Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
As observers continue to decipher the meaning of Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, all appear to agree that the passage of note, the passage that may prove historic in its implications, is the one that is already becoming known as the “world political authority” paragraph:
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. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. 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. . . .
Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization.
It is true that Benedict believes that a transnational organization must be empowered to address transnational problems. But so has every pope since John XXIII, who wrote in 1963 that “Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are worldwide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization, and means coextensive with these problems, and with a worldwide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such form of public authority.”
But such an authority has been established, and we have lived with it since 1948, and in many ways it has disappointed. So Benedict turns John XXIII’s formulation on its head: Morality no longer simply demands a global social order; now Benedict underscores that this existing social order must operate in accord with morality. He ends his own passage on world authority by stating that “The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order. . . .” Note the phrase “at last.”
What went wrong? According to Benedict, a world authority worthy of this authority would need “to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment.
To understand how the UN has failed, we must delve into the rest of the encyclical. According to Benedict, the goal of all international institutions must be “authentic integral human development.” This human development must be inspired by truth, in this case, the truth about humanity. Pursuit of this truth reveals that each human being possesses absolute worth; therefore, authentic human development is predicated on a radical defense of life.
This link is made repeatedly in Caritas in Veritate. “Openness to life is at the center of true development. . . . The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help. . . . They can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and individual.”
To some, it must seem startling how often Benedict comes back to life in an encyclical ostensibly dedicated to economics and globalization. But this must be understood as Benedict’s effort to humanize globalization. It can be seen as the global application of John Paul II’s own encyclical on life, Evengelium Vitae.
Without this understanding of the primacy of life, international development is bound to fail: “Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human?”
Throughout the encyclical, Benedict is unsparing in the ways in which the current international order contributes to this failure; no major front in the war over life is left unmentioned, from population control, to bioethics, to euthanasia.
But none of this should come as a surprise. Since at least as far back as the UN’s major conferences of the 1990s—Cairo and Beijing—Benedict has known that the UN has adopted a model of development conformed to the culture of death. He no doubt assisted John Paul II in his successful efforts to stop these conferences from establishing an international right to abortion-on-demand. At the time, Benedict said, “Today there is no longer a ‘philosophy of love’ but only a ‘philosophy of selfishness.’ It is precisely here that people are deceived. In fact, at the moment they are advised not to love, they are advised, in the final analysis, not to be human. For this reason, at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians . . . have a duty to protest.”
Now, in his teaching role as pope, Benedict is not simply protesting but offering the Christian alternative, the full exposition of authentic human development. Whether or not the UN can meet the philosophical challenges necessary to promote this true development remains uncertain. But it should not be assumed that Benedict is sanguine; after all, he begins his purported embrace of world government with a call for UN “reform,” not expansion.
lol. Probably, according to some who long for a return to the Inquisition...
"The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks" -- 328 posted on 08/01/2008 4:59:56 PM PDT by annalex ("Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics")
See betty, and be thankful, you don't think like evil people and fallen angels think, it's totally incomprehensible to you, and to most people. Evil angels and the lying people that they possess see this in good people and exploit it, it's how they get where they are. This idea that people are basically good is not true.
Amen. And anyone who reads the pope's treatise on "charity" realizes that is exactly what he's advocating.
...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. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. 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...
Who can read those words and not sudder?
There is going to be a one world religion we know that, imagine what’s at stake (pun intended)
Many denominations (I know of) could be heretical in some way(s).. But as I said Jesus didn't forbid heresy.. even the Jewish "heresys" of the Pharisees and other jewish groups.. were tolerated..
The sheep pens could be holding tanks for "believers" to sober up before they are ready for the Pasture(Ps 23)... Yes, including many protestant pens..
Pretty good work I would say in addressing the Roman Catholic holding pen.. The revelation in John ch. 10 is an ephipany of indirect implications..
to Petronski; thanks for indirectly directing me to this post.. later(than #238) in this thread..
IIRC,
you’ve affirmed as much yourself repeatedly hereon.
If by good work you mean a pack of distortions and lies, yes, it was very good work.
You do not recall correctly.
We were supposed to have checks and balances in our government and a free press to keep watch, and keep the crooks honest. Instead we have families of elites generationally taking over the seats that were to be for representatives of the people, but instead they are bought and paid for by special interests. Anyone that doesn’t think these reps are blackmailed and owned must be living in Mary Poppins land. They no longer care anything about the people or the USA, that must be painfully obvious by now to the most true believer in freedom and the Republic
The people let this go on, but the press has mislead them, as had the lying Obama types.
WELL PUT.
MARY POPPINS LAND INDEED.
Was reading somewhere recently . . . and some politico admitted that his consituents—everyone’s constituents
had NOT MATTERED AT ALL FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
So incredibly true.
Probably shouldn’t bet a gnat’s burp’s worth on it. LOL.
Every single time, eh?
That is such NONSENSE.
What the man says about the Catholic Church is riddled with falsehoods. Either he was poorly catechized or he is lying.
I pray you will see the truth and leave yourself.
Spare me the anti-Cahtolic hatred.
******************
Perhaps you're holding him to too high a standard. Of what value is the truth, after all?
Excellent questions that never seem to get any answer, much less a thoughtful answer from anyone. Puzzling.
I’m not sure I do.
I don’t think his system could stand the shock.
I’d be happy if he became an RC Charismatic after a visit to the NM RC retreat center or some such.
Well put.
Another personal slam from Quix.
Next.
Well, I think Mike Gendron has a wonderful ministry and he does know what he’s talking about. I’ve listened to him quite a few times on the Olive Tree Ministries program (interviewed by Jan Markell) besides hearing him in conferences.
No. And neither does Pope Benedict.
It seems everybody has read Section 67 of Caritas in Veritate. What I wonder is how many of them have read the encyclical's other 39 pages.
Betty, surely you read every word of any contract you sign before committing your signature to the paper, right? Is that because every word is suspect, or because there well may be a small clause somewhere that benefits the author at your expense?
Section 39, etc., could well be just peachy. It is the 67th section that is the cause of our valid concern.
It doesn't matter what the pope says in all the other pages of this document IF on one page he is selling America's blood-stained liberty down the drain with the swift imprint of his golden papal stamp.
The clear and simple fact that any human being can know for themselves is that in Section 67 the pope is urging "a single, global authority telling the United States how to regulate disarmament, immigration, food allocation, the environment and security."
It's right there in black and white for those with eyes to see.
Well, dear sister in Christ, just as my depiction seems "foreign" to you, so does yours to me.
Again — and again — I do not see that there is any least thing in Caritas in Veritate that supports the idea that Pope Benedict is arguing in favor of implementing "a single ruling global authority over every facet of our lives, liberty and government." Unless it be the authority of Jesus Christ Himself.
That time is not yet. And we don't know when it will come.
But Benedict can be forgiven for his obvious "favoritism" here, for he has consecrated his life to the service of Jesus Christ. So of course he would be disposed toward, in favor of the Truth of our Lord.
He probably could have gotten a different gig — say, in academe, in a great university — and have excelled there, too.
But he himself — a man, a mere mortal — dedicated his life wholly in service to our Lord and His Truth. And Light. And Justice. And Love. And Mercy. And Beauty.
Please forgive me: I just don't SEE what you see, on the basis of what Benedict has written and caused to be published.
Since it seems to me that we both are members of the Body of Christ, how do we account for such basic differences?
I’ve been listening to them again. If you listen to the oldest two (April 23, 2005) you’ll find that they are right after the death of Pope John Paul II, which makes for an interesting two-hour program on Catholicism, and a few tidbits about the “new” pope...
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.