Posted on 10/13/2009 12:56:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues.
This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.
Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldviewtimes.com ...
"There is urgent need for a true world political authority"
"Old models are disappearing, but promising new ones are taking shape on the horizon. Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for businesses is that they are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting their social value."
The articulation of political authority at the local, national and international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction to the process of economic globalization.
Hence a sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to transcendence.
They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence.
Now decipher this piece of convoluted newsspeak:
Alongside macro-projects, there is a place for micro-projects, and above all there is need for the active mobilization of all the subjects of civil society, both juridical and physical persons.
Further:
The greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism......
The next encyclical will substitute 'secular' for 'Christian.'
One could go on and one, but the truth is that this is an exercise in futility.
After Benedict became pope I bought one of his books in which he wrote a short essay for each day of the year. It was as confusing and convoluted as his encyclical. It simply made no sense at all.
Either this 'work' represents the meanderings of a mind in decline , or it's a promotion for the NWO.
That’s better and I have to admit some of the thoughts taken as they are of some concern!
Cheers
Mel
>>> Your problem is with the author. <<<
Nonsense. I have no beef with BXVI as BXVI. What I do take issue with is — caveats aside — what I believe to be his embracing of a modified form of globalism is his _CiV_. You can take issue with the position a person advocates without attacking the person. Reasoned debate.
As far as I can tell, BXVI is in favor of debate. I gave a RC friend a book last Christmas in which BXVI (back when he was Joseph Ratzinger) argues with the social philosopher Jurgen Habermas. If BXVI can argue productively with someone as different from himself as an atheist neo-Marxist, perhaps there’s hope for us all. Don’t you think?
>>> A common theme in your posting history is an intense dislike and distrust for all things Catholic. <<<
Nonsense. If you look at my posting history, you’ll notice that I’ve often posted in DEFENSE of the Church of Rome against attacks made by atheists and even fellow Protestants who, I would argue, distort the history of RC in regards to matters such as the Galileo Affair, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, and the “Inquisition” (”la leyenda negra” and all that). You HAVE looked at my posting history, haven’t you?
I’m mostly in agreement with the encyclicals by Paul VI and JPII on abortion, and have found the RC’s massive contribution to natural law theory to be quite helpful in thinking through my position on abortion and other matters. Books on my nearby bookshelf include a collection of letters by Innocent III and vol. 2 of an English translation of the _Commentaries_ of Pius II. I honestly don’t see how you can characterize me as having an irrational dislike of all things “Catholic.”
>>> That is a completely irrational position so further attempts at a rational dialog are not possible. <<<
???????
>>> What would I find? <<<
A thinking-through of things like the notion of universal government and the relationship between Church and State. I was going to add “...from the perspective of a 14th century Florintine,” but that would be too limiting.
>>> In all seriousness, can we reasonably envision differing world gummints without war sooner or later happening? <<<
I’d be very surprised if another world war didn’t land on our doorstep in a decade or two. I very much doubt that a global governing authority could be established without a world war.
In passing, please note that “war” is mentioned only ONCE in _CiV_ (section 51, I believe, and in passing). A very puzzling omission in a document concerned with the fostering of brotherhood and amity between the peoples of the Earth!
>>> I think that if people ignore what PapaBenXVI and the Church generally say about subsidiarity then the general point he’s making is not likely to be understood. TO me, at least (and bearing in mind I haven’t really blitzed this document) it sounds like the embodiment of a government which is on the money about subsidiarity would have to be a federalism looser than any we’ve enjoyed in the US in the past 100 years. <<<
I’ve read that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment is our home-grown version of subsidiarity. Perhaps my indifferent attitude towards the notion of subsidiarity expressed in _CiV_ is a function of how powerless the 10th Amendment has proven itself to be in protecting the Several States from the constant encroachment by Washington, especially since the early 20th century.
