The Pope is concerned for the good of humanity. The way globalization has been going has not been completely good morally. People with short memories may forget that the Pope was a major figure in the destruction of the Soviet Evil Empire. He sees that communism is evil. The Church also teaches that socialism, modernism, and communism are systems that are contrary to Church teaching. So the Pope is coming from that world view. There are plenty of conservatives who aren't completely libertarian (small "l") or objectivist in thought when it comes to the market, but their conservative credentials aren't questioned for the most part. The way some of these market purists are acting, they would be condemning Jesus for being a "socialist."
I think Jesus advocated people acting in humanitarian ways as individuals, by making those choices. I'm entirely in favor of people choosing on their own to help others. I don't recall Jesus advocating that government do those things instead of individuals. One of the amazing things about Christianity is that we CAN choose - we can choose to live a godly life, we can choose to ask for forgiveness, or we can choose not to.
I see the Pope saying people aren't making the choices he thinks they should, therefore they should be regulated to make sure they do.
Actually, my complaint about the Pope's "Globalization Must Be Regulated" comment is more basic:
Just what, pray tell, is "globalization"? How, in your opinion, has it "been going"? And, whatever it is exactly, how does one "regulate" it?
From the article:
Citing what he sees as a lack of effective mechanisms to direct the process of globalization,
What "process of globalization"? What the hell does that MEAN? International airline flights? The Internet? What the heck is he talking about?
John Paul II proposed "a new constitutional organization of the human family."
Meaning..? US Constitution is hereby cancelled?
The Pope addressed the issue of "The Governance of Globalization"
How does one "govern globalization" if one can't define it?
The "processes by which capital, goods, information, technology and knowledge are exchanged and circulated throughout the world today often elude the traditional mechanisms of regulatory control put in place by national governments and international agencies,"
Ah, finally, a meaty comment. What he's saying in English: black markets and tax shelters are becoming easier. Well, in some cases, this might be bad; in other cases, good. It's not exactly a clear-cut moral issue, now, is it? If people in North Korea could find a way to exchange and circulate FOOD which would "elude" the "traditional mechanisms of regulatory control put in place by" their government, wouldn't that be a WONDERFUL THING?
"Special interests and the demands of the market frequently predominate over concern for the common good," he added. "This tends to leave the weaker members of society without adequate protection and can subject entire peoples and cultures to a formidable struggle for survival."
Mushy gibberish lacking any precise meaning. People will interpret this however they want.
"Moreover, it is disturbing to witness a globalization that exacerbates the conditions of the needy,
How does it do that exactly? How are the conditions of the needy "exacerbated" by "globalization"? Is that really happening?
that does not sufficiently contribute to resolving situations of hunger, poverty and social inequality,
How is "globalization" making these things worse? Couldn't it, in fact, be making them better than they'd otherwise be (without "globalization")? Sure it could! (After all, "globalization" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!)
"These aspects of globalization
Circular definition. He's listed some bad things. Now he's calling them "aspects of globalization", and then, blaming "globalization" for the bad things. A shorter way to say this would be just to come clean and replace the word "globalization" with "Satan"
"All of this is far-removed from the concept of an ethically responsible globalization
Ok so now the "globalization" ought to be "ethically responsible". Well sure I'll go with that. (After all, it doesn't even exist in the first place, why not make it "ethically responsible" then.)
Accordingly, there can be little doubt of the need for guidelines that will place globalization firmly at the service of authentic human development
Look, I'm all for "globalization" being at the service of authentic human development. Why not? I'll go you one further: jimypooquantegenerism ought to be at the service of authentic human development. What's that? You want to know what "jimypooquantegenerism"? Why should that matter? Whatever it is, it oughta be at the service of human development, right? Anyway, I'll give you a precise definition of "jimypooquantegenerism" as soon as you give me a precise definition of "globalization". (I won't hold my breath.)
The "true success of globalization will be measured by the extent that it enables every person to enjoy the basic goods of food and housing, of education and employment, of peace and social progress, of economic development and justice,"
Uh, but how can it do any of these things if people keep taking all of their complaints about the world and then defining "globalization" to be the cause of those complaints?
However, this "goal cannot be achieved without guidance from the international community and adequate regulation on the part of the worldwide political establishment," he continued.
Why not?
Consequently, "now is the time to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, an organization that would be in a position to meet the new demands of a globalized world," the Pope said.
Thanks for the invitation Pope, but we politely decline.
Look, there may indeed be some valid moral comments from the Pope in these remarks but to say that "Globalization Must Be Regulated" is just jibberish and buzzwords. Perhaps they mean something to the Pope and perhaps they mean something to you, but to me, he may as well be speaking Latin. What's worse, and more to the point, is that to many influential people, these jibberish buzzwords may sound like they give blanket endorsement of various socialist experiments. Whether the Pope knows this will be the effect of his words, or not.
And that, in the end, is what I think people are picking up on and complaining about.