcerate and torture him as a “terrorist.”

What then? Nothing. The accused “terrorist” remains in that Salvadoran prison being tortured and there is nothing anyone can do about it. U.S. officials, including the president, will say that they no longer have control over the critic. They will say that he is now under the sovereign control of a foreign nation. They will say that they have no power to issues orders to officials of another nation-state.

By the same token, the U.S. federal courts have no power over a foreign regime. The president of a foreign country can ignore rulings of U.S. courts to his heart’s content.

Once 25 or 50 American critics are whisked away in the dead of night and suddenly find themselves in El Salvador’s brutal prison the next day, I will guarantee you that silence will quickly spread across the land. Very few people will dare criticize the president or his war effort.

Whatever might be said of President Trump, he is clearly a very smart man. He has now displayed his brilliance by developing a practical way to circumvent a right that stretches back centuries — the right of habeas corpus. Time will tell whether it produces a subservient, silent, and even supportive populace, much like what has happened in other nations throughout history.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

Extreme volatility in a highly leveraged financial system inevitably results in liquidity issues. Hence, recent instability is generating mounting signals that liquidity is becoming scarce. This is most evident in the sharp increase in risk-free Treasury yields over the last week. Before the yield surge, liquidity problem warnings appeared in lesser-followed places like Treasury basis trades and interest rate swap spreads.

As we have learned repeatedly, the Fed will take extensive emergency measures if it perceives liquidity problems. Even above their Congressional mandated objective of managing employment and prices, the Fed's top priority is preserving the banks. Accordingly, following markets that can provide early notification of liquidity problems will go a long way toward foreshadowing the Fed’s next action and ultimately effectively managing wealth during this volatile period.

We start with a quick synopsis of Treasury basis trades. From there, we present interest rate swaps and what negative spreads tell us.

Treasury Basis Trades

Futures contracts let traders buy or sell an asset at a specific price for a future settlement date. Conversely, traders can buy or sell an asset for same-day or next-day settlement in the more popular spot/cash markets. The difference, or basis, between spot and futures prices is a function of borrowing costs and coupons or dividends on the spot security (cheapest to deliver instrument). Any difference not attributable to those factors creates an arbitrage opportunity. The arbitrage is guaranteed to return to fair value by maturity, if not much sooner.

In a liquid environment, the ability to arbitrage non-fair value basis opportunities easily should result in the basis normalizing quickly. That is not occurring today. To appreciate the current circumstance, we share a simple example.

Assume the price of the cheapest-to-deliver spot bond trades one basis point (0.01%) below the futures price after adjusting for borrowing costs and coupons. A  hedge fund noticing the differential might buy the Treasury bond and sell futures. To make the small potential gain worthwhile, they use leverage. The leverage, which could be over 20x and possibly up to 50x, boosts potential profits but introduces risk.

Now, assume the basis, or difference between the bond and futures contract, moves to five basis points the next day. The lender of the leverage to our hedge fund, likely a large bank, would demand enough collateral to cover the current loss and protect its interest. The hedge fund can supply cash or collateral to the bank. If not, it must sell some or all of the trade.

Liquidity And The Basis

If the basis moves further against the hedge fund, the potential arbitrage profit becomes more enticing. Accordingly, other hedge funds will put the same trade on if liquidity is plentiful, pushing the basis back to normal. However, in periods of illiquidity, few traders are willing or able to put the arbitrage trade on. Thus, margin calls can widen the basis and, in a circular fashion, force more hedge funds out of the trade.

Basis Trade Systematic Risks

There are two predominant risks with the Treasury basis trade going awry. First, highly leveraged hedge funds are active basis traders. Some of the hedge funds involved in these trades are massive. For example, Citadel, believed to be a prominent basis trader, has approximately $65 billion of assets under management. Moreover, it's estimated that they have an implied leverage of about 9x on that amount. If they were to fail, it could pose significant damage to their investors, including many large pension and endowment funds and sovereign wealth funds.

The second risk is to the banks lending to the hedge funds. Given that the leverage can be 20x or more on basis trades, a 5% loss can result in a 100% loss on the trade. Thus, banks exposed to hedge funds are indirectly on the hook. Furthermore, if a hedge fund were to default due to a basis trade, not only would the basis trade loss impact the bank, but also many other non-related trades that would likely get forcibly wound down in adverse market conditions. If the hedge fund were big enough, we could be talking about another Lehman moment.

