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.
Fair words, but let's look at these words:
“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.”
This is not the UN, nor how it was ever intended to be. The UN specifically has no authority—that is the left up to international law and militaries, coupled with sanctions and such that can be agreed upon by the individual countries that make up the UN.
You see, the UN is supposed to be a gathering place whereby countries can seek agreement or disagreement, but in the end, they work independently. Some countries may not agree with something and do not “approve” such items. Should actions taken be left up to the UN? They never have before. The UN has only “peacekeeping” forces—they can't shoot or anything. That is left to the militaries of countries, such as the US, UK, Russia, to enforce things that might need military force.
The Pope is looking for a body that has enforcement powers over any and all countries. That is simply clear in his words.
Additionally, the Pope should know that political bodies do not make people accept Christ, so why should anyone listen to his words on this? His importance surrounds things of Christ, not things of politics, although he is the head of the Vatican, a very small “country” of its own.
He should shut up ASAP on this other stuff, save for wanting to help change people's hearts.
Re-reading the paragraph in question, I can see your point. I don’t have any response at this time, at least none that could be a cogent reply. Perhaps later.
I’m mainly posting this to say thanks for your input, and also as a placemarker in the thread. This discussion should be interesting.
I would also like to encourage my fellow Catholics to consider this point carefully. While I have read a good number of articles offered on FR explaining the meaning behind the Encyclical, and how it shouldn’t be taken as a call for a “one world government with enforcement powers”, I must admit, in the interests of intellectual honesty and “poverty of spirit” on my part that paragraph 67 seems quite clear on this, at least at this time. And none of the articles I’ve read in “defense” of the Encyclical have addressed that paragraph point blank.
I’m looking forward to the discussion this should generate, hopefully not the usual anti-Catholic diatribe but actual discussion on this point. Ultimately of course, Catholics are not bound to agree with the Pope when he proposes specific economic and political structures, but I do not like to rely on this “fall-back position” too often, as it seems to be a bit of a cop out when abused.
After all, he is the Pope, and as Catholics, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his thoughts on any subject, regardless of whether or not we “have to” agree with them, just because they might at times be inconvenient to our own personal philosophies that do not directly speak towards “faith and morals”, such as politics and economics.
However, again, as of right now I may have to leave it at that, that I disagree with his proposal for a world government “with teeth”, and I am free to do so, as the term “with teeth” is a purely political suggestion, and not a teaching of “faith and morals”.