Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?

First Things ^ | August 20, 2009 | Douglas A. Sylva

[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.

[xzins]

It must be necessary in some way for God's Purpose.

One of the fascinating events in the career of Satan is his 1000 year imprisonment by God. He is then released. He goes out again to deceive the nations.

Not that I have insight into God's intent, but I'm impressed that Satan was given an imprisonment and what some could view as a 2d chance at freedom. God predicts that Satan goes immediately to his hateful ways, but if anyone were ever to wonder about the justice of God in His relationship with Satan, all creation will bear witness to God's glorious justice.

[Petronski]

It’s not hatred.

Not in all cases.

It’s concern for Catholics.

Guided by ignorance of Catholicism spawned by anti-Catholic hatred.

[hosepipe]

[ The claims made by this so-called ex-Catholic do not comport with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. ]

Says you... with no proof, argument or even a little attempt at correcting the "error" if there was one.. Is it possible you have no proof, you know like a democrat?.. If this guy is wrong.. be bold.. don't be shy.. MAN UP.... Spit it out..

Otherwise you may sound to some like a FANATIC...

[Petronski]

Says you...

Says the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Let me save you the trouble of a reply:

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

Sheep pens (John 10)...

[Star Traveler]

You said — Yes, it is precisely that. He does not know what he is talking about or he is lying about it.

—

You must have missed the part where he said the following, then... “Let us consider the contradictory beliefs of Catholics and Christians. By definition we will propose a Christian is one who believes the Gospel while a Catholic is one who believes the official teachings and traditions of his church (presented by paragraph number from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).”

You’ll note that this is the “number” in the parentheses...

For example, one section ...

---

A Christian is justified once by faith because justification is a permanent declaration by God (Romans 8:30). However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5).

A Catholic is justified repeatedly by sacraments and works because he loses the grace of justification each time a mortal sin is committed. The sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification (1446).

---

So, it’s all right there for everyone to see for themselves... :-)

[Petronski]

Let us consider the contradictory beliefs of Catholics and Christians.

I didn't miss that, it's like the biggest snake in the tree.

Satan himself can quote Scripture for his own effect, the same is true with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Don't pretend this liar posts Catechism citations for every one of his claims, either. He doesn't....he wouldn't dare.

[Star Traveler]

All anyone has to do is look down the list in that post and see the parentheses... LOL... they’re all there... (at the end of the sentence...)

He says...

---

A Catholic is condemned by the Word of God. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day (John 12:48). If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9).

These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron. They also affirm how man made traditions nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:7-13). There are many Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are unaware of how diametrically opposed Catholic dogmas are to the Word of God. The truth must be told.

---

I went down and look at every one of those items that he listed and he has the reference there for each one... :-)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2320658/posts?page=238#238

[Petronski]

... they’re all there...

All the numbers that are there are there.

But he doesn't have paragraph numbers for every claim.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “But he doesn’t have paragraph numbers for every claim.”

—

He says... “These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron.”

And I looked through them and they’re all there...

[Petronski]

“These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron.”

The characterization is an obscene lie.

I rebuke it in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

[Star Traveler]

It looks fairly accurate to me...

[Petronski]

Then you are wrong.

[Star Traveler]

Well..., everyone reading this can, of course, make up their own mind from reading the comparisons that he gives in that post ...

[Petronski]

...reading the comparisons that he gives in that post...

Everyone viewing "The Eternal Jew" can make up their own mind by viewing the comparisons that are made in the film....

[Marysecretary]

You really don’t have a clue, do you? Very sad.

[betty boop]

Such an authority would need to be regulated by law....

Indeed. And exactly.

And can you just guess whose Law the Pope has in mind here? Hint: the initials to the Name are J and C.

[Quix]

What a wearisome and hollow lament . . .

1. Every organization . . . PARTICULARLY bureaucratic political !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound large organizations like the Vatican et al . . . has

A) the 'legal' documents prescribing policy, membership criteria, rules of behavior etc.

and

B) what's generally accepted as true and/or kosher and/or routinely acceptable; routinely accepted in common dialogue as doctrine etc. by the rank and file in the pews or wherever.