Does this sound far-fetched? In 1998, this situation brought the giant hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), to its knees and required a Fed-arranged bailout to save many large banks from substantial losses.

As we wrote in From LTCM to 1966:

LTCM specialized in bond arbitrage. Such trading entails taking advantage of anomalies in the price spread between two securities, which should have predictable price differences. They would bet divergences from the norm would eventually converge, as was all but guaranteed in time.

LTCM was using 25x or more leverage when it failed in 1998. With that kind of leverage, a 4% loss on the trade would deplete the firm’s equity and force it to either raise equity or fail.

The world-renowned hedge fund fell victim to the surprising 1998 Russian default. As a result of the unexpected default, there was a tremendous flight to quality into U.S. Treasury bonds, of which LTCM was effectively short. Bond divergences expanded as markets were illiquid, growing the losses on their convergence bets.

Further in the article:

Per Wikipedia: Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly every important person on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM’s capital was composed of funds from the same financial professionals with whom it traded. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term’s failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system.

Given the potential chain reaction to its counterparties, banks, and brokers, the Fed came to the rescue and organized a bailout of $3.63 billion. A much more significant financial crisis was avoided.

Interest Rate Swaps

Before discussing interest rate swap spreads, we provide context for this market, which forms the foundation for all financial markets.

The graph below, courtesy of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), shows that interest rate swaps are the predominant type of OTC derivative, with an approximate notional value of $575 trillion.

For a proper framework, the approximate total market cap of the U.S. stock market is $50 trillion, and the global stock market, including the U.S., is about double that. Furthermore, the global bond market is approximately $133 trillion. The graphics below, courtesy of the Visual Capitalist, provide more details on both markets.

The notional value of all outstanding interest rate swaps is about twice as large as the combined value of the global bond and stock markets!

Therefore, when the swap market talks, we listen!

What Are Interest Rate Swaps?

An interest rate swap is a derivative instrument, meaning its pricing is derived from another asset. Specifically, they are contracts in which two counterparties agree to swap streams of cash flows on a set schedule over a defined period.

The most common type of swap is where one party agrees to make periodic payments at a fixed interest rate and, in return, receives floating-rate payments. The other party receives the fixed payments and pays the floating rate. These swaps, often called plain vanilla or fixed-to-floating swaps, are the focus of this article.

Swap Market Are Grumbling

To appreciate the current warning eminating from the interest rate swap markets, we start with a quote from Bloomberg in its article, Tariffs Turbocharge Collapse of Favored Hedge-Fund Rates Bet:

But the unraveling picked up abruptly in recent days as the intensifying trade war darkened the outlook for Corporate America, leading banks to sell Treasury holdings to raise cash to meet clients’ liquidity needs, traders say. At the same time, the lenders have been adding swaps contracts to maintain exposure to interest rates in the event of a bond rally. The result is that swaps have massively outperformed Treasuries, pushing swap rates far below Treasury yields.

In simpler terms, banks are forced to sell Treasury securities to raise needed capital, i.e., increase their liquidity. Doing so creates a duration mismatch between their assets and liabilities. Therefore, to manage interest rate risks, they enter into interest rate swap agreements to maintain the duration of their assets.

As the demand to receive the fixed rate mounts, the swap rate (rate on the fixed-rate leg of the swap) trades lower. Today, it sits below Treasury rates, thus at a negative spread to Treasuries.

Given that Treasury securities are risk-free, such an event is odd. The graph below shows that swap spreads are now more negative than during the initial days of the COVID crisis and preceding it in 2019 when the Fed cut rates to address liquidity issues.

The negative spreads inform us that cash bonds are likely being sold to raise cash, and swap agreements are being entered to maintain their long-duration exposure. Banks and others are selling bonds at higher yields to receive lower-yielding swap payments. Again, that is not a worthwhile trade unless you need liquidity and or capital relief.

Given the complexity of interest rate swaps and their importance to the plumbing of the entire financial system, we will discuss them further in a coming article.

