Posted on 07/09/2009 8:37:07 AM PDT by NYer
Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI's supposed call for a "new world order" or a "one-world government." These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope's latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.
The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations. Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world's news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ.
The key quote which has led to the charge reads: "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago."
However, in paragraph 41, the Holy Father specifically differentiates his concept of a world political authority from that of a one-world government. "We must," he says "promote a dispersed political authority." He explains that "The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State's role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development."
Later in the encyclical (57) he speaks of the opposite concept to one- world government -subsidiarity (the principle of Catholic social teaching which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority) - as being essential. "In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity," says the Pope.
Another of the key quotes which is being extracted for shock value from the encyclical is this: "In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."
Since long before his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger has vigorously fought the United Nations' vision of a 'New World Order'. As early as 1997, and repeated subsequently, Ratzinger took public aim at such a vision, noting that the philosophy coming from UN conferences and the Millennium Summit "proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness [we] have attained will not be affected."
"At the base of this New World Order", he said is the ideology of "women's empowerment," which erroneously sees "the principal obstacles to [a woman's] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity." The then-cardinal advised that "at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest."
Benedict XVI in fact repeats those criticisms in the new encyclical. In Caritas in Veritate, the Pope slams "practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion." He also denounces international economic bodies such as the IMF and World Bank (without specifically naming them) for their lending practices which tie aid to so-called 'family planning.' "There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures," says the encyclical.
Any vision of a proper ordering of the world, of international economics or political cooperation, suggests the Pope, must be based on a "moral order." That includes first and foremost "the fundamental right to life" from conception to natural death, the recognition of the family based on marriage between one man and one woman as the basis of society and freedom for faith and cooperation among all peoples based on principles of natural law.
Furthermore, the problems faced in this worldwide economic crisis have come about largely because the concept of "ethics" has become completely divorced from economic practice at almost every level. What is most difficult for us, as Americans, to admit, is that we are no longer the masters of our own destiny. We are in a death embrace with many other countries that could kill our economy with treasury dispersals. The magnitude and the complexity of this knot cannot be unwound just by us or just by some other country. There has to be cooperation on a global scale, implying the need for some global economic oversight. If our own gov't won't bring justice upon those who have perpetrated this mess, then our ecnomic system will truly collapse under it's own weight of corruption. It sucks royally, but that's reality. We've gone from a trusted nation, to one that needs to literally be babysat by the world, thanks to the leftists in Congress, the media, the Supreme Court, and the White House.
There is a tremendous irony at work here, in that we are worried about the "one world boogie man" while our own President deconstructs our nation from within. One day, incredibly, we may welcome the help of other nations to remove our own despots....
This is true,but you're kidding yourself if you think the misuse of modern technology,greed and liberal education has not made evil more abundant than any other time in the history of the world
Unfortunately only a few now are taking that humility seriously.
We agree on this,dear friend
Thanks for pointing out a consistent problem. American Catholics forget they are a small percentage of the world's Catholics (10-15% or thereabouts?)
American Catholics (and American non-Catholic Christians) tend to think the Pope is only talking to the U.S., and apply his words to only the American reality. That's extremely short-sighted.
An additional problem: most Catholics are not well-versed enough in Catholic theology and history to be able to adequately digest Pope Benedict's encyclicals, which leaves them easy pickings for lightweight and/or even erroneous analysts.
“...because man thinks they can go their own way.”
That rabbit hole, good grief.
A certain Proverb comes to mind as well....
As for your earlier post, the West created the “beast(s)” (The short lived L of N) “...because men think they can go their own way.” We turned our back on Christ and “reaping” the benefits of that. Again, Christendom started in the twentieth century?
The Pope should not be calling for reform of the UN but eradication “...because men think they can go their own way.” Pretty much sums up the convoluted thought process going into the wordy, rehashed encyclical(s). Wished they could clean up internally before following the world's lead.
And how long did it remain there? The misleading article from Reuters on this subject stayed in Breaking News for .... oh, several days....
Mine was worse,I just read it again and see I forgot to add words in
Like the Pope is supposed to rollo from free republic who seems to he is all knowing?
Should say..Like the Pope is supposed to "listen" to rollo from free republic who seems to "think" he is all knowing?(Sarcasm)
OH well... at least we laugh at our pea brains.