I appreciate your opinions and your passionate debate. I actually enjoy the banter. I just don’t agree with your position in this respect. I too fear a global agenda if it is godless, but welcome based upon God’s law, the same law that gave us the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I also trust my future more to a government heavily influenced by the Vatican than I do to the one influenced by Karl Marx, Mao and Fidel Castro now empowered in Washington DC.
And, en passant, ditto on the continual attempting of the emasculation of the 10th amendment.
The other track would be like, 'Okay, the Holy Father says we ought to think about world gummint, so I'll think about it.' And on that track I find myself thinking about how I can help my local situation be amenable to a hypothetical or conjectured GOOD world government, while simultaneously being prepared to resist any tendencies to any other sort of world government.
In general, I think one can't fairly criticize an encyclical because it doesn't cover all the related topics. They're already long enough, and besides PapaBenXVI certianly gives the impression that he is, so to speak, laying down a corpus of thought -- if he lives long enough.
Okay De MOnarchia is on my list. I have a couple of projects ahead of it (and, ahem, a few encyclicals, darn it) but I will certainly read it and thanks for the recommendation. (Is this the book he got in trouble for?)
“”The “separation of Church and state” does not mean — and it can never mean — separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions. That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be “leaven in the world” and to “make disciples of all nations.” That kind of radical separation steals the moral content of a society””
Very well said ,dear friend. The following is from Blessed Pope Leo XIII
Some excerpts from Libertas - Pope Leo XIII
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
” Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only - and this nature itself requires - that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.”
“there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.”
from Immortal Dei.....
“In the same way the Church cannot approve of that liberty which begets a contempt of the most sacred laws of God, and casts off the obedience due to lawful authority, for this is not liberty so much as license, and is most correctly styled by St. Augustine the “liberty of self ruin,” and by the Apostle St. Peter the “cloak of malice.”(23) Indeed, since it is opposed to reason, it is a true slavery, “for whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.”(24) On the other hand, that liberty is truly genuine, and to be sought after, which in regard to the individual does not allow men to be the slaves of error and of passion, the worst of all masters; which, too, in public administration guides the citizens in wisdom and provides for them increased means of well-being; and which, further, protects the State from foreign interference.”
>>> The other track would be like, ‘Okay, the Holy Father says we ought to think about world gummint, so I’ll think about it.’ And on that track I find myself thinking about how I can help my local situation be amenable to a hypothetical or conjectured GOOD world government, while simultaneously being prepared to resist any tendencies to any other sort of world government. <<<
In response, a couple of scattered thoughts:
Perhaps the big difference between you and me is that I consider “world government” — GIVEN the fallen nature of Man — to be a grave evil irrespective of the “when” of it: yesterday, today, or tomorrow. You, and apparently _CiV_, think there is some sort of Magisterium-based wiggle-room that can over time turn this global sow’s ear into a silk purse — THAT’S what I find unacceptable and, to be honest, hard to understand.
Is world government GOOD to think about?
I’m pretty sure that _CiV_ is more than just an exhortation to, as the bumper sticker says, “Think Globally, Act Locally.”
>>> In general, I think one can’t fairly criticize an encyclical because it doesn’t cover all the related topics. They’re already long enough, and besides PapaBenXVI certianly gives the impression that he is, so to speak, laying down a corpus of thought — if he lives long enough. <<<
My aside about “war” wasn’t intended as a criticism. Honest puzzlement on my part. If you write a treatise on a perceived historical move towards world government and the “integral development of humanity” towards a brotherhood of peoples, leaving out a detailed discussion of war — the international relations question “par excellence” — is like writing a history of the American Revolution and leaving out King George and his Parliament, George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson. It’s baffling — it just doesn’t make sense.
>>> (Is this the book he got in trouble for?) <<<
Yah, I’m pretty sure it’s the one.
>>> “On the other hand, THAT LIBERTY IS TRULY GENUINE, and to be sought after, which in regard to the individual does not allow men to be the slaves of error and of passion, the worst of all masters; which, too, in public administration guides the citizens in wisdom and provides for them increased means of well-being; and WHICH, FURTHER, PROTECTS THE STATE FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.” (my emphasis)
Way to go, Leo XIII! Looks like he discerned the evil inherent in the existence of a global government, too!
