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.
The whole point of markomalley’s original post - before we got into the usual Pope-bashing - was that the translator did NOT accurately use that expression. I can tell you too that it was not accurate at all and so far the English translation is the only one that seems to imply force or imposition of this “concept of the family of nations.”
Not only is it not in the Italian original, it doesn’t even come close to reflecting the original idea.
This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories.
“And, for the record, weren’t you the one who called the reformation of the UN a pipe dream?
“Your words, from post #44:”
“I don’t expect to see a really reformed UN any time soon.”
Uh, see, you still don’t get the distinction between optimism and hope.
See, in terms of optimism, I’m very pessimistic about a reformed UN. For all I know, Benedict XVI is just as pessimistic.
Pessimism/optimism has to do with what one can reasonably expect, humanly speaking.
But you trashed the pope on his hope. Hope is not based on what can be reasonably expected, humanly speaking. I don’t expect to see a reformed UN anytime soon. I’m not optimistic about it.
But the pope hopes (that’s a theological virtue, one of three Christian theological virtues; it is a gift of God by grace) for a reformed UN because, he believes that a reformed UN is needed as a check on the dangers of nationalism on the one hand, but also believes that subsidiarity is needed as a check on the power of states and even reformed UNs.
But see, you don’t bother with such distinctions. You mocked the pope for his fruitless hopes.
Humanly speaking, a reformed UN is a pipe dream. But I was talking about hope, a choice of will, by grace.
So, nice try at a gotcha. But we are still not communicating. You are reading the pope through your pessimism/optimism lenses. But, the thing is, as pope, he has to write from religious and theological conviction. So he can’t just stop with pessimism and optimism.
So when you read this document purely as a political and economic statement, which is the way the NYTimes and just about everyone else in the chattering classes is reading it, you are going to miss his point.
I was trying to point that out.
But then I’m just a shill, gussying up the pope’s nonsense.
No one objects to the fact that you aren’t a Catholic. Had you not reported that fact, we’d not know it.
The thread was however, quite specialized regarding the translation of one phrase. You and your intersecting bud Q. are the ones who started the global pope-trashing. It may interest you to know that there are plenty of Catholic pope-trashers around so you don’t need to worry about not being Catholic.
Dear Livius, you’ve really muddied the waters. Poe White Trash and Q. were convinced that those who see the mistranslation do so only because they want to gussy up and defend the encyclical.
Now here you come along and agree that the “teeth” translation is awful and falsifies the meaning
but far from gussying up the encyclical, you find it seriously wanting, stemming from Communion and Liberation and Archbishop Martino.
I think, folks, we’ve discovered the mysterious Third Way between sycophantic defenders of the encyclical and unabashed trashers: Livius finds the translation wanting along with all us sycophants but finds the encyclical even more wanting, along with all the pope-trashers.
Sheer genius.
Even I, shill that I am, have some serious problems with some parts of it. But I never got that far, since Poe kept hammering away at fruitless hopes for a reformed UN.
>>> I can tell you too that it was not accurate at all and so far the English translation is the only one that seems to imply force or imposition of this “concept of the family of nations.” <<<
From what I’ve gathered from reading CiV so far, globalization is seen as a kind of natural or “world historical” process that needs to be guided or tamed by international institutions suitably informed by Christian charity and truth. The “family of nations,” I gather, would be the suitably tamed end-result of globalization. I don’t see how such a taming of national and international interests can occur without the use of force; the “teeth” translation may not be literal, but is sure is accurate.
>>> Not only is it not in the Italian original, it doesn’t even come close to reflecting the original idea. <<<
I’ve only made my way to section 35, but it’s pretty clear by now that CiV isn’t arguing that the family (or fraternity) of nations — or the goal of integral human development — will be achieved by divine fiat. If, for example, “the question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries is not to be ignored” (Section 27, lines 23-24), I fail to see how the international institutions invoked in Section 67 can achieve this without at least the threat of international sanctions (trade or whatever) and or the threat of military force. Thus, “teeth.”
One thing I admire about CiV — it doesn’t avoid tough issues.
>>> This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories. <<<
Well, it does look like it was written by committee. Is that the case?