A) and B) are NEVER equal.

Lots of type "A" personalities with "aggressively reactive temperaments," prissy foolish obsessive compulsive folks in all kinds of organizations can wail and puff themselves up and harumph up one side and down the other about what OUR ORGANIZATION BELIEVES XYZ and quote the documents ad nauseum.

And most of the time, what . . . 75-95%? of the rank and file and probably 20-50%? of the INSTRUCTORS IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HOLY GRAIL (or whatever such educators might be called in a particular organization) would shake their heads in dumb-founded NON-RECOGNITION of the verbatim documents quoted by the prissy foolish folks.

This is true for a number of reasons.

A) organizations are supposedly more less alive because they have somewhat living people within them--though many be the walking dead and certainly the walking brain-dead. And living groups of people develop norms of behavior, normative definitions of key terms; norms of assumptions and beliefs that are NEVER identical to the organization's documents.

B) The founding and related documents are usually so comprehensive, if not wordy that no one but those married to and idolatrous of the organization are going to learn them and keep them in mind. So, of course, being human, normal people will drop great portions of said documents' pontificationis and sort of hold loosely in their minds THEIR interpretations of the KEY portions of 'holy writ' that they feel SHOULD RIGHTFULLY govern MOST of their IMPORTANT-VIS-A-VIS-ORGANIZATIONALLY RELATED BEHAVIORS. The rest falls by the wayside. And, THEIR interpretations are NEVER IDENTICAL to what the CURRENT TOP LEADERS of the organization would assert as kosher doctrine.

C) Even the top leaders in succeeding eras will always redefine, reinterpret, reapply, re-color various parts of the 'holy writ' of the organization. It's human nature. The Vatican is no different on that score. Every leader wants their imprint on what flows out of their reign. And, the rank and file will pick and choose from those changes as to which of them the rank and file will OWN and live out, follow through on--to varying degrees of closeness to what said leaders do.

So, do we believe that 99.9% of all Roman Catholics believe 100% identically in lock step slavish mind-melds to Petronski?

GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!

It is conceivable that Petronski believes deep in his heart and bone marrow that he is leading the pack of the most orthodox, most holy, most Roman Catholic minded, most accurately wedded to the proper Vatican documents of all the world's titular Roman Catholics.

In my experience, there are lots of such folks running around loose in every organization. Each one of them considers that THEY ARE UNIQUELY AMONGST THE CLOSEST AND MOST ORTHODOX of all said IN-GROUP members that they know of. And, of course, whether it's WELS insisting on identical FELLOWSHIP worthy doctrines or RC's . . . no two paragonly prissy super orghodox obcoms even agree with each other identically--much less identically with the founding documents.

So they can strut and prance and fluff up their feathers and raise their noses all they want about what is the PURE beliefs of the organization. Most folks will just shake their heads at the pitiful displays and walk on by thinking quite otherwise.

[Quix]

Nonsense.

Nice rationalization but it just doesn’t wash.

[hosepipe]

[ Sheep pens (John 10) x 10... ]

Groovey... I can do that..

John Chapter 10

1 "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.
2 But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.
5 But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers."
6 Although Jesus used this figure of speech, 4 they did not realize what he was trying to tell them.
7 So Jesus said again, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep.
8 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
10 A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12 A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.
13 This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. 8 This command I have received from my Father."
19 Again there was a division among the Jews because of these words.
20 Many of them said, "He is possessed and out of his mind; why listen to him?"
21 Others said, "These are not the words of one possessed; surely a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?"
22 The feast of the Dedication 9 was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.
23 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon.
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? 11 If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly."
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you 12 and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify to me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father's hand.
30 The Father and I are one."
31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
37 If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me;
38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
39 (Then) they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.
40 He went back across the Jordan to the place where John first baptized, and there he remained.
41 Many came to him and said, "John performed no sign, 17 but everything John said about this man was true."
42 And many there began to believe in him.

[Quix]

Perhaps it’s time for a new eyeglass prescription.