Posted on 07/09/2009 11:42:11 AM PDT by markomalley
One point to make for you, though, is paragraph 67 (the controversial one).
The Latin (authoritative) version is not online yet. But there is a huge difference between both the Italian and German versions and the English version.
The Italian version says: 67. Di fronte all'inarrestabile crescita dell'interdipendenza mondiale, è fortemente sentita, anche in presenza di una recessione altrettanto mondiale, l'urgenza della riforma sia dell'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite che dell'architettura economica e finanziaria internazionale, affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni.
Translation: Faced with the unstoppable growth of global interdependence, it is strongly felt, even in the presence of a global recession, the urgency of reform in the Organization of the United Nations as well as the international economic and financial architecture, so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations.
The German says, Gegenüber der unaufhaltsamen Zunahme weltweiter gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit wird gerade auch bei einer ebenso weltweit anzutreffenden Rezession stark die Dringlichkeit einer Reform sowohl der Organisation der Vereinten Nationen als auch der internationalen Wirtschafts- und Finanzgestaltung empfunden, damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann.
Translation: In the face of the inexorable rise of global interdependence there is an urgency felt, even with an equally strong global recession, for the reform of both the Organization of the United Nations and the international economic and financial structures, so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form.
The English translation online says, 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.
Notice the differences in the bolded text:
- Italian: so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations
- German: so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form
- English: so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth
"Give real substance to the concept of the family" means about the same thing as "concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form." But "Acquire real teeth" has an utterly different meaning (at least to English speakers "real teeth" implies authority -- "muscle", while "give real substance" or "give real form" implies a structure, how something is organized)
My question is, why would they use an idiomatic expression in their English translation but not in their German or Italian translations?
Which is right? We'll have to wait until the Vatican posts the Latin version.
Well put.
May we be found in Him.
67. Ente el imparable aumento de la interdependencia mundial, y también en presencia de una recesión de alcance global, se siente mucho la urgencia de la reforma tanto de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas como de la arquitectura económica y financiera internacional, para que se dé una concreción real al concepto de familia de naciones.
In all candor, I haven’t been following the threads about this encyclical very closely at all. I’ve actually been devoting my time to studying the document itself. Once I have completed studying the document and integrating its content in with the remainder of the social doctrine of the Church, my concern will be in educating my fellow Catholics on what it actually says and blunting efforts of those who call themselves Catholic from using this document to advance their evil socialist agendas. That, in of itself, is going to be a difficult enough task without having to defend the document to non-Catholics who are predisposed to believing the Church is evil and who will simply glom onto portions of this document in an effort to further justify this belief.
As Sarah Palin recently said, “Why explain? Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe it anyway?”
I really have no intention to go to some undead, 1,500 post thread and attempt to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. It’s a waste of my time and energy that could be better spent in an effort to understand a very theologically dense (i.e., lots of content in a little space) document that is very relevant to my life as a Catholic.
While I know that you, Quix, are predisposed to distrusting anything Catholic, I also realize, from our past conversations, that you are also intellectually honest enough to attempt to base your evaluations based upon what is *actually* Catholic versus what *other people say* is Catholic.
So let me give you a couple of little hints:
#1: Paragraph 67 of this document is on about page 40 of a 50 page document. It must be read in light of the previous 66 paragraphs.
#2: The words “acquire real teeth” appear to be a mistranslation (we will know for sure once the authoritative Latin is published in the Acte Apostolicae Sedis later on this year). The Italian, French, and German all allude to a statement that the “concept of the ‘family of nations’ becomes more concrete” — that is a more theologically sound statement. It doesn’t call for a universal government: it calls for reform of the existing international organizations. BIG distinction there, folks.
#2a: For what purpose?
#2a(1): to give poorer countries a real voice. So that they can cooperate in their development. If you go through earlier paragraphs of the document, you will see him deploring how international aid has been given by the richer countries to the poorer countries and how, in turn, that aid has been misused by those poorer countries. He called, in earlier paragraphs, for that aid to help those countries be able to legitimately participate in trade, rather than merely being vassals of the richer countries. (That’s why I say you’ve GOT to read this paragraph in context of the rest of the document)
#2a(2): For reform of the global economy. Again, you’ve got to read this in the context of earlier paragraphs decrying the trend in the past couple of decades of businesses operating solely for the purpose of providing short-term dividends to shareholders, with the products and services delivered as a secondary issue, vice having the mission of delivering products and services and having the profits being a natural result of that delivery. Again, this phrase has to be read in the context of what was written previously. (You may or may not agree with what he said in earlier paragraphs, but this can’t be read in isolation)
#2a(3): lowering the threat level in the world (disarmament, food security and peace). Again, all discussed previously in this document.
