#moraltruth

Fulton John Sheen was an American Catholic prelate who served as Bishop of Rochester from 1966 to 1969. He was known for his preaching, especially on television and radio.

Born: 8 May 1895, El Paso, Illinois, United States

Died: 9 December 1979 (age 84 years), Upper East Side, New York, United States

Five facts about Fulton John Sheen.

Born in 1895 in Illinois, Fulton J. Sheen became one of the most famous Catholic bishops of the 20th century. Not famous in the influencer sense. Famous because people listened when he spoke.

He hosted the television programme Life Is Worth Living in the 1950s, pulling in tens of millions of viewers a week. He won an Emmy. A bishop beating Hollywood at its own game still stings, even now.

He held doctorates from the Catholic University of America and the University of Louvain in Belgium. In other words, he was intellectually armed, not just spiritually enthusiastic.

Sheen was a fierce critic of communism and moral relativism, arguing that societies collapse when they abandon objective truth. This was before it became fashionable to pretend truth is a personal hobby.

On April 7, 2014, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released a white paper providing guidance to supervisors (i.e., regulators) of Systemically Important Financial Institutions on “A Framework for Assessing Risk Culture” (“The Framework”)   

In the press release accompanying its publication, the FSB states, “Weaknesses in risk culture were a root cause of the global financial crisis…” 

In the Introduction of The Framework, the report states, “Weaknesses in risk culture are often considered a root cause of the global financial crisis…”   

I find it interesting that the headline assertion is so much stronger than the assertion made in the text of the document.   Why the discrepancy and what warrants that?

I also find it interesting that the authors of The Framework do not claim ownership of the assertion of causality.  Rather, the passive, “are often considered” is used.  Often considered by whom?  How often, and when not being so considered, what then?  Why not claim ownership?  

Even in the weaker form of the claim as stated in The Framework, we are not invited to examine the claim, but rather are presented with it, so we must take it on face value as justification for whatever is to follow in The Framework.   Is the premise for “The Framework” even true?

I am not making an argument about whether or not banks have poor risk cultures, or whether their risk cultures were a root cause of the crisis.  In fact, even if the premise of The Framework is false, it may still be the case that The Framework’s guidance is salutary in some ways.