Well, I have to say t hat is sho' 'nuff my inclination as well.
You, and apparently _CiV_, think there is some sort of Magisterium-based wiggle-room that can over time turn this global sow’s ear into a silk purse — THAT’S what I find unacceptable and, to be honest, hard to understand.
It's called filial obedience, which to me means trying to take seriously what the Pope says even when it seems pretty much off the wall. It doesn't mean agreeing, especially in an area in which one has done some study.
So in this case I will marshal and review my arguments against world government, and see if and how they are addressed in the encyclical.
I actually have another project which sort of comes first, and there's my lingering desire to translate Augustine's Letter to Proba, so it's going to be a while before I get to _CiV_.
Part of the deal is that in our tradition (the US one, I mean) we think of government as a necessary evil or as sort of like fire: good for some stuff but you've got to confine and limit it. I think one could maybe make an argument that that is NOT the NT view, which suggests the government is one of God's instruments.
But even if I'm wrong about that, it certainly seems to me that Europeans (a) simply do not 'get' the American POV and (b) do NOT see government as intrinsically evil and a kind of bargain with the devil.
I like to say that in the US, the individual is viewed (Before Obama - maybe before Teddy Roosevelt) as the sovereign and the government is our ministers. But in Europe the sovereignty is in the government whose chief difference from the kings of old is that it is elected and various rather than inherited and singular.
Gotta clean the corpse and go to Mass. later.
When the Church calls for the world to work together for common good it means love of neighbor, upholding morality feeding the poor etc...This differs from the Global elite’s idea for common good so mankind can be enslaved.
People who read Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical and take it to mean the Church is wanting NWO don’t understand the historical teaching of Pope Benedict when he was a Cardinal
Here is something from him from 1985
Market Economy and Ethics
By Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
http://www.acton.org/publications/occasionalpapers/publicat_occasionalpapers_ratzinger.php?view=print
The economic inequality between the northern and southern hemispheres of the globe is becoming more and more an inner threat to the cohesion of the human family. The danger for our future from such a threat may be no less real than that proceeding from the weapons arsenals with which the East and the West oppose one another. New exertions must be made to overcome this tension, since all methods employed hitherto have proven themselves inadequate. In fact, the misery in the world has increased in shocking measure during the last thirty years. In order to find solutions that will truly lead us forward, new economic ideas will be necessary. But such measures do not seem conceivable or, above all, practicable without new moral impulses. It is at this point that a dialogue between Church and economy becomes both possible and necessary.
Let me clarify somewhat the exact point in question. At first glance, precisely in terms of classical economic theory, it is not obvious what the Church and the economy should actually have to do with one another, aside from the fact that the Church owns businesses and so is a factor in the market. The Church should not enter into dialogue here as a mere component in the economy, but rather in its own right as Church.
Here, however, we must face the objection raised especially after the Second Vatican Council, that the autonomy of specialized realms is to be respected above all. Such an objection holds that the economy ought to play by its own rules and not according to moral considerations imposed on it from without. Following the tradition inaugurated by Adam Smith , this position holds that the market is incompatible with ethics because voluntary “moral” actions contradict market rules and drive the moralizing entrepreneur out of the game. 3 For a long time, then, business ethics rang like hollow metal because the economy was held to work on efficiency and not on morality. 4 The market’s inner logic should free us precisely from the necessity of having to depend on the morality of its participants. The true play of market laws best guarantees progress and even distributive justice.
The great successes of this theory concealed its limitations for a long time. But now in a changed situation, its tacit philosophical presuppositions and thus its problems become clearer. Although this position admits the freedom of individual businessmen, and to that extent can be called liberal, it is in fact deterministic in its core. It presupposes that the free play of market forces can operate in one direction only, given the constitution of man and the world, namely, toward the self-regulation of supply and demand, and toward economic efficiency and progress.
