Well,though I am not a "Protestant" nor "anti-catholic," I will give it a try:
Presume that Obama's plan continues apace: job losses, Obamacare, and global warming will lead to huge numbers of otherwise self-reliant people becoming dependent on government.
Then the inevitable hyperinflation caused by borrowing or printing tens of trillions of dollars will mean that nearly everybody will need a federal subsidy to buy even basic necessities (eventually, by printing new money on only on side of the paper, to save time and ink [see Wiemar Republic]).
With the Red Chinese waving bundles of worthless treasuries, Obama, in desperation turns to the oil sheiks. They, being Muslims, are prohibited from lending (just as Catholics used to be).
But, wait: Muslims can do tricks to lend money like "buy and lease back." Soon they own most Federal lands, since we can't make the lease payments. Then, they and the Chicoms and the UN decide to promulgate a "World Authority" to solve the crisis. Obama agrees (what else can he do?) and soon there is a new "Law Of the Land" treaty whereby the UN can Tax "wealthy" countries (like the former USA) and "redistribute" to the poor (keeping a little for admin costs).
Since the former US has nothing to take except worthless paper, they will take military equipment, instead. To be used by the blue helmeted child rapist armies, to keep "world order." In the "reformed UN," the US will have the same status and voting power as Zimbabwe.
But,wait! What about the "principle of subsidiarity?" Well, every village or neighborhood will have its own "local council" to solve its own problems, and refer those problems that they cannot solve to the next level, which in turn sends its insoluble problems to the next level. This system worked very well for Russia (village council=soviet).
Of course, the "New UN" would have "subsidiarity" as its guiding principle, even in its constitution, and would be required by law to follow this principle. It stands to reason that they would follow it completely, and keep world peace and protect everybody's rights, just like they do now.
DG
And my point, “Notice, no anti-Catholic Protestant here has had the acumen to even suggest what that framework would be in anything approaching concrete terms” remains. What you posted is not even remotely what Pope Benedict would support. Thanks for proving my point.