#2a(4): For protection of the environment. (Note: earlier in this document, he talks extensively about our responsibility to steward the earth as a duty to our descendants, but, thank God he doesn’t go into the global warming hoax)
#2a(5): to regulate migration (that should make folks happy here...again, in context, he acknowledges earlier in the document that unrestrained migration is not a good thing)
#2b: He does call for a “a true world political authority” HOWEVER, the are a number of constraints that he calls for, without those constraints, such an authority would not receive his endorsement.
#2b(1): He says, “Such an authority would need to be regulated by law.” So obviously, that places limits on such an authority to operate within defined boundaries.
#2b(2): He says, “Such an authority would need to ... observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity ... “ He talks extensively about subsidiarity elsewhere in the document, but essentially, this means that this authority would not be able to get into the internal affairs of member nations (that is exactly the opposite of what ao “one world government” that you envision would do)
#2b(3): He says, “Such an authority would need to ... observe consistently the principles of ... solidarity ... “ Again, solidarity is discussed extensively in the document. Working in solidarity means that it is not a situation of having the masses be the serfs of a few international corporations (as the conspiracy theory goes), but where all would regard each other as brothers (again, not what is envisioned by the “one world government” crowd)
#2b(4): He says, “Such an authority would need ... to seek to establish the common good ... “ First, note the placement of this phrase. He mentioned it *after* subsidiarity and *after* solidarity. That, in of itself, is significant. The “social justice” crowd talks a lot about “the common good” without mentioning subsidiarity at all. He places it AFTER subsidiarity. What that means is that you have to seek solutions to problems that benefit everybody, but you can’t impose them in such a way as would violate the principle of subsidiarity.
#2b(5): He says, “Such an authority would need ... to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” To understand that statement, you would need to study such a thing in the contents of this entire encyclical letter, particularly in light of paragraphs 1-7 which define the concept. Again, such a “world political authority” would need to adhere to those principles or it would not receive his endorsement. (For example, in paragraph 36, he says: “traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated” — how transparent do you think international relations would ever be — unless there was a radical change in how governments act?)
And, of course, you have the remainder of the paragraph, which I don’t have time to break down as I did the above portion.
How has the MSM reported on this? Have they gotten it even remotely right? Of course not. And chances are, when this is talked about on the late-night shows like Coast-to-Coast, they will get it wrong, as well. Even Fox Business News has gotten it wrong.
That’s why I am not wasting my time on defending this document against its non-Catholic attackers. They are not going to take the time to read it and study it in full. And, that’s their business. My concern is to study it and integrate it into my understanding of the remainder of Catholic social doctrine and then to do what I can to make sure it isn’t too badly abused by those who call themselves Catholic.
THANK YOU for your kind comments about my intellectual honesty. I certainly try.
I won't trouble you or myself ATT with a paragraph by paragraph reply.
I will note . . . I have read, as you know, the encyclical before this one in its entirety. I think your points are consistent with that one, too.
I do plan to read this entire encyclical when I can manage it and comment paragraph by paragraph.
Yes, there are many lofty sentences and paragraphs far in abundance above the troubling ones--as far as I can tell from what's been said and you have written.
However, they do not, for me, mollify the troubling ones for the following reasons:
1. The NWO folks say most of those lofty things as well--as justification for their tyranny--of course while pretending they have nothing to do with tyranny. It's a bit like the Soviets claiming all their tyranny was necessary on the road to the idyllic utopia of "pure Communism."
In fact, even in your paragraphs about the lofty points, some of the wording was very disturbingly almost identical to the wording in some of the NWO documents . . . some such docs decades old. In fact, I can't, at the moment, think of one of your paragraphs about the lofty content that I have NOT read in essential form in some NWO document that I've read the last 45 years or so.
2. YES, the NWO folks also talk out of both sides of their fingers. I'm sorry to have to use that phrase with you but that's how I read both sorts of documents. It's a bit like a velvet covered brick or a rabbit fur glove over an iron fist. They even have their version of subsidiarity wherein they claim that local Nations, government entities will have the freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't trouble the common good etc. etc. etc.
However, with their control of individuals down to implanted ID/locator chips . . . and police empowered & charged to be prosecutors, judge, jury and executioners on the spot . . . I'm still not impressed with such a notion of subsidiarity.
3. Some of the Pope's lofty phrases seem identical to me with the ones of the NWO folks rationalizing and justifying reducing the population to 200 million; insuring a global currency; managing international trade very wholesale and integratedly; dividing the world into 10 governmental regions (interestingly--consistent with Biblical prophecy about the global government);
Sure, evidently, many of the Pope's lofty statements would be in contradiction to many of the ruthless tyrannical goals and schemes--and certainly methods--of the NWO. BUT THE SAME IS TRUE OF THEIR OWN DOCS.