This determinism, in which man is completely controlled by the binding laws of the market while believing he acts in freedom from them, includes yet another and perhaps even more astounding presupposition, namely, that the natural laws of the market are in essence good (if I may be permitted so to speak) and necessarily work for the good, whatever may be true of the morality of individuals. These two presuppositions are not entirely false, as the successes of the market economy illustrate. But neither are they universally applicable and correct, as is evident in the problems of today’s world economy. Without developing the problem in its details here — which is not my task — let me merely underscore a sentence of Peter Koslowski’s that illustrates the point in question: “The economy is governed not only by economic laws, but is also determined by men...”. 5 Even if the market economy does rest on the ordering of the individual within a determinate network of rules, it cannot make man superfluous or exclude his moral freedom from the world of economics. It is becoming ever so clear that the development of the world economy has also to do with the development of the world community and with the universal family of man, and that the development of the spiritual powers of mankind is essential in the development of the world community. These spiritual powers are themselves a factor in the economy: the market rules function only when a moral consensus exists and sustains them.
If I have attempted so far to point to the tension between a purely liberal model of the economy and ethical considerations, and thereby to circumscribe a first set of questions, I must now point out the opposite tension. The question about market and ethics has long ceased to be merely a theoretical problem. Since the inherent inequality of various individual economic zones endangers the free play of the market, attempts at restoring the balance have been made since the 1950s by means of development projects. It can no longer be overlooked that these attempts have failed and have even intensified the existing inequality. The result is that broad sectors of the Third World, which at first looked forward to development aid with great hopes, now identify the ground of their misery in the market economy, which they see as a system of exploitations, as institutionalised sin and injustice. For them, the centralized economy appears to be the moral alternative, toward which one turns with a directly religious fervor, and which virtually becomes the content of religion. For while the market economy rests on the beneficial effect of egoism and its automatic limitation through competing egoisms, the thought of just control seems to predominate in a centralized economy, where the goal is equal rights for all and proportionate distribution of goods to all. The examples adduced thus far are certainly not encouraging, but the hope that one could, nonetheless, bring this moral project to fruition is also not thereby refuted. It seems that if the whole were to be attempted on a stronger moral foundation, it should be possible to reconcile morality and efficiency in a society not oriented toward maximum profit, but rather to self-restraint and common service. Thus in this area, the argument between economics and ethics is becoming ever more an attack on the market economy and its spiritual foundations, in favor of a centrally controlled economy, which is believed now to receive its moral grounding.
The full extent of this question becomes even more apparent when we include the third element of economic and theoretical considerations characteristic of today’s situation: the Marxist world. In terms of the structure of its economic theory and praxis, the Marxist system as a centrally administered economy is a radical antithesis to the market economy. 6 Salvation is expected because there is no private control of the means of production, because supply and demand are not brought into harmony through market competition, because there is no place for private profit seeking, and because all regulations proceed from a central economic administration. Yet, in spite of this radical opposition in the concrete economic mechanisms, there are also points in common in the deeper philosophical presuppositions. The first of these consists in the fact that Marxism, too, is deterministic in nature and that it too promises a perfect liberation as the fruit of this determinism. For this reason, it is a fundamental error to suppose that a centralized economic system is a moral system in contrast to the mechanistic system of the market economy. This becomes clearly visible, for example, in Lenin’s acceptance of Sombart’s thesis that there is in Marxism no grain of ethics, but only economic laws. 7 Indeed, determinism is here far more radical and fundamental than in liberalism: for at least the latter recognizes the realm of the subjective and considers it as the place of the ethical. The former, on the other hand, totally reduces becoming and history to economy, and the delimitation of one’s own subjective realm appears as resistance to the laws of history, which alone are valid, and as a reaction against progress, which cannot be tolerated. Ethics is reduced to the philosophy of history, and the philosophy of history degenerates into party strategy.
