>>> the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO <<<
Quix’s idea of a NWO is no doubt indebted to extreme eschatological fancies, but I’m trying to figure out what fantasy land you live in when you write:
“subsidiarity is for real”
Yup, it’s for real. It’s even in our own 10th amendment. And how respectfully do you think that’s been treated the past century or so? “Subsidiarity” is treacle.
“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.”
Do you really think a reformed UN _et al_ would be any less beholden to the Culture of Death than our current US government? Let’s not forget that, with UN support, 30-40 million abortions occur worldwide every YEAR. A reformed UN would have a much greater power to tyrannize good Catholics than the US govt, at the very least because under a UN-policed “family of nations” good Catholics would have nowhere to run.
A really reformed UN would be a great good.
I don’t expect to see a really reformed UN any time soon.
If I were the pope, I wouldn’t put much hope in seeing a really reformed UN.
But then, I’m not the pope. He’s the expert on hope. (Not hope and change—the Church develops but does not change.)
So it all depends on whether one accents the “really reformed” or the “UN” part.
You accent the “UN” part. I agree, the present UN is evil.
But the pope did not write about the present UN. He wrote about a reformed UN.
If there ever were a truly reformed UN along the lines outlined by Pope Benedict (which would mean that the Truly Reformed UN would respect subsidiarity), it would indeed be a good thing.
That’s a big IF.
But you ignored the IF. I didn’t.
So your critique of me is totally off target.
Actually . . .
no escatalogical fancies at all.
I’ve persistently let Scripture and the available puzzle pieces lead where they will.