Thanks for the documented posts. Some would probably think Jesus went over the edge with His Sermon on the Mount. They would feel more comfortable is Jesus gave a Sermon on the Amount. Regardless, the eternal message is Pay me Now or Pay we later.
Foolish at best.
If you give anyone or any group "true world political authority" they are going to take it and promptly consolidate power, then it's a de facto dictatorship.
You are absolutely correct. It is quite disheartening that most people today, go by sound bites. They are either too lazy, tired, or indifferent to reading lengthy texts. This has contributed to the bad political situation in which we find ourselves today. Voters pull levers based on 'sound bites'. They are indifferent to doing their own research.
Bump!
As I reflect further on your words, I realize they form the rationale for Socialism.
I do not see, in re-reading the Lazarus account, I do not see ANYTHING that justifies “extreme poverty” as being “special” and “needing” of recompense. The part of Lazarus and the rich man was merely the setup to show that people from extremely different walks can either choose to follow God or not. One of the two was righteous, the other was not. One followed the Scripture, the other, apparently, did not.
It had NOTHING to do with one being poor and the other, rich, being sinful by apparently not helping the other. However, we do know our hearts will be judged.
Choosing to give can be righteous in the right context if done on behalf of God, but it isn’t under any other circumstance. For all others, giving is empty before God if you haven’t accepted Christ.
As far as the Pope saying we must be mandated to give to people in other countries because we “have more,” he apparently doesn’t understand Christ, nor the Bible.
I also do not believe there is any basis for the companies in your examples to do anything beyond what they did. If you believe in distributive justice, blame the governments in both examples for not stepping in and fulfilling their duties with unemployment training or the like, of which I don't believe the government should have a mandate to have to provide, even if you believe these corporations somehow do.
Your thinking is convoluted and wrong.
Ping to this thread!
Thank you for posting. The liberal spin has caused much Pope-bashing.
What is your take on the story of the rich man and Lazarus?
To your both posts.
Socialism is when means of production, such as factories and banks, are owned by political entities. Taxation, regulation and tariffs are of course something similar because they allow political entities to influence the private sector, but they fall short of ownership. In other words, either we never had anything other than socialism in 20c industrialized world, because we never had capitalism free from taxation, regulation, and tariffs, or what the Pope is proposing is a development that is in line with 20c regulated and taxed capitalism. The pope is no revolutionary.
The Pope actually is not saying that anyone should be mandated beyond what he already in justice owes. So his proposal is not event tendentiously socialist. If you don’t see injustice in the two examples that I gave, then you don’t understand justice.
It is the Catholic teaching that human dignity and life is something we owe others. So if the operation of the market deprives someone of his dignity or life then that operation of the market is unjust. Whether or not you see that principle reflected in the story of Dives and Lazarus is a matter of interpreting the Bible differently, doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things. The Pope is Catholic and he clarifies the Catholic doctrines for us, not any other kind of doctrines.
So, how is taking monies from some people to give to others not wrong? Do you realize there will always be people who are more poor than others and that taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn't do anything but create another injustice?
In any occasion someone buys something that someone sells, both parties believe they are getting the better end of the deal. That market is operating justly, no matter what the long-term repercussions might be to one or the other parties.
It is not moral before God to make someone give something they do not choose to give. Do you not believe that God knows our hearts and will judge us one day? Forcing someone to give against their will to another does not make that transaction, nor the person being coerced, righteous or just in any way. Can you not see that it is you and the Pope, with your views on this, that truly deprives people of “their dignity or life”?
The whole “Robin Hood” lore is romantic, but grossly unjust. It is wrong to steal, no matter what your intentions are with the ill-gotten goods.
It depends what the two consenting parties are doing. They could be robbing the future generations of a healthy environment, or aiding a hostile foreign power, or destroying a cultural value that is not theirs. The examples I gave you are in these categories of injustice.
On the other hand no one is saying that merely because someone is poor he deserves a handout. I would agree, for example, that the welfare system in the developed countries is 99% waste and theft.
“The heart is governed, for He has written His law upon the hearts of his people.”
At at that time, when the spirit of the law is universally observed because every human lives unified with the spirit of the law, of what need is theology or government - none.
Heaven come down to earth, and universally expressed in humanity, is a state of being not a social system.
"Atrocities were committed throughout western history, but the kicker was that several times, society actually humbled themselves and repented. Apparently enough did to move society forward."And when did that happen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.