You wrote:
“Though it is comforting to notice such a seeming inability to respond meaningfully to the points posted.”
I claim no ability to make conclusions about the use of a principle within a framework that does not exist. That in itself is a meaningful response. Notice, no anti-Catholic Protestant here has had the acumen to even suggest what that framework would be in anything approaching concrete terms yet several have insisted that I discuss the use of a principle within it. Hypocrites is too modest a word to describe them.
Since you and the Pope are the ones bringing foward the principle of subsidiarity presumably as a bulwark against tyranny, why is the burden of proof suddenly on others to somehow have the acumen to specify what that framework would be in anything approaching concrete terms?
Cordially,
Well,though I am not a "Protestant" nor "anti-catholic," I will give it a try:
Presume that Obama's plan continues apace: job losses, Obamacare, and global warming will lead to huge numbers of otherwise self-reliant people becoming dependent on government.
Then the inevitable hyperinflation caused by borrowing or printing tens of trillions of dollars will mean that nearly everybody will need a federal subsidy to buy even basic necessities (eventually, by printing new money on only on side of the paper, to save time and ink [see Wiemar Republic]).
With the Red Chinese waving bundles of worthless treasuries, Obama, in desperation turns to the oil sheiks. They, being Muslims, are prohibited from lending (just as Catholics used to be).
But, wait: Muslims can do tricks to lend money like "buy and lease back." Soon they own most Federal lands, since we can't make the lease payments. Then, they and the Chicoms and the UN decide to promulgate a "World Authority" to solve the crisis. Obama agrees (what else can he do?) and soon there is a new "Law Of the Land" treaty whereby the UN can Tax "wealthy" countries (like the former USA) and "redistribute" to the poor (keeping a little for admin costs).
Since the former US has nothing to take except worthless paper, they will take military equipment, instead. To be used by the blue helmeted child rapist armies, to keep "world order." In the "reformed UN," the US will have the same status and voting power as Zimbabwe.
But,wait! What about the "principle of subsidiarity?" Well, every village or neighborhood will have its own "local council" to solve its own problems, and refer those problems that they cannot solve to the next level, which in turn sends its insoluble problems to the next level. This system worked very well for Russia (village council=soviet).
Of course, the "New UN" would have "subsidiarity" as its guiding principle, even in its constitution, and would be required by law to follow this principle. It stands to reason that they would follow it completely, and keep world peace and protect everybody's rights, just like they do now.
DG