Summary

If you recall, the Fed reduced the monthly amount of QT at the last Fed meeting. Even then, before the tariff volatility started, they sensed that liquidity was potentially becoming dear. We have little doubt the Fed is paying close attention to the sudden surge in bond yields and the basis trades and interest rate swap spreads we discuss.

The Fed will react if needed. Since the problem is liquidity and is not necessarily economic, the Fed would likely introduce a program allowing traders to offset basis trades with the Fed. This is similar to other programs that have been used to provide liquidity. Given the uncertain inflation outlook, we doubt they would cut rates unless necessary. They could end QT, but starting QE is doubtful unless the situation worsens significantly.

The post Swaps And Basis Trades Warn Of Mounting Liquidity Problems appeared first on RIA.

Bruce Charlton raises an important objection to professedly Traditionalist Christianity in the contemporary world, “Traditionalist” here meaning a faith accepted on the authority of Tradition and its ecclesial representatives rather than accepted as the outcome of individual discernment. The objection is not that such a faith is undesirable but that it is impossible. People in the world today are exposed to multiple live religious options, and even when one picks a particular Church, one finds that it is divided into factions and that its leaders have more-or-less assimilated to the global liberal order and made authoritative proclamations which more-or-less directly contradict their historical teachings. One must choose which Church, which faction and clergy within that Church, which of conflicting Magisterial statements one should credit, and this can only be done by individual discernment. (“Individual” here means both “personal” and “case-by-case”, i.e. individual subject, individual objects) Traditionalists who deny this are being dishonest, and the dishonesty completely undermines the Traditionalist’s argument to the extent that he recommends Tradition precisely as the way to escape private judgement.

Naturally, this opposes my argument that religion must offend us and challenge our understandings. Mine is clearly an argument for Traditionalist Christianity, what I consider the strongest argument. My criticism of using some purported “main idea” of the Gospel to dismiss more particular claims of Scripture or dogma is a critique of liberal Christianity but also of Romantic Christianity, and Charlton is right to respond to it as such.

If it is true that I must use my private judgement to evaluate each religious claim, this means that my prior understanding and intuition provide a filter for beliefs, that it is impossible for my religion to truly challenge me. I may say that I am accepting offensive claims in docility, but more honestly I have chosen these claims because they seem right to me or because I relish accepting claims that offend the liberals I despise. When evaluating arguments, we usually ignore psychological blemishes of their proponents, but in this case it would invalidate the whole Traditionalist argument, which recommends itself precisely for avoiding individualist pick-and-choose. The stakes are high. Furthermore, I grant most of Charlton’s factual claims about the contemporary situation: all the Churches, including mine, have factions, have sold out at the highest level to an anti-Christian globalist secular order, and have made magisterial declarations which flatly contradict each other. It would seem I am arguing from a weak position.

On the other hand, I win the argument if I can find just one doctrine of faith which I accept on authority but genuinely dislike, find intellectually or morally distasteful, would not accept if it were not enjoined upon me by authority. Doctrines I think have compelling arguments or find intrinsically beautiful don’t work here; neither do doctrines I accept because I am indifferent to them. It is not the usual work of an apologist to point out doctrines of his own creed that he finds distasteful, but here we are. If I can identify such doctrines in my case, I can investigate my own thought process. How did I identify these as dogmas I am required to accept. That I have done it shows that it can be done, so there must be a way by which it was done.

The demonstration is psychological: I needn’t convince anyone that my way of recognizing authoritative dogmas is correct, only that it is sufficiently coherent and unambiguous to make unpleasant demands on me. Nor need my way work for all cases. There may, for example, be some statements of my ecclesiastic superiors whose binding power is unclear to me, so that I must fall back on discrete acts of private discernment. These grey zones might be vexingly big, but they can’t constitute the entirety of my faith if it is to have the proper offense-capable objectivity.

Okay, here are some doctrines of the Catholic Faith that I accept on authority that offend my reason or sensibility.

