I think you mean the author "of this thread." The author of the "post" you referenced is not a member of any "rightist think tank" except FR. lol
Regardless, no one says there aren't deceivers and the deceived among conservatives. This forum testifies to that fact.
Try reading the actual encyclical
I have read the encyclical, Kolo, last week when it was being discussed.
It hasn't aged well. It is still a noxious blueprint for world socialism "with teeth" -- the goal of many men and groups of men for a very long time.
Like all clever propaganda, it is couched in palatable phrases here and there. You are correct that one must actually read the document to understand the foul agenda that is being pushed here. Thankfully, like the Bible, it is printed and available to be read by men everywhere. I am, however, surprised and saddened to see you agree with it.
And to blame the justifiable disgust over this document on a "bad translation" is just another flimsy defense of the indefensible. This is the Vatican's translation, after all. It reads how they want it to read.
From the encyclical as noted in another post on another thread...
67. 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. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. 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[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization [149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
Therein lies the snake among the grass. With that paragraph America's sovereignty is destroyed and handed over to a "global authority" who will dole out and "balance" the world's resources as it sees fit.
No checks and balances. No elected representatives. No individual rights. Just one massive, bloated authoritarian royalty decreeing whatever it pleases.
Much like Rome itself.
No wonder it appeals to Ratzinger and some of his supporters. Thank God for the Roman Catholics who are as repulsed by this encyclical as most Protestants and Jews are repulsed.
That paragraph is more disgusting every time its read. It is helpful, however, to know where everyone stands on this proposed global financial authority with the power of enforcement aided by a strengthened U.S. Now we know where you stand.
“It is helpful, however, to know where everyone stands on this proposed global financial authority with the power of enforcement aided by a strengthened U.S. Now we know where you stand.”
Dr. E, so far as I recall, I haven’t endorsed the encyclical beyond observing that it is an excellent exposition, generally, of what The Church in the West, and probably in the East too, teaches. To the extent that Latin Rite Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, takes what the Pope says seriously, then this encyclical must give them pause as they on the one hand claim to be good Latin or Orthodox Christians and on the other embrace the sort of world economic system which has developed over the past 25 years or so and which the Pope calls into question.
Even the Fathers could be wrong and so could this or any other Pope. The encyclical is not an infallibly proclaimed dogmatic statement and no Latin Rite Catholic needs to believe it or implement it. It is not, as I said, a political document; it is a socio-economic theological document designed to make people think by presenting Church social and economic thought. I suspect it is keeping some very committed and faithful Latins awake nights.
By the way, its more than a bit parochial of you to think that +BXVI is attempting to undermine American sovereignty. He doesn’t need to do that even if he looked forward to it. Our lust for markets, dirt cheap/virtual slave labor and laissez faire capitalism resulted in globalization and that, Dr. E, is where our sovereignty eroded...right into the bank accounts of the Chicoms and globalists with no more loyalty to this country than the Rosenbergs had.
I do apologize for suggesting that you hadn’t read the original. I should have known better.