Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
As observers continue to decipher the meaning of Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, all appear to agree that the passage of note, the passage that may prove historic in its implications, is the one that is already becoming known as the “world political authority” paragraph:
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 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. . . .
Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization.
It is true that Benedict believes that a transnational organization must be empowered to address transnational problems. But so has every pope since John XXIII, who wrote in 1963 that “Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are worldwide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization, and means coextensive with these problems, and with a worldwide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such form of public authority.”
But such an authority has been established, and we have lived with it since 1948, and in many ways it has disappointed. So Benedict turns John XXIII’s formulation on its head: Morality no longer simply demands a global social order; now Benedict underscores that this existing social order must operate in accord with morality. He ends his own passage on world authority by stating that “The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order. . . .” Note the phrase “at last.”
What went wrong? According to Benedict, a world authority worthy of this authority would need “to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment.
To understand how the UN has failed, we must delve into the rest of the encyclical. According to Benedict, the goal of all international institutions must be “authentic integral human development.” This human development must be inspired by truth, in this case, the truth about humanity. Pursuit of this truth reveals that each human being possesses absolute worth; therefore, authentic human development is predicated on a radical defense of life.
This link is made repeatedly in Caritas in Veritate. “Openness to life is at the center of true development. . . . The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help. . . . They can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and individual.”
To some, it must seem startling how often Benedict comes back to life in an encyclical ostensibly dedicated to economics and globalization. But this must be understood as Benedict’s effort to humanize globalization. It can be seen as the global application of John Paul II’s own encyclical on life, Evengelium Vitae.
Without this understanding of the primacy of life, international development is bound to fail: “Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human?”
Throughout the encyclical, Benedict is unsparing in the ways in which the current international order contributes to this failure; no major front in the war over life is left unmentioned, from population control, to bioethics, to euthanasia.
But none of this should come as a surprise. Since at least as far back as the UN’s major conferences of the 1990s—Cairo and Beijing—Benedict has known that the UN has adopted a model of development conformed to the culture of death. He no doubt assisted John Paul II in his successful efforts to stop these conferences from establishing an international right to abortion-on-demand. At the time, Benedict said, “Today there is no longer a ‘philosophy of love’ but only a ‘philosophy of selfishness.’ It is precisely here that people are deceived. In fact, at the moment they are advised not to love, they are advised, in the final analysis, not to be human. For this reason, at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians . . . have a duty to protest.”
Now, in his teaching role as pope, Benedict is not simply protesting but offering the Christian alternative, the full exposition of authentic human development. Whether or not the UN can meet the philosophical challenges necessary to promote this true development remains uncertain. But it should not be assumed that Benedict is sanguine; after all, he begins his purported embrace of world government with a call for UN “reform,” not expansion.
I don't read it that way at all, dear Quix.
The way I read it, he knows we're already saddled up to our eyeballs with "global authority," in the political, economic, and cultural spheres. He knows it is thoroughly corrupt, death-dealing in its attitude of contempt for the sacred dignity of each and every human person.
He doesn't want any more of it; he is calling for the conversion of heart, in Christ, of those who regard themselves as being in the "elite." For Christ is Logos, He is Truth.
Power unhinged from Truth is a very dangerous thing for all concerned. No good thing can ever come from it.
Moreoever, notice how often he invokes the principle of subsidiarity. This "devolves" or delegates power to the most basic competent level, i.e., to individual human persons and communities, rather than concentrating power in an "elite," top-down sort of regime.
Just my thoughts, dear brother in Christ, FWTW. Thank you ever so much for sharing your thoughts with me!
I much appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me, Dear Sister in Christ.
I sincerely hope you’re right.
Very troubling to me.
I just don’t seem able to force myself to read it that way.
Thanks again.
Ratzinger was head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, making him successor to the Grand Inquisitor. He was also in charge of covering up the sex abuse scandal within the priestcraft. He was a soldier who shot Allied planes out of the sky in WWII. He calls all non-Roman Catholic churches "defective.". And now he carelessly calls for a one-world political, legal, social and economic authority "with teeth."
He is a man who kept the secrets of the RCC. He is not naïve.
And now he carelessly calls for a one-world political, legal, social and economic authority “with teeth.”
= = =
INDEED.
I don’t understand how that can be anything less than super troubling to thoughtful freedom loving Christians of all flavors in the context of the global government already existing pushing speedily, ruthlessly, hard for overt, obvious governance.
Well, don't force yourself. It's not necessary anyway: Just let the Holy Spirit lead you.
He will, if you let Him.
Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Doing as well as I know how about
“letting Him just lead me.”
Sigh.
I'm not talking about personal salvation here. I'm talking about the duties we owe to God our Father, Who calls us, His children, to Himself in Love.
There are only two Commandments He gives us, to love Him and to love each other. The second is derivative of the first. How can we say that we love God with our whole heart and soul and mind, if we don't care about our neighbor? If we do not extend basic Christian charity to whatever person is standing right next to us, to treat him as we ourselves would want to be treated? To see in every human face the image of Christ?
Christian love — charity — is active love. It is not a love that lets you sit passively by, waiting for Judgment Day.