But let us return once again to the common points in the philosophical foundations of Marxism and capitalism taken strictly. The second point in common — as will already have been clear in passing — consists in the fact that determinism includes the renunciation of ethics as an independent entity relevant to the economy \. This shows itself in an especially dramatic way in Marxism. Religion is traced back to economics as the reflection of a particular economic system and thus, at the same time, as an obstacle to correct knowledge, to correct action — as an obstacle to progress, at which the natural laws of history aim. It is also presupposed that history, which takes its course from the dialectic of negative and positive, must, of its inner essence and with no further reasons being given, finally end in total positivity. That the Church can contribute nothing positive to the world economy on such a view is clear; its only significance for economics is that it must be overcome. That it can be used temporarily as a means for its own self-destruction and thus as an instrument for the “positive forces of history” is an ‘insight’ that has only recently surfaced. Obviously, it changes nothing in the fundamental thesis.
For the rest, the entire system lives in fact from the apotheosis of the central administration in which the world spirit itself would have to be at work, if this thesis were correct. That this is a myth in the worst sense of the word is simply an empirical statement that is being continually verified. And thus precisely the radical renunciation of a concrete dialogue between Church and economy which is presupposed by this thought becomes a confirmation of its necessity.
In the attempt to describe the constellation of a dialogue between Church and economy , I have discovered yet a fourth aspect. It may be seen in the well-known remark made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912: “I believe that the assimilation of the Latin-American countries to the United States will be long and difficult as long as these countries remain Catholic.” Along the same lines, in a lecture in Rome in 1969, Rockefeller recommended replacing the Catholics there with other Christians 8 — an undertaking which, as is well known, is in full swing. In both these remarks, religion — here a Christian denomination — is presupposed as a socio-political, and hence as an economic-political factor, which is fundamental for the development of political structures and economic possibilities. This reminds one of Max Weber’s thesis about the inner connection between capitalism and Calvinism , between the formation of the economic order and the determining religious idea. Marx’s notion seems to be almost inverted: it is not the economy that produces religious notions, but the fundamental religious orientation that decides which economic system can develop. The notion that only Protestantism can bring forth a free economy — whereas Catholicism includes no corresponding education to freedom and to the self-discipline necessary to it, favoring authoritarian systems instead — is doubtless even today still very widespread, and much in recent history seems to speak for it. On the other hand, we can no longer regard so naively the liberal-capitalistic system (even with all the corrections it has since received) as the salvation of the world. We are no longer in the Kennedy-era, with its Peace Corps optimism; the Third World’s questions about the system may be partial, but they are not groundless. A self-criticism of the Christian confessions with respect to political and economic ethics is the first requirement.
But this cannot proceed purely as a dialogue within the Church. It will be fruitful only if it is conducted with those Christians who manage the economy \. A long tradition has led them to regard their Christianity as a private concern, while as members of the business community they abide by the laws of the economy.
These realms have come to appear mutually exclusive in the modern context of the separation of the subjective and objective realms. But the whole point is precisely that they should meet, preserving their own integrity and yet inseparable. It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. 9 Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse. An economic policy that is ordered not only to the good of the group — indeed, not only to the common good of a determinate state — but to the common good of the family of man demands a maximum of ethical discipline and thus a maximum of religious strength. The political formation of a will that employs the inherent economic laws towards this goal appears, in spite of all humanitarian protestations, almost impossible today. It can only be realized if new ethical powers are completely set free. A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralism. As such it is the antithesis of morality. A scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific. Today we need a maximum of specialized economic understanding, but also a maximum of ethos so that specialized economic understanding may enter the service of the right goals. Only in this way will its knowledge be both politically practicable and socially tolerable.
Off to bring daughter back to coollege
People who get upset over the content of Caritas in Veritate are those who would be upset with the Catholic Church regardless of what it said or did not say.
Wow! That’s very helpful. Thanks.
Here is what the Holy Father said in 2007
INAUGURAL SESSION OF THE FIFTH GENERAL CONFERENCE
OF THE BISHOPS OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Conference Hall, Shrine of Aparecida
Sunday, 13 May 2007
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070513_conference-aparecida_en.html
Excerpt...
“Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality. And this ideological promise has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful oppression of souls. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.
