Exactly what is the Pope proposing? That is, what does he see the UN being? Like it is today? From the paragraph you cited, it seems clear he is probably as dissatisfied with the UN (as it exists today) as we are.
This all comes back to the concept of "poverty of spirit", IMO. We must not be so entrenched in our (I believe justified) hatred of the UN as it operates today, that we will automatically reject any idea of some kind of governing body for the entire world.
Again, the tenor of the Encyclical seems to be a single proposal to people to govern themselves under Christian principles, i.e., the American experiment. So, re-reading the paragraph you cited in this light, to me, it seems that the Pope is saying that the UN needs to be reformed, reformed to abide by its original intent (or charter).
Put another way, if we put aside any paranoia inspired by pre-tribulational "rapture" eschatology that may plague us (not that it does you, but it clearly motivates some), if we imagine a governing body that is exactly modeled after the United States' (ideal) government, who would object to it?
Why object to it? Let me make my hypothetical scenario clear: What if the UN (or some other world body by some other name) were modified/created and it behaved exactly as the US Federal government was supposed to behave? (Limited intrusion into people's lives, limited taxes, both financial and physical, freedom of religion, speech, assmembly guaranteed, etc) Why should we object to that? Simply because it's a "world government"? To me that would be putting patriotism over Christian principle, quite frankly, not to mention, again, letting paranoia generated via a (relatively new) eschatological belief make our decisions for us, instead of engaging our own God given freedom in true "poverty of spirit".
I think again it's important to note that the Pope isn't proposing any specific way this world body would behave other than to say it should be as the UN was supposed to be: a body that would protect the rights of all people.
Isn't it interesting that the main reason the UN is such a travesty today is not because it adheres to its original charter, but precisely because it does not adhere to its original intent to protect the individual rights of all?
So, again, without expressly saying that I agree with what he is proposing here (without further reflection and careful examination), I can't say I find the idea too objectionable. In fact, right now, the only reason I can see why I would find it objectionable is if I automatically, and without hesitation, always rejected the simple notion of globalization. As I stated previously, to react in such an "instinctive" way to the concept (or indeed to any concept) is to not truly be "poor in spirit" (as the Beatitudes say we should be).
We must have a reason, based in reason, to reject a proposal. We can't simply reject an idea simply because we were taught to always reject it. That's not the way "reason" works; quite frankly that's how animals behave.
We must have a reason, based in reason, to reject a proposal. We can't simply reject an idea simply because we were taught to always reject it. That's not the way “reason” works; quite frankly that's how animals behave.
Fair words, but let's look at these words:
“Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.”
This is not the UN, nor how it was ever intended to be. The UN specifically has no authority—that is the left up to international law and militaries, coupled with sanctions and such that can be agreed upon by the individual countries that make up the UN.
You see, the UN is supposed to be a gathering place whereby countries can seek agreement or disagreement, but in the end, they work independently. Some countries may not agree with something and do not “approve” such items. Should actions taken be left up to the UN? They never have before. The UN has only “peacekeeping” forces—they can't shoot or anything. That is left to the militaries of countries, such as the US, UK, Russia, to enforce things that might need military force.
The Pope is looking for a body that has enforcement powers over any and all countries. That is simply clear in his words.
Additionally, the Pope should know that political bodies do not make people accept Christ, so why should anyone listen to his words on this? His importance surrounds things of Christ, not things of politics, although he is the head of the Vatican, a very small “country” of its own.
He should shut up ASAP on this other stuff, save for wanting to help change people's hearts.
The American experiment started out as a re-distribution of wealth scheme of socialist Utopians? Well, actually the Pilgrims did try socialism for the first year and they almost starved themselves out of existence before they came to their senses. But the American experiment is essentially self-government, and for self government under God we don't need global dictators to govern us. As William Penn put it, "if men will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by tyrants." We believe in self government under God, not under godless socialist dictators with global reach.
So, re-reading the paragraph you cited in this light, to me, it seems that the Pope is saying that the UN needs to be reformed, reformed to abide by its original intent (or charter)
The original intent of the UN Charter was the brainchild of Communists.
Why object to it? Let me make my hypothetical scenario clear: What if the UN (or some other world body by some other name) were modified/created and it behaved exactly as the US Federal government was supposed to behave?
Why object to a world government? You answered your own question by saying "the way the US Federal government is supposed to behave." Do you suppose the Federal government stays within its Constitutional prescribed limits? What makes you suppose that Godless tyrants with global reach would even think of restraining themselves by quaint ideas of subsidiarity and limited government? You might as well expect liberal Supreme Court justices to limit their interpretations of law to the original intent of the Framers. What human experience can you point to that governments ever restrains itself?
Cordially,