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.
INDEED.
However, on starting to read truth like that, REPLACEMENTARIANS, et al
seem to plug ears, blind eyes and mutter loudly to themselves to block out any semblence of truth getting any where near their synapses.
Apparently, inexplicably, you don’t think handing over this country’s economic, social, legal and defense decision-making to some “global authority” is messing with America’s national sovereignty.
If that isn’t, I don’t know what is.
= = =
INDEED.
Mind bogglingly mystifying.
Increasingly , that’s all that makes sense, to me.
On this "vanity question," I certainly do hope so, dear 1000silverlings!
Some eye-opening posts on this thread, eh?
Maybe I've read them, and found them inconsequential and ungermane to the issues at hand....
Thanks Dr. E!
Oh, probably that would do it for sure....
Actually, dear 1000silverlings, that's what I'm hoping for.
Thank you so much for understanding — and for your kind thoughts..
>>> He is not arguing for “global control!” He is arguing for the Christian Spirit as having a fruitful role to play in the working out of human society. <<<
Actually, I think he’s arguing for BOTH. What worries me is that he doesn’t notice the glaring contradictions between the two.
As for “the working out of human society,” _Caritas_ is more explicit than that. It’s more of a Development — an “integral” and “authentic” human development — towards some future Fraternity or Unity of the peoples of the earth.
What that means in terms of Christian doctrine, I haven’t the foggiest idea. That’s why I brought up Teilhard de Chardin in a previous post. Do you think that Teilhardism may in part help us understand the significance of all this jargon in _Caritas_?
INDEED.
I only have impressions and logical conclusions to go on--all of which can be wrong.
My HERETOFORE understanding of you and your personality was such that
I EXPECTED, ASSUMED with all the hazards of both . . . that
HAD you read such, you'd have owned doing so WELL BEFORE this.
That's how I read
--your personality
--your persistent kindness
--your Christ-like doing unto others . . .
--your virtual friendship with me
--your characteristic thoughtfulness
--your faithful fair-mindedness
--your tendency to face and fairly, logically deal with all reasonable sides of an issue;
-- . . .
And yet . . . you have STILL not said one way or the other.
That's most difficult for this psychologist to explain based on what I thought I knew about you.
The notion that such might not be considered germain to the encyclical is extremely beyond me--mystifies me to the max.
IF there IS such a globalist oligarchy
THEN it is smack dab in the bull's eye middle of the contentious paragraph of the encyclical.
HOW COULD IT LOGICALLY BE OTHERWISE?
You do seem to win the prize for leaving me maximally mystifyingly mind-boggled on this thread.
I'm beginning to think I don't know nor understand Betty Boop in the least. That saddens me greatly.
Sometimes recently seeing some of the things old faithful well known sorts of FRiends are posting on FR, one begins to get the frightful feeling that FR itself is slipping alarmingly close to Alice's rabbit hole.
The world was radically altered on Calvary, never to be the same. Christ has risen. He is presently making footstools of all enemies of the Gospel. He reigns today in your heart and my heart and in the heart of every Christian, a number that grows each day, too many to count. His command to make disciples of all nations was not a fool's errand. His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
I just don't understand some Christians' relinquishing this earth to Satan when Christ has told us Satan is bound and cannot thwart the will of God.
This world is God's creation. He loved it enough to send His Son to redeem it. We should see that clearly and not faint nor despair. The Gospel transforms lives and the Gospel will not be silenced. It prospers whoever hears it and accomplishes all that God intends.
Is our life more difficult than the lives of early Christians? Are our sins greater? Is our hope less?
The Gospel does not fail. Two thousand years later we still mark the years by the birth of Jesus Christ.
POSTMILLENIALISM: WISHFUL THINKING OR CERTAIN HOPE?
As Gentry says in the link, "Why would God give up on history, which He began as "very good?" Does not God "make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Does He not declare: "My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please" (Isa. 46:10)? If God created the universe for His own glory, He will get the glory!"
But I disagree with some preterists regarding the beast, or anti-Christ. I lean more towards the understanding of virtually every Reformer for over 100 years after the Reformation. So we just have to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, preaching the Gospel and trusting that all liars and tyrants will not end well.
Ultimately, x, Postmillenialism is one area Wesley got right. "Rejoice evermore." It's contagious. As God wills. 8~)
INCREDIBLY SO
yes, I just meant a separate thread where more people will see it
Try these threads to find some mac people:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2320054/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2317954/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2295109/posts
Could a problem relating to a CMOS setting.. ie."sleep-mode"
Consider a CMOS "option" as the "culprit".. everything starts at the CMOS.. Some CMOS firmware can be updated..
Thwarting the will of God, and being bound are in no way linked. Satan is not bound,nor did Christ say that he was, as can be seen from his growing influence here on Earth. Last presidential election being a good case in point. The percentage of the world that is Christs appears to be shrinking at a rapid pace. The US was once founded on his gospel, but look at it now!
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.