Just structures are, as I have said, an indispensable condition for a just society, but they neither arise nor function without a moral consensus in society on fundamental values, and on the need to live these values with the necessary sacrifices, even if this goes against personal interest.
Where God is absent—God with the human face of Jesus Christ—these values fail to show themselves with their full force, nor does a consensus arise concerning them. I do not mean that non-believers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality; I am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values, even when they are in conflict with private interests.
On the other hand, just structures must be sought and elaborated in the light of fundamental values, with the full engagement of political, economic and social reasoning. They are a question of recta ratio and they do not arise from ideologies nor from their premises. Certainly there exists a great wealth of political experience and expertise on social and economic problems that can highlight the fundamental elements of a just state and the paths that must be avoided. But in different cultural and political situations, amid constant developments in technology and changes in the historical reality of the world, adequate answers must be sought in a rational manner, and a consensus must be created—with the necessary commitments—on the structures that must be established.
This political task is not the immediate competence of the Church. Respect for a healthy secularity—including the pluralism of political opinions—is essential in the Christian tradition. If the Church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice, because she would lose her independence and her moral authority, identifying herself with a single political path and with debatable partisan positions. The Church is the advocate of justice and of the poor, precisely because she does not identify with politicians nor with partisan interests. Only by remaining independent can she teach the great criteria and inalienable values, guide consciences and offer a life choice that goes beyond the political sphere. To form consciences, to be the advocate of justice and truth, to educate in individual and political virtues: that is the fundamental vocation of the Church in this area. And lay Catholics must be aware of their responsibilities in public life; they must be present in the formation of the necessary consensus and in opposition to injustice.
Just structures will never be complete in a definitive way. As history continues to evolve, they must be constantly renewed and updated; they must always be imbued with a political and humane ethos—and we have to work hard to ensure its presence and effectiveness. In other words, the presence of God, friendship with the incarnate Son of God, the light of his word: these are always fundamental conditions for the presence and efficacy of justice and love in our societies.
This being a Continent of baptized Christians, it is time to overcome the notable absence—in the political sphere, in the world of the media and in the universities—of the voices and initiatives of Catholic leaders with strong personalities and generous dedication, who are coherent in their ethical and religious convictions. The ecclesial movements have plenty of room here to remind the laity of their responsibility and their mission to bring the light of the Gospel into public life, into culture, economics and politics.”
Both articles seemed a little beside the point. A call for Christian businessmen and politicians to stop shedding their Christian beliefs when "doing business" seems a far cry from asking Christians to promote and accept the construction "of an economy that will soon be in a position to serve the national and global common good" (_CiV_, Sec.41) and to advocate "the processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, [that will] open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale" (_CiV_, Sec.42)
Since you like to post large chunks of BXVI's text without comment, how about this. It is from 2005, from his "World Day of Peace" message for 2006. All emphases are, of course, mine.
http://www.zenit.org/article-14820?l=english
Excerpts...
12. Looking at the present world situation, we can note with satisfaction certain signs of hope in the work of building peace. I think, for example, of the decrease in the number of armed conflicts. Here we are speaking of a few, very tentative steps forward along the path of peace, yet ones which even now are able to hold out a future of greater serenity, particularly for the suffering people of Palestine, the land of Jesus, and for those living in some areas of Africa and Asia, who have waited for years for the positive conclusion of the ongoing processes of pacification and reconciliation. These are reassuring signs which need to be confirmed and consolidated by tireless cooperation and activity, above all on the part of the international community and its agencies charged with preventing conflicts and providing a peaceful solution to those in course.
14. In this regard, one can only note with dismay the evidence of a continuing growth in military expenditure and the flourishing arms trade, while the political and juridic process established by the international community for promoting disarmament is bogged down in general indifference. How can there ever be a future of peace when investments are still made in the production of arms and in research aimed at developing new ones? It can only be hoped that the international community will find the wisdom and courage to take up once more, jointly and with renewed conviction, the process of disarmament, and thus concretely ensure the right to peace enjoyed by every individual and every people. By their commitment to safeguarding the good of peace, the various agencies of the international community will regain the authority needed to make their initiatives credible and effective.
