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’m glad to see that there’s one literate person left on FR. Kudos for a post well done.
Hey, think what you want.
Any economic system that does not promote the intrinsic value and right to life of the individual human person regardless of his or her economic value is intrinsically immoral.
The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help
Only a society in which the individual human person is valued regardless of his or her economic value can be said to be moral, or, indeed, to be a society.
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
Any economic system that in centered solely upon the individual and his or her personal profit is intrinsically immoral. Economic systems that combine free enterprise with the recognition that all human beings have a duty towards one another as children of God can be said to be moral.
See? It's not that hard if you look up the big words.
And you know this how?
“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.”
Why are you two isolating sentence fragments from his core message?
Explain it.
Just what kind of economic system is being referred to?
How can an economic system be geared to profit just one individual?
Could it mean what Karl referred to? Or Obama? Take from me, so I won't be profiting personally from my efforts and give to Joe Couch Potato, or to the Somalis?
I believe the entire article was written in a poor attempt to moderate the pontiff's more positive stance on world government in his encyclical written several months ago.
Have you read that? I have.
What is that truth?
Man was created in God's image and we Christians and Jews are to follow the Ten Commandments. That obedience to the Commandments is what separates us from the godless muslims and heretics.
Is that the truth to which he speaks?
Cultures can not hope to move forward while denying the sanctity of life. Eugenics, euthenasia, and abortion are the antithesis of the cultural “solutions” to the under-developed nations of the world. This has nothing to do with world government and everything to do with the nations of the world taking this common view of life, in the pursuit of betterment for all without seeking advantage at the expense of others. NO! That is NOT communism! Everyone does the best they can and in that course some will do better than others, but it need not be at the expense of others.
Shortly after Benedict became pope I bought a book, supposedly written by the pontiff, that had a short daily essay. It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what it is he is attempting to convey and I am fairly well-educated with a PhD.
It's like an entire diocese engaging an archbishop and all priests to engage in a boycott of restaurant chains to get pressure put on the growers to pay the pickers more money.
Spending diocesan time on things like this instead of saving souls is pointless.
And then there's the sermons couched in newspeak that are meaningless in order to avoid offending the sinners.
What part of asking the world to focus on the sanctity of life is pointless and unfocused on saving souls?
How about an example of this existing in polite society. Who are you talking about here?
Let me know and and I'll read it in the morning. I'm going to bed to read something enlightening.
This isn’t that hard...
I work for a large corporation and I do the best I can, but some perform better and get paid better. Their paycheck is not at my expense and my paycheck is not at the expense of an unemployed construction worker.
I have the opportunity to help the less fortunate, but it need not be commanded of me.
On a national level “foreign aid” could be used to truly help others help themselves, but too often we see eugenic policies implemented: BS “green energy” that will never be adequate, no DDT for maleria control, passive acceptance of brutal aggression and a host of other travesties the U.N. ignores, due to their support for “population control”.
I agree wholeheartedly with your great tagline. I am so angry at Catholics and those of other Christian faiths who voted for this man. WHAT were they thinking? No, they WEREN’T thinking...
Cause the bible told me so.
WELL PUT
Well put.
Magicsterical pontifical bureaucratic political ‘intellectual’ blather
tends to be that way.
Have read overmuch such, myself.
I made sure my Dissertation was not more of the same.
Didn’t exist until around 300-400 AD.
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.