Then, dear Quix, my dear brother in Christ, all will be well with you. Maybe you should not try too much on your own. Rest still in God's loving arms; let Him perform the work. Trust in Him; He will give thee Light.
Sure long for more and more of that.
Thanks big.
These three men you admire very much were born and raised Catholic. Catholicism nurtured them and helped make them who they are. Perhaps it is meaningful that they are drawn to each other and you are drawn to them. Perhaps you could feel a friendship for a Church that apparently raised them well?
Truly, there is only One Great Commandment - to love God surpassingly above all else.
God is love.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:35-40
Love is unconditional.
For some, words are the truest expression of love.
And for some, hugs or hand holding were the truest expressions of love.
But for me, the truest expression of love was the simple doing of something for someone, e.g. cooking a meal, mowing the neighbor's yard, visiting someone who is lonely.
Exploring the truest expression of love, I believe is the object of Pope Benedict's meditations on Caritas.
And we should not be surprised that he approaches the matter globally, the word "catholic" after all means "universal."
God's Name is I AM.
Thanks for your anointed wisdom.
Is that loving? Or is that controlling? Would any of our Founding Fathers agree with him?
I am however interested in his views on the church, doctrine - and his series on caritas which means "love."
Oh, so beautifully and truthfully said, dearest sister in Christ! I completely agree.
In this crazy world we live in, sometimes the simplest acts of kindness to another can mean so much to that person. Even acts of simple courtesy can build up a person's sense of personal dignity and worth, because he sees this affirmation of himself reflected back to him in the eyes of another.
I doubt that's well put. Must find better language.
But must turn in for the night — I'm tuckered out!!!
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your wonderful essay/post!
The Pope urges no such thing at all.
Good grief, are we reading the same text?
Just a simple thing like letting the person behind me in check-out line go ahead could be meaningful.
Thank you for your encouragement, dearest sister in Christ!
The problem is the other things the pope said which do not and should not sit well with Americans, Christian or otherwise.
You have argued well for the points the pope made regarding charity and love. But no one is disputing that. What is being met with skepticism and alarm are his comments about one governing power with the authority to enforce its economic, legal and social will across the globe.
You don't address the pope's clear urgings in post 91. You seem to ignore them, instead concentrating on benign comments most of us agree with.
Do you think our Founding Fathers would agree with the pope's #67 in post 91?
>>> Common sense, friend. <<<
Malta, 1565: Common sense, dhimmi! The world-wide triumph of the Grand Turk is inevitable!
France, 1789: Common sense, Citizen! The world-wide triumph of the Revolution is inevitable!
Russia, 1918: Common sense, Comrade! The world-wide triumph of Scientific Communism is inevitable!
Germany, 1940: Common sense, mein Herr! The world-wide triumph of National Socialism and our Fuhrer is inevitable!
>>> I’ll bet you’re anti-immigration, pro-tariff, etc. etc. because you think building a great big wall around the US is going to stop the rest of the world from marching on. <<<
Actually, I can think of few groups of people I despise more than paleocons and their ilk. I’m pro-immigration, pro free trade. I loathe anti-semites and racists — which is to say that I think Pat Buchanan is a stinker. You lost your bet.
>>> Only a hopelessly confused partisan can be so ignorant of history as to argue against the obervable fact that societies always organize into heirarchies, either benevolent or otherwise. It’s as inexhorable, FRiend, as gravity, and about as inherently evil. <<<
Well, the Catholic Church is organized hierarchically (as are many church organizations — that’s why they call them “organizations”). Does that mean the Catholic Church is inherently evil? I don’t think so, and I doubt you do.
However, I must admit that I do not understand the significance of what you wrote here. Is there a point you were trying to make?
>>> All the hyperbole in the world won’t stop it from happening. <<<
Of course not, dhimmi. Oops, I mean Citizen. Oops, I mean Comrade. Oops, I mean ...
>>> The Catholic has a role to play in the world around him. He understands that this is not his home, nor is his God’s kingdom of this earth. He is about being salt and light wherever he is, under whatever circumstances he finds himself in. <<<
I fail to see how a Catholic’s role is to roll over and play dead when universal tyranny comes knocking at the door. That’s not being the “salt of the earth”: that’s cowardice. This isn’t to say that the Catholic must respond with violence; simply saying NO would suffice. Just say no to Caesar and the “global” empire — that’s the point I’m arguing for.
If BXVI is really arguing that the correct and Christian response to “globalization” is to hop on the globalist bus and try to steer it in a better direction, then I must definitely part ways with BXVI. I have no desire to adopt this response to globalization because I feel it hath no savor of Salvation in it — my own, or anyone else’s.
>>> Finally, if you’re not Catholic, I wouldn’t expect you to get this, although any “Christian” should: the Church is not a country. It is a kingdom of God within a kingdom of darkness. At some point the Catholic will have to choose between his country and your church — not because the Church is against his country, but the tragic opposite. That’s also an observable fact of history, and will be manifest without any ambiguity on the day when Christ returns, should you be so lucky to see that. <<<
I’m not a Catholic, but even if I were I don’t think I could make sense of what you are saying here. I honestly don’t see any connection between these words and the topic we’re discussing. Make sense, man!
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.