15. The first to benefit from a decisive choice for disarmament will be the poor countries, which rightly demand, after having heard so many promises, the concrete implementation of their right to development. That right was solemnly reaffirmed in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, which this year celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of its foundation. The Catholic Church, while confirming her confidence in this international body, calls for the institutional and operative renewal which would enable it to respond to the changed needs of the present time, characterized by the vast phenomenon of globalization. The United Nations Organization must become a more efficient instrument for promoting the values of justice, solidarity and peace in the world.
Do you expect the Catholic Church to denounce true goodness done by certain INDIVIDUALS who work within the united nations or any organization and condemn their work in following our Lord as a waste of time because it does not conform to capitalism?
We pray for the goodness of moral individuals to step up and change errors from within corrupt systems like many Saints and Martyrs have done.
True love changes hearts and can move mountains ,dear friend.
Once you stop believing that you have no faith in Christ!
I wish you a blessed evening!
>>> Do you expect the Catholic Church to denounce true goodness done by certain INDIVIDUALS who work within the united nations or any organization and condemn their work in following our Lord as a waste of time because it does not conform to capitalism? <<<
Did you not read the point I made about businessmen and politicians I made in my last post? Why do you persist in pretending we disagree about good being done by individuals?
Do you not think that that there is a difference between individuals and institutions? BXVI does: individuals are moral persons, capable of being good or evil, while Institutions or bundles of institutions — “social instruments” — like globalization are said to be basically MORALLY NEUTRAL (”a priori...neither good nor bad”; _CiV_, Section 42). This seems to be tantamount to claiming that institutions, although the creation in great part by men, are without the taint of Sin. Which would be an incredible argument, and one which I do not agree with.
My response to the assertion of the moral neutrality of institutions is to say “Really?”
>>> We pray for the goodness of moral individuals to step up and change errors from within corrupt systems like many Saints and Martyrs have done. <<<
Wouldn’t the MORAL or GOOD response of an individual who had to interact with an institution like the COMINTERN or GPU or Gestapo be to destroy it? From the outside? What would it mean for a good RC to “step up and change errors from WITHIN corrupt systems” if that corrupt system is something like Bolshevik Communism?
What is the proper response of good Christians to institutions like International Communism or German National Socialism? To work for internal change and reform from within, or to take up arms against from without? What would a reformed GPU or Stasi or Gestapo look like?
>>> True love changes hearts and can move mountains ,dear friend.
Once you stop believing that you have no faith in Christ! <<<
Please show me where the Church of Rome has advocated that RCs should change International Communism and/or German national Socialism “from within.” I’ll wait. I had thought that the Church of Rome’s position was that the downfall — not inner reform — of Soviet Communism and German National Socialism were GOOD things. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
VERY WELL PUT.
Of course, the TRUTH seems to be incomprehensible to various rabid cliques hereon.
“”Do you not think that that there is a difference between individuals and institutions? BXVI does: individuals are moral persons, capable of being good or evil, while Institutions or bundles of institutions — “social instruments” — like globalization are said to be basically MORALLY NEUTRAL (”a priori...neither good nor bad”; _CiV_, Section 42).This seems to be tantamount to claiming that institutions, although the creation in great part by men, are without the taint of Sin.””
Why did you leave out the next line from CIV that reads.... a priori...neither good nor bad IT WILL BE WHAT PEOPLE MAKE OF IT” ? This means an institution is neutral until individuals make it into something with an agenda that can be either good or bad.
I don’t see why you would find that hard to understand?
“”Wouldn’t the MORAL or GOOD response of an individual who had to interact with an institution like the COMINTERN or GPU or Gestapo be to destroy it? From the outside? What would it mean for a good RC to “step up and change errors from WITHIN corrupt systems” if that corrupt system is something like Bolshevik Communism?””