1. Anything to do with bodily resurrection, the Ascension of Jesus, and the Assumption of Mary. If there are bodies in Heaven then it is neither a spiritual reality nor a state of mind but a physical place, and one cannot avoid the awkward question of where it is in or off of our spacetime; the only possible answers are science-fictiony and ridiculous-sounding. I disagree with the widespread disparagement of Platonic/Cartesian dualism and of an incorporeal Heaven, which I find philosophically superior to Hebrew materialism. If the soul is the form of the body, then it perishes with that body just like any other material form, and God’s resurrection of me at the End Times is in fact the creation of a new being, a copy of me. See Aquinas’ treatment of this question (which devolves into thought experiments regarding fingernails and cannibals), and see if you don’t agree that the great schoolman is defeated by his own Objections. That the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom we pray is not now a spirit pervading all space–although functionally she must be that since I can say a Hail Mary anywhere and presume I have been heard–but is also an embodied being sitting somewhere, perhaps in outer space, seems an unnecessarily burden of belief, but I have no doubt that we must believe it; the Magisterium is clear.
2. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I don’t care much about this, but while the Gospels don’t ambiguously settle the question either way, the Protestant reading (that after the birth of Jesus, Mary gave Joseph more children) feels to me like the more natural reading. Then there is the point that Mary is sinless, and spouses are ordinarily obliged to render the marriage debt. One would find it odd to hear that the Blessed Virgin was too holy to do housework, so how is this different? On the other hand, I’m convinced that my intuitions are wrong because so many holy saints were doggedly attached to this doctrine and see a necessity and fittingness to it that eludes me. The overall sense of the faithful, of pious opinion, also seems quite clear. On this matter I should surely defer to those closer to God than me.
3. God’s excessive preference for the Jewish people. Christians shy away from this, but Jesus is pretty clear about having come just for the people of Israel. Saint Paul adds that because the Jews rejected their Savior, God has given the Gentiles a chance, and He’s holding off on wrapping things up until His first choice finally comes around. As a proponent of particularity, I approve of God showing some unmerited partiality toward His favorites, but this takes it to an offensive degree. Still, although we may not be God’s first choice, He still loves us, right? Well, I can’t help but think of human analogies. Scarlett O’Hara loves Ashley Wilkes, but she can’t have him, so she agrees to marry Charles Hamilton. Do you think Scarlett really loves Charles? Anyway, I don’t like it, but when Scripture is clear–as, contrary to what many Catholic apologists would have you believe, it often is–I must believe.

There you go. I know some Catholic readers have been souring on the Orthosphere, and I hope I haven’t just soured them further. Remember, this is all in service to Tradition. I can only know I’m a docile Catholic if there are doctrines I don’t like. That I don’t like them no doubt indicates something wrong with me. God often uses our ignorance and insensibility to test our obedience and promote our spiritual growth. I have written extensively on Catholic beliefs I find beautiful and compelling. See here.

How did I distinguish valid doctrines I don’t like from proclamations I dismiss as invalid? For example, recent popes have been pretty insistent that Catholic moral doctrine opposes the death penalty. I think this is ridiculous. How could something be a matter of the apostolic faith and yet believers had no inkling of it for almost two millennia? For that matter, Scripture, the writings of many doctors of the Church, and the practice of Catholic countries seem to assert the exact opposite. If popes can just invent doctrines out of nowhere, how can we have any confidence that we even know the content of the faith we claim to believe?

I just gave what sounds like a historical reasoning, but maybe I’m fooling myself. I’m a party man, not a historian, after all. Maybe it’s just that I joined the conservative faction of Catholicism, they’re not so hot on opposing the death penalty (which sounds vaguely liberal), and I just uncritically conformed to my clique. For the purposes of my argument, that’s just as good. It means I have an authority outside of myself. I chose that authority, of course, but all Traditionalists grant this. One must use private judgment to decide what is the true faith, but having done that, one must accept everything it teaches.

The point is that one doesn’t choose beliefs one-by-one. Rather, one accepts a package. The full contents of the package are generally not known when one accepts the package, but after the acceptance these unexpected contents are pre-approved as they become known. How one comes to accept a package, whether by study, by inheritance, or by partisanship, really doesn’t affect the possibility of a submission of faith as I have described it.

On the 5th of April in the year of Jesus Christ’s reign, 1419, St. Vincent Ferrer went to his eternal reward. His feast was ten days ago. It is remarkable how little this wonder-working saint is known in the Church, since he worked some of the greatest miracles that have been seen since the time of the Apostles. From the recent article by Matthew Plese: The Old Catholic Encylcopedia…

Source