4. It boils down to . . . essentially . . . smoke screens and white-wash . . . distracting from the ruthless tyranny with visions of more utopian wonders--always "in love" and "in truth" and "for the children" and for "the survival of humanity" and for the "survival of the planet."
5. EVEN IN THE HIGHLY UNLIKELY EVENT that the NWO folks would come out with a document tomorrow applauding this one of the Pope and agreeing carte blanche with every sentence the Pope signed-on to . . . a somewhat plausible event . . . it would be a cruel farce. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch because their own documents have said so many of the identically same things.
6. YET, ANYONE TRUSTING SUCH A DOCUMENT would be akin to those trusting Chamberlain about Hitler and Hitler's early statements about Hitler's own plans and goals. It would be lofty words with the gestapo waiting in the wings for a wholesale different kind of enforcement awaiting close at hand.
7. SO, I'M SORRY. I remain keenly and highly sobered and aghast at the encyclical. To me, still, all the talk about the lofty sentences and paragraphs is akin to talk about how beautiful the fabric is on the deck chairs of the Titanic.
This is an excellent point. The expression jumped out at me, too, because it was too idiomatic in the first place (almost journalistic) and it sounded completely out of character.
I am traveling and hadn’t seen the original (I think it was written in Italian) until now. But it is very clear that the English translation twisted it significantly. There has been a problem with many, many of the English translations coming out of the Vatican, and IIRC, they even replaced some of the translators a couple of years ago. BUt the problem probably lies more with the people who approve the translations than the translators themselves.
There won’t be any references to teeth in the Latin version. It’s clear it was a bad translation. I don’t think we need to wait for the Latin. The Italian is evidence enough on this issue.
You really don’t know what you are writing about. Markomalley’s generous exposition is quite accurate—subsidiarity is for real and the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO. Sorry, it’s just not. We face a greater threat to our freedoms from the bureaucratic tyranny of our own US government. And that tyranny will oppress Catholics who, bolstered by love of Life as taught in this encyclical, will refuse to knuckle under. You might think about the coming day when you might appreciate Catholic brothers-in-arms (figuratively—I do not advocate armed resistance).
To the degree that a Culture of Death comes to dominate the world, as it will, I think you’ll find that the most courageous opponent of it will be the bishop of Rome.
Take care that you, in you twisted fear of the Bishop of Rome, don’t wake up some day allied with the actually existing NWO against its leading opponent. The NWO will take forms that you probably won’t even recognize because you are blinded by your own fervid search for it.
“para que se dé una concreción real al concepto de familia de naciones”
I’d translate it “so that the concept of family of nations may be given real concrete form,” or even “really concretized.”
“Concrecion” is not a very commonly used Spanish word and is clearly being used simply because it is closest to the Italian; in other words, while it may not read really well in Spanish, the translator picked that word because he didn’t want to shade the meaning of the Italian in any way.
This is completely unlike the English translation, which not only picks an idiomatic expression but picks the wrong one. One might say “flesh out the concept of” or “be a concrete expression of the concept of” family of nations, if one wanted to be more idiomatic in English. But “give teeth to” is completely unsupported, unjustified and wrong.
Mark O’Malley’s find is very interesting and reveals a lot about the machinations of Vatican politics. I wish you had addressed your comments to that and not diverted this thread with another bout of “the Pope is the Anti-Christ pawn of the New World Order.”
The problem is that there are many warring forces in the Vatican, some of which probably are pawns of the New World Order who would be perfectly happy to announce that Obama is their new Pope. Heck, Kathleen Kennedy is already raving that he’s “more Catholic” than the Pope, why not?
On the whole, the encyclical has some positive points; much of the rest of it is just the bureaucratic vaporing of the Peace and Justice committee that wrote it. In fact, in the original Italian, even this paragraph 67 was the usual vague nonsense. It’s only the English version, so far, that seems to have this disturbing phrase in it.
Thank you for sharing your insights and concerns, dear brother in Christ!
I wonder if you’ve understood a word I’ve written.
I think you make some valid points.
Sadly, none of them deal with my points.
Thanks for your kind reply.
The very sad thing, IMO, is that politics is read into everything that comes from the Vatican when this is more anti-political than not.
Excellent discussion, M.
“so that the concept of a family of nations might be solidified”
IMHO.
Quite well, indeed, have I understood what you wrote. My question is whether you understood what you wrote.
It's quite conceivable, that after studying the topic for 44 years, that I don't know what I'm writing about.
. . . unlikely . . . but conceivable.
On the other hand, it's quite conceivable that some Vatican sanctioned mirrors are broken.
subsidiarity is for real and the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO. Sorry, it’s just not.
I haven't observed "it's just not" to be a very valid nor convincing bit of evidence to the contrary.
Subsidiarity is real? That would depend on a list of things.
1. One of the things it would depend on in the world postulated in the encyclical is that the global government would implement it in the most lovingly charitable and most local manner possible OTHER THAN making all policemen prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners on the spot.