You don’t seem to understand that sometimes people are caught in various systems by force are enslaved by it so they can only fight against it from within since they are enslaved by the system even though they disagree with it.Thus, we can and should step up and fight to break corrupt systems from within.
If this so-called NWO ever takes place we will be enslaved by it and it will need to be destroyed from within
Pope Benedict XVI is against immoral NWO-I suggest you read the following....
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070812.html
Since long before his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger has vigorously fought the United Nations’ vision of a ‘New World Order’. As early as 1997, and repeated subsequently, Ratzinger took public aim at such a vision, noting that the philosophy coming from UN conferences and the Millennium Summit “proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness [we] have attained will not be affected.”
“At the base of this New World Order”, he said is the ideology of “women’s empowerment,” which erroneously sees “the principal obstacles to [a woman’s] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity.” The then-cardinal advised that “at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest.”
Benedict XVI in fact repeats those criticisms in the new encyclical. In Caritas in Veritate, the Pope slams “practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.” He also denounces international economic bodies such as the IMF and World Bank (without specifically naming them) for their lending practices which tie aid to so-called ‘family planning.’ “There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures,” says the encyclical.
I left out the next line because it merely restates what I wrote earlier. To say that an institution is "morally neutral" is equivalent to saying that an institution is "a priori...neither good nor bad IT WILL BE WHAT PEOPLE MAKE OF IT.” I don't think that's hard to understand at all.
A question: if Paul VI back in the 60s had said that International Communism is neither good nor bad, and that instead IT WILL BE WHAT PEOPLE MAKE OF IT, what do you think the response would have been?
>>> ...This means an institution is neutral until individuals make it into something with an agenda that can be either good or bad. <<<
Institutions that arise in recent times are not created _ex nihilo_. They have a history; they are created, to a great extent, by particular people with a particular background in a certain context and for a certain goal. To be exact, there is no such thing as a neutral institution; at the very least, it has a final cause: it exists to DO something.
However, I don't think that THAT degree of precision is useful here. What is useful is acknowledging that certain institutions are irredeemably mischievous or evil, and are not fit to be reformed or tamed but to be abolished: International Communism, the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and Nazi Germany are some recent examples of such formations.
>>> You don’t seem to understand that sometimes people are caught in various systems by force are enslaved by it so they can only fight against it from within since they are enslaved by the system even though they disagree with it.Thus, we can and should step up and fight to break corrupt systems from within.
If this so-called NWO ever takes place we will be enslaved by it and it will need to be destroyed from within. <<<
I hope you see that we are in agreement here: barring outside intervention [ ;^) ], such a system would have to be destroyed from within. However, _CiV_ isn't talking about subverting and destroying; it's talking about taming and using some kind of global order that in terms of power and effect would be indistinguishable from a "NWO." (cf. _CiV_, Section 33 -- especially the final paragraph)
>>> Pope Benedict XVI is against immoral NWO-I suggest you read the following.... http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070812.html <<<
I read the editorial when it came out. I didn't find it to be a very convincing defense, and still don't: the claim seems to be that no one should worry because BXVI doesn't defend the Bad definition of a global authority (i.e., the NWO), and instead defends the GOOD version of global authority, one that would somehow avoid all of the evils and pitfalls inherent in the NWO.
A NWO minus "demographic controls" like abortion and euthanasia would be cold comfort for those of us who argue that ANY non-divine global authority would be inherently bad. To paraphrase and update an old saying: a controlling world authority that would be sufficiently powerful to protect and advance the "integral human development" of all human peoples is one that is equally able to extinguish the sovereignty of all nations and squash the liberties of all persons.
A truly universal political and socio-economic authority, whether it be a New World Order or a New-New World Order, is inherently evil. It is a version of Nimrod's Babel. It is a prideful abomination. Invoking contrary concepts such as "subsidiarity" or "solidarity" will, instead of preserving national sovereignties, elicit laughter from the newly-spawned bureaucrats who will bulldoze our nation-states into oblivion.
NO abortion! NO euthanasia! NO global authority!
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.