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.
I rebuke your post #362 in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Using Scripture to foster hatred is a fundamentally diabolical act, using Scripture to foster hatred of the very Church founded by Christ is beyond the pale.
Don’t bother with this crowd. As Catholics, our job is to proclaim the truth, not to stand around bickering. We have done that. Shake the dust from your sandals and move on.
Very well put.
One prophetic sort of character I know has mused that all Creation is God’s effort to redeem his former high ranking assistant.
I’m rather exceedingly skeptical of that . . .
We will see some interesting things, however . . . between here and Armageddon and after.
That does seem to be the mentality on the part of . . . many.
The evidence is rather the opposite.
Some have a different perspective.
The focus seems to be on !!!!TRADITION!!!!, bureaucracy, politics, ritual, personages, doctrines of men . . .
Maybe “God” got buried in some Vatican archive somewhere.
Far be it from me to deny that anyone so practiced, educated, experienced could be an expert on hate.
All kinds of things are conceivable. Some a lot more probable than others.
You said — Actually, his own personal interpretation of Scripture does not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
—
I would agree that the Bible does not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church... you are so right there...
Your clock must be exceedingly off.
I just got up.
Obviously a heavy-duty RC bias involved! LOL.
Ahhhhhhhhh . . . well . . .
the stage of the spitting context has arrived.
You said — It’s a grotesquely distorted presentation of the Word of God, motivated by deceit and hate.
—
Well, on those two counts... first... anyone can read the Bible for themselves and see that what is given here is not a distorted presentation of the Word of God. In addition to that, I have *no doubt* that very many have heard the *very same* presentation of the Word of God, in many pulpits across this country, in very “Bible-believing churches”...
It only appears to be distorted, when compared to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And when one looks at which is distorting what..., one always picks the Bible as the final authority.
Secondly..., this sort of thing... which is the presentation of the Word of God, and showing where anyone else or anything else is not teaching what the Bible says — is not something that is motivated by deceit and hate.
It’s something that is motivated by the command of Jesus, which is for all Christians to give a presentation of the Gospel, according to the Scriptures, to all, who are in the world.
That would include those who are in the Catholic Church and those who adhere to the Catholic Catechism, instead of adhering to the Word of God...
And, with someone like Mike Gendron, who grew up in the Catholic Church, learned the Catholic Catechism and knows it inside and out — he is capable of showing where it is in opposition to the Word of God, and so he does so, by giving the Word of God, alongside the Catholic Catechism (and giving the reference paragraph for anyone to see for themselves).
It is a *blessing* to many that they are able to see the Word of God, in opposition to the Catholic Catechism...
You said — Using Scripture to foster hatred is a fundamentally diabolical act, using Scripture to foster hatred of the very Church founded by Christ is beyond the pale.
—
No..., what it is — is — giving the Word of God, so that one can adhere to that same Word of God — instead of — adhering to the Catholic Catechism, which is *not* in the Word of God...
You said — Don’t bother with this crowd.
—
You’re basically saying...
“Don’t bother with the crowd who adheres to the Gospel, according to the Bible. Instead, stay with the crowd that adheres to the Catholic Catechism.”
That’s very enlightening...
As for me..., I’ll leave *any church* in an instant, the second they start departing from teaching God’s inerrant and infallible Word, which is the Bible. And so should any other Christian.
If one doesn’t, then one should be questioning whether they are truly a Christian or not — and are (rather) simply a “member” of a particular “church”...
>>> God doesn’t have a “side”. <<<
If you mean by that that God doesn’t have a “side” when it comes to conflicts between nations, I believe that the sons and daughters of Israel (and the modern inhabitants of Poland, from what I’ve read) would strongly disagree. However, we were talking about the Church, not God. I hope we can agree there is a difference between the two.
As for “taking sides,” _Caritas in Veritate_ is taking sides, don’t you think? Taking the side of the good global/authentic/integral “development” of humanity. As opposed to nasty ol’ uncontrolled international capitalis... oops, I meant to say “globalization.”
>>> Humanism, the ideology based on the self-sufficiency of man, has nothing to do with Christianity of the Church, which is centered upon God. <<<
If you mean by humanism “secular humanism,” I would of course agree. But there are many flavors of humanism.
For example, there is BXVI’s “new humanism”:
“How”, he adds, “can we respond to these challenges? How can we recognize the ‘signs of the times’? Certainly, joint action on a political, economic and juridical level is needed but, even before that, it is necessary to reflect together on a moral and spiritual level. What is ever more vital is to promote a ‘NEW HUMANISM’”. (emphasis mine)
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=27579
(this is an article well worth reading, especially for its “integralism”)
What "all that there is" is all "about" is summed up in this passage:
I certainly 100% AGREE!
I thought that conjecture was more than a bit absurd, myself.
It’s just that the bit about satan being imprisoned for a thousand years of the Millenium reign . . . loosed a bit and then imprisoned forever . . . reminded me of it.
I was silly for mentioning it again.
Thx.
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.