IF ANYONE thinks the global government is likely to do that--THEN there is some serious lack of sufficient synapses firing between their ears.
IF ANYONE thinks that the global government Biblically predicted for the END TIMES is not already in force and about to spring overtly on the world stage, THEN perhaps there is a vacuum between their ears.
We face a greater threat to our freedoms from the bureaucratic tyranny of our own US government.
Uhhhhh . . . . a growing number on FR and around the Nation realize that . . . our Constitution has been increasingly shredded the last many decades. Our government is now 'headed' by a puppet from hell. The Senate has very few true Americans left in it. The House leadership is compromised. The MSM have been controlled lock stock and word smithing for at least 100 years. Many State governments are similarly utterly controlled by the globalists.
Europe is worse. South America is worse. Africa is worse. Asia is mostly worse. Australia is worse.
Whatever tyranny horribly exists [and it's near maximally hideous and plentiful already] within our Republic's government is A SUB-SET of the global realities. Ignorance or disbelief in the truth of that won't change the realities at all.
So that sentence is more than a little nonsensical. To whatever degree Vatican components or even the Pope himself are wittingly or unwittingly complicit with the NWO is also a SUB-SET of the global realities. It would just be an important sub-set.
And that tyranny will oppress Catholics who, bolstered by love of Life as taught in this encyclical, will refuse to knuckle under. You might think about the coming day when you might appreciate Catholic brothers-in-arms (figuratively . . .
Perhaps more than most "Christian" groups, millions of self-labeled Roman Catholics will follow the yellow brick road to globalist hell because they have been 'properly' conditioned, propagandized etc. etc. by the MSM and even by some of their own customs and habits as well as by encyclicals like this one and the one before it.
Y'all make a LOT of nuances and various shadings of diplo-speak as though those shadings of meaning made a gnat's burp's worth of difference. In some respects, they do--in that shadings and nuances of meaning are more effective in seducing people down that yellow brick road. They end up in hell before they realize what they've really been agreeing with for quite some time.
OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE, HOPEFULLY, millions of RC's joining on God's side. I worked joyfully arm in arm with a Mary Knoll sister on the mission field. She actually shared the Lord's Supper with us a number of times with the blessing of her priest. I'm happy to relate to all those who authentically Love Jesus and endeavor to put Him first as brothers and sisters in Christ.
To the degree that a Culture of Death comes to dominate the world, as it will, I think you’ll find that the most courageous opponent of it will be the bishop of Rome.
It already dominates the world.
It remains to be seen whether the Pope ATT will stand on the side of God, or not. I suspect not . . . as Malachi Martin's prediction seems to indicate. imho, Such encyclicals as this one are not promising in a Godly direction.
Take care that you, in you twisted fear of the Bishop of Rome, don’t wake up some day allied with the actually existing NWO against its leading opponent. The NWO will take forms that you probably won’t even recognize because you are blinded by your own fervid search for it.
That paragraph appears to be so ignorant as to almost be beyond bother.
The Bishop of Rome nor the whole Vatican edifice is not to be feared. Pitied, would be more apt. Given this encyclical, very pitied would be even more apt.
I'm not at all convinced that the Pope will be overtly against the NWO when the rubber meets the road in the not too distant future.
Your remaining comments about the NWO and my perceptiveness about it are . . . too absurd & laughable for further comment. Evidently the topic is not well studied on your side.
It’s a well known Neuro Linguistic Programming strategy to . . . note something . . . even highlight it in a certain way . . . as a way of neutralizing it.
This document COULD have a number of sentences fitting that strategy quite well. I’ll feel more confident of that after I’ve read the full version. What I’ve read so far is not comforting.
Let me put it this way . . . talking out of both sides of one’s fingers has long been a skillful way for tyranny to advance. Hitler was an artist at it. The NWO is, too.
Why? Perhaps the translator wanted to tick-off the “Left Behind” Charismatics and Evangelicals!
Seriously, in light of section 67 as a whole, the idea that a REFORMED UN, economic institutions and international finance would provide “real teeth” for the “concept of the family of nations” doesn’t seem much of a stretch for the translator(s).
Let’s see (cf. sec. 67):
if “we” are to “manage the global economy,” “to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security, and peace,” “to guarantee the protection of the environment” then “there is URGENT need of a true world political authority...” (my emphasis; perhaps Obama’s, too!)
“Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the EFFECTIVE POWER to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights.” (my emphasis)
Sounds like wanting to use a reformed UN (etc.) to “give teeth” to the family of nations to me. I’d suggest that, given all of the things that the Holy See wants these reformed international bodies to do, the creation of a standing army would no doubt be in order. Sounds pretty “toothy” to me.
I think that the translator(s) should be commended for using a colloquial expression that accurately expresses the author’s ideas in section 67.
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.