I just don’t understand so much in these threads.
The encyclical is full of flowery politico-bureaucratic-theological gobbledy-gook and double speak—it seems to me—to put it politely.
But the key paragraph is rather starkly clear.
Yet, the key paragraph gets dismissed as though it’s totally inconsequential.
And that by some of the finest minds on FR.
Shocking, to me.
Further, when we talk about the very clear and explicit statements in the startling paragraph, we are thought to be wholesale and blindly biased against the Pope’s person. In at least a good number of our cases—that’s simply NOT TRUE.
He writes or signed off on VERY STARTLING GLOBALIST STATEMENTS. There’s no other way to put it. The statements affirm key aspects of globalism in the more or less worst terms applicable.
Yet we are to treat such startling statements as meaningless drivel?
Sorry but that won’t wash. If it was such meaningless drivel why were these statements so clearly put, compared to so much of the bureaucratic, double-speak, politico gobbledy-gook in the rest of it?
If his assertions in that paragraph were so wimpish, useless, chaff, compared to the rest of the encyclical, why not just leave it out? What was the point?
Given that the wording makes the points in behalf of globalism starkly clear—why is it so many bright folks who are normally more faire-minded and normally demonstrate much higher integrity to a fair-minded comprehensive discussion of a topic—seem to play fast and loose and slippery with this one?
Mystifying.
Yet, the key paragraph gets dismissed as though it’s totally inconsequential.
Yep. Obviously no coincidence.
"Look over here, and never mind over here."
I feel an ice age coming on
I agree Quix. Some people are blinded by the pope’s words.
Very insightful posting.
>>> But the key paragraph is rather starkly clear. <<<
There are other “key” sections:
This is from section 57:
“Hence the principle of SUBSIDIARITY is particularly well-suited to MANAGING GLOBALIZATION and DIRECTING IT TOWARDS AUTHENTIC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. In order not to produce a DANGEROUS UNIVERSAL POWER of a TYRANNICAL nature, the GOVERNANCE OF GLOBALIZATION must be marked by SUBSIDIARITY, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires AUTHORITY, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This AUTHORITY, however, must be organized in a SUBSIDIARY AND STRATIFIED way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”
************************************************************
Once again, the magic-word SUBSIDIARITY solves the problem of how to manage and direct globalization without creating a Frankenstein’s monster of an universal and tyrannical governing power.
That’s your problem, Quix. You just don’t have enough faith in the power of subsidiarity!
The last sentence is important. To say that the managing Authority is to be organized in a SUBSIDIARY AND STRATIFIED way means that power will be distributed EQUALLY to all levels of the HIERARCHY. This is to eliminate any possibility of power being concentrated in one or several places, and especially to undercut any chance of there arising a CENTRAL managing authority. The question arises: is there anything that subsidiarity can’t do?
I’ve read that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is an example of subsidiarity; look at how well it’s functioned to reign-in the powers of our central gov’t in DC! I’ve also read that subsidiarity is a key principle of EU law. And, of course, everyone knows how sensitive to the needs of local farmers and businessmen the Brussels bureaucrats have been.
Also — once again — what’s up with this goal of “authentic human develpoment”? What does the phrase mean, and what does it entail by making it THE goal of all human peoples? I what sense is it a CHRISTIAN goal?
Been gone for 5 days and the only thing “mystifying” here is your ego.
I answered any of your questions worth addressing in posts to another here.
The Pope is not infallible. The spiritual growth occures in a microcosma of failures of our own and others ahead of us. The Church relies too much on the bad advice of confidentes who hide behind paperwork, colors and bureaucracy instead of true test of the spirits and faiths during missions. These are the gist of staying “powers”.
We can’t be impressed nor erroneously give inheritence morale support to errors, indeed. The inheritence is ahead, not behind in “glorious” legacies. “Sometimes” we are persecuted by our elders’ erring in largesses ending to evil.