Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.
The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy is run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations.
Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketeers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system.
The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
As a non-practicing Catholic (join the club, I know), part of the reason I left was its abhorrent international leftist political doctrine. Although many would say something to the contrary, I feel it is aligning itself more with liberation theology than anything else. The Church dislikes wealth when it’s not in their hands, and make no mistake, the Church is very wealthy and very corrupt. I don’t mean to come off like a raving lunatic, but the Catholic church promotes less individual freedoms than Scientology.
Little behind the times.
And in references #146-149+, the pope gives us that recipe as to how that is to be implemented.
Which is his New World Order. See post #143 for the complete reference.
Fine, your Holiness, we’ll start with taxing Church property in the US at fair market value.
You may be infallible in matters of the Church but stay out of “Caesar’s” affairs.
Read post #143, direct from the Vatican.
Reuters doesn’t tell it nearly as bad as the pope, himself.
Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity,
You wrote:
“That’s funny, I heard Him say, “my Church.” Can you show me where He said “Roman Catholic Church”?”
Catholic Church. I’m not Roman. I’m Catholic. And Christ never said “Christian” either, so your question makes no sense. Originally Christians called what they shared The Way don’t forget.
“While you’re busy curing my confusion, perhaps you can tell me why it was James who issued the ruling on the Apostolic Decree, and not Peter?”
Read Acts again. Peter ruled - James agreed. That’s why everyone held their silence when Peter spoke. The issue was done when he was finished speaking.
“Then tell me how the Apostolic Decree prohibited drinking blood while allowing that “transubstantiation” thingy.”
Simple. 1) The Eucharist is a Divine command, 2) it is a sacramental presence, not a bloody one.
“If you folks want to wallow in ignorance of your Jewish Messiah following one man go for it. I’d rather follow The Man, thank you.”
We do follow the Man - the God-man. I am not ignorant of our Jewish roots. I bet I know more than you do. So far that is clearly the case.
Well it is kind of a big word...
Notice the words “freedom” and “liberty” do not appear in the Pope’s remarks.
I’m a cradle Catholic with clergy in the family. I cut my teeth on tales of Catholicism. The history of the RCC has long included dedication to central authority and strict hierarchy. I believe a fellow named Luther complained about that dedication some time ago.
Pope Benedict’s remarks are completely in keeping with that dedication. Some people may have mistook Catholic opposition to godless communism’s global ambitions as opposition to the global component, when in fact the RCC was only opposed to the godlessness. Pope John Paul, the first pope in office after the fall of godless totalitarian ideologies, was discreet enough to mostly keep his silence on the issue. Pope Benedict, apparently, is not.
Chills went down my spine when I read, “Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties.” For any of you who are wondering, the Pope is talking about armed authority.
So is “federalism”, which originally meant roughly the same thing.
there ya have it
Which I'll probably derail a little bit by saying that this is SS/DD for Mother Church. Glenn summed it up well saying whatever's good for the globe is good for the Church. With the BRIC bloc nearly demanding a global currency (woefully underreported by the state-run media), and the Church only fairly active in one of those countries, of course the Church wants in -- or de minimus, certainly doesn't want to be left out. Banking interests and all that you know ... cough cough harrumph ...
It's a simple perversion of piety. The Church likes to pretend that its main benefactors aren't rugged capitalists, or even just plain merchants & professionals, and also likes to pretend that not just raw unfettered capitalism but even refined commerce is somehow dirty; therefore through some paralogistic twisting of the Gospel (from a subset of men who have almost universally never created a job, or multiplied fish), Caesar can demand three or even four times the tithe, on top of the tithe itself.
Pope Benedict I think is particularly keen on expressing himself a la JPII in humanist terms, to maintain a continuum ... of sorts ... but as Larry so aptly put it, "Now, kindly get back to talking ex cathedra again."
Exactly what is the Pope proposing? That is, what does he see the UN being? Like it is today? From the paragraph you cited, it seems clear he is probably as dissatisfied with the UN (as it exists today) as we are.
This all comes back to the concept of "poverty of spirit", IMO. We must not be so entrenched in our (I believe justified) hatred of the UN as it operates today, that we will automatically reject any idea of some kind of governing body for the entire world.
Again, the tenor of the Encyclical seems to be a single proposal to people to govern themselves under Christian principles, i.e., the American experiment. So, re-reading the paragraph you cited in this light, to me, it seems that the Pope is saying that the UN needs to be reformed, reformed to abide by its original intent (or charter).
Put another way, if we put aside any paranoia inspired by pre-tribulational "rapture" eschatology that may plague us (not that it does you, but it clearly motivates some), if we imagine a governing body that is exactly modeled after the United States' (ideal) government, who would object to it?
Why object to it? Let me make my hypothetical scenario clear: What if the UN (or some other world body by some other name) were modified/created and it behaved exactly as the US Federal government was supposed to behave? (Limited intrusion into people's lives, limited taxes, both financial and physical, freedom of religion, speech, assmembly guaranteed, etc) Why should we object to that? Simply because it's a "world government"? To me that would be putting patriotism over Christian principle, quite frankly, not to mention, again, letting paranoia generated via a (relatively new) eschatological belief make our decisions for us, instead of engaging our own God given freedom in true "poverty of spirit".
I think again it's important to note that the Pope isn't proposing any specific way this world body would behave other than to say it should be as the UN was supposed to be: a body that would protect the rights of all people.
Isn't it interesting that the main reason the UN is such a travesty today is not because it adheres to its original charter, but precisely because it does not adhere to its original intent to protect the individual rights of all?
So, again, without expressly saying that I agree with what he is proposing here (without further reflection and careful examination), I can't say I find the idea too objectionable. In fact, right now, the only reason I can see why I would find it objectionable is if I automatically, and without hesitation, always rejected the simple notion of globalization. As I stated previously, to react in such an "instinctive" way to the concept (or indeed to any concept) is to not truly be "poor in spirit" (as the Beatitudes say we should be).
We must have a reason, based in reason, to reject a proposal. We can't simply reject an idea simply because we were taught to always reject it. That's not the way "reason" works; quite frankly that's how animals behave.
Chilling is the right word.
And this, throughout history, has never happened with government as the agent. Never.
So disappointing to read such a thing from a student of history who clearly knows better.
The word "freedom" occurs over 35 times. Check for yourself.
Yes, I read the entire document. The portion I posted is chilling, despite the yowls.
I initially read this as “Paypal Message Seeks “Global Authority” for Economy.”
Well I formally refuse. So much for MY head.
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.