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.
Just the same.....
The Roman Catholic church has no need of the Holy Spirit..
if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and father God himself didnt exist..
The RCC would operate fully not missing a beat..
Like a Robot..
I don’t care. I’m not Roman, I’m not part of any “Roman Catholic church.”
I worship in the Catholic Church, founded by Christ.
The anti-Catholic Bigotry Express rolls on unencumbered by facts or logic or history or the Grace of God.
We have the grace of God and it doesn’t disappear from us when we commit a sin. Too bad for you guys.
Spare me the details of your delusions.
Poor baby.
Is that your new sig line?
I find it to be accurate and startlingly self-aware.
Thumbs up.
Thank God.. I'm relieved..
Many protestant churchs are not flocks but "packs" with alpha, beta and gamma proponents.. Both males and females have their place in each group..
All orthodox churchs(I know of) are not packs or flocks but "HIVES"..
Like some bees, some ants, some wasps and the fictional "BORG"...
Very robotic in function.. with Queens(sometimes several).. drones and workers..
The metaphorical biblical "flock" is pregnant with meaning..
It alludes to other human authority structures..
i.e. gaggles, herds, prides, pods etc.. a.k.a. denominations which are cults..
Your own personal interpretation of Scripture is really quite useless to me.
I do acknowledge the obvious effort trying to get it down on screen.
Its not about "YOU".. "its" about the lurkers..
Well then you should keep it up! I’m sure we all need a laugh in this new era...lurkers included.
Your support is appreciated.. (removing glasses, raised eye brow, eye twich)..
>>> There’s nothing left to discuss. <<<
I was hoping you’d tell me what you thought of BXVI’s “new humanism,” but I guess that’s not to be.
As for me, I have no desire to participate in the sempiternal Protestant vs. Catholic flame war.
>>> I’ve thoroughly refuted each claim you guys have made, using words taken straight from the text. None of you has been able to formulate a reasoned reply. <<<
You’ve done no such thing. What a silly fellow you are.
>>> Pat is niether a racist or an anti-Semite. <<<
Coming from you, that means a lot. /sarc
...Establish or support "mechanisms of wealth redistribution?" Please tell me, in a world built out of the crooked timber of humanity how is this possible without violence or the threat of violence from specific agents; without the establishment of huge bureaucracies with the power to enforce their codes; without the establishment of an effective world-wide controlling authority?
Isn't it handy this pope has a "huge bureaucracy" and "world-wide authority" close by ready to "enforce the codes" of their choice?
INDEED.
>>> Isn’t it handy this pope has a “huge bureaucracy” and “world-wide authority” close by ready to “enforce the codes” of their choice? <<<
Hmmm... I don’t think that the Holy See’s bureaucracy is as effective or as powerful as would be needed to administer a world-spanning governing body. By far. The Vatican has a hard time keeping the US bishops in line on issues like abortion — this level of activity would be well beyond its powers.
My guess is that the bureaucracy and administering authority would have to be created de novo, although I’m sure that much of the institutional raw material is already at hand. Let us pray that this Leviathan is never constructed.
Perhaps this is where we disagree: I see BXVI and the RCC as attempting to promote and influence a controlling authority, not to BE or formally LEAD such an organization.
lol. Protestantism is alive and well and proclaiming the Gospel throughout the world, as God wills.
John Calvin commentating on Eph 4:14: "They will attack us, indeed, but they will not prevail. We are entitled, I acknowledge, to look for the dispensation of sound doctrine from the church, for God has committed it to her charge; but when Papists avail themselves of the disguise of the church for burying doctrine, they give sufficient proof that they have a diabolical synagogue." - Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XXI John Calvin commenting on John 9:22-23: "In short, nothing can be more certain than that those who, we see, are not subject to Christ are deprived of the lawful power of excommunicating. Nor ought we to dread being excluded by them from their assembly, since Christ, who is our life and salvation, is banished from it. So far are we from having any reason to dread being thrown out, that, on the contrary, if we desire to be united to Christ, we must, of our own accord, withdraw from the synagogues of Satan." - Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XVII.
Amen, Mary!
I love to hear you tell of your husband's escape from Rome and of the confident security he found through Christ's teachings in Scripture. My husband, too. They know the destructive errors they left behind and they thank God for His blessed assurance.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
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.