Perhaps you can explain the significance of the constant reference to “integral human development” and the “integral condition of man.” Pope BXVI refers to Pope Paul VI’s “Populorum progressio,” who refers to Maritain’s _L’humanisme integral_.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I don’t recall using “gussied up.”
I merely noted that the term was quite civil in my networks over the whole of my life. It usually meant someone was being a bit proud or high falootin or snooty beyond reason or justification.
Thanks.
I’ve put a short-cut to it on my desktop.
Will try to wade through the tome bit by bit and comment on it paragraph by paragraph . . . over the next month.
Did you read the earlier similar encyclical and my commentary on that posted on it’s own thread hereon?
Well stated.
1. DISAGREEMENT = HATE [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
2. DESCRIPTION = HATE [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
3. A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN THE POPE'S = POPE BASHING [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
Please amend your copies of the RUBBER DICTIONARY--or at least make a note of it so you can understand the GROUP-THINK mangled English of those who worship the institution on these threads.
Dear Livius, you’ve really muddied the waters. Poe White Trash and Q. were convinced that those who see the mistranslation do so only because they want to gussy up and defend the encyclical.
= = = =
Methinks someone’s MIND READER
needs to go in for a very serious overhaul. Actually, a replacement is probably called for.
Folks defend the encyclical for a list of reasons. I believe only God knows their hearts on such scores.
>>> Did you read the earlier similar encyclical and my commentary on that posted on it’s own thread hereon? <<<
No, I have not. Which encyclical? Where is it?
Given your take on globalization, you should find Section 42 very interesting.
According to CiV, globalization runs parallel with a global and progressive process of “integral human development” (or, frequently, just “development”). Development is fleshed out in Chapters 1 and 2; the relationship between development and globalization appears to be what I’ll be reading about next in Chapter 4.
>>> Will try to wade through the tome bit by bit and comment on it paragraph by paragraph . . . over the next month. <<<
That’s a lot of tome. A month may not be long enough, unless you have a lot of free time.
True.
A month may not be long enough! LOL.
I don’t have a handy link on that other thread.
Guess I’m going to have to start collecting links to the threads I start! LOL.
Joya might have one.
The usual hostile ones would no doubt be represented on it! But then most of them have as many posts as I do to wade through!
Sorry.
This runaround of what this or that means is ridiculous in a modern world. (To Texans, it indicates someone is bull chitting)
Seee post #74
This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories.
The notion of coercive "charity" in this document is incoherent.
A word search of "redistribution" in the document turns up the following:
[...]Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development. [...][...]Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.[...]
[...]Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”[94]. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.
[...]The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed.[...]
Walter Williams -
"Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
P.J. O'Rourke -
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
The lunacy expressed in this encyclical as expressed above could be laughed off out of hand were it not for the fact that much of this insanity is already a sad fact of life imposed by powers of government, and the inmates "managing" it all covet yet more consolidated power. Never underestimate the power of crazy ideas to take hold of people's minds.
Cordially,
You didn’t. Poe did (#45), pejoratively. You jumped in to defend Poe by saying that the term can be used non-pejoratively. Fine. But Poe used it pejoratively:
“Personally, I don’t see what is being called for as “needful” by CiV as being anything more than a gussied-up version of a world empire.”
You got the response you merited.
If you look closely at Chapter 3, which discusses “the gift” and the priniciple of gratitousness in relation to the fraternal community of peoples, I think what is being hinted at is that it would be a good idea if the IMF forgave and forgot all of those loans to “undeveloped” nations.
I think a defender of the CiV would argue that the use of coercion to achieve this goal — redistribution of wealth — is not on the table. I’m still trying to figure out if that response would be consistent with the argument of CiV, or whether CiV HAS a consistent position on the use of force.
Sorry, but what I wrote was based on what you and Poe wrote. I’m tired of this mind-reader accusation. Take responsibility for what you write. You accused the pope of favoring one-world government, world-empire etc. and then you explain those who insist that’s not what the pope did of covering up for him, of denying the (to you) obvious import of the document.
Why can’t you simply recognize that you read the encyclical differently? Why must you attribute bad faith to those who think the encyclical does not advocate one-world government in the sense that you think it does?
Having been born near Lubbock,
I am inclined to thoroughly agree with you.
Throw in the NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING aspects of the double-speak and I agree even more emphatically.
And NO one that I’ve read has even commented on that aspect, but me.
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.