Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?

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.

>>> 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. <<<

Since when does “each human being possess absolute worth”? Did Judas Iscariot? I’ve looked at the encyclicals of BXVI and JPII, and cannot find these words expressed anywhere therein. A Catholic friend of mine assures me that they are NOT in the Catholic catechism. Is this some tidbit of Catholic folklore that pretends to be orthodox?

>>> Evil and revisionism surrounds us. <<<

Ain’t that the truth!

Apparently, we’re also surrounded by Catholics who make stuff up (”infinite worth of the human person”) and then claim it’s “a timeless tradition of the Church.”

Either that, or you’re correct when you point out that I should blame BXVI for it. Problem is, I can’t find anything in his writings that comes close to this touchy-feely blather. BXVI seems to (appropriately) apply “infinite” as a descriptor ONLY to the Persons and Attributes of our Triune God. Is there something I haven’t read?

From the Pope's encyclical on forming a New World Order:

- "Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."

- "... there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country."

- "What is meant by the word 'decency' in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children. ..."

- "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers."

Cumulatively, Benedict's diagnoses of global economic ills lead to a call for nothing short of "a profoundly new way of understanding human enterprise."

He would move toward markets geared to "redistribute" wealth from advanced to poorer countries and sees "urgent need of a true world political authority" to, among other tasks, "manage the global economy."

Benedict's encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," is stunningly radical, notably in its prescriptions for the temporal order. There's no doubt that in urging the creation of something akin to a world government, he has established a landmark for his papacy and for Catholicism.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/07/08/2009-07-08_a_popes_new_world_order_benedict_proposes_stunningly_radical_approach_to_global_.html#ixzz0Qzl3tERM

You’re preaching to the choir here, IbJensen. Look at my earlier posts on this topic.

It should be no surprise to anyone familiar with the RCC that it traditionally has had significant problems with 1.) capitalism, in both its national and international aspects, and 2.) the increasing separation of Church and State that has been going on in Europe since the Peace of Westphalia.

The “integralism” that is the key notion in _Caritas_, if brought about to the extent that BXVI apparently wants it, is radical and would bring about significant changes worldwide. It would bring about the end of capitalism and the re-integration of institutional religion into government (in nations where the two have drifted apart) on the national and international level.

The desired creation of a “global governing authority” is a key, but not the only key, to understanding the radical nature of _Caritas_.

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.