Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
As observers continue to decipher the meaning of Benedict XVIs 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 Benedicts 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 XXIIIs 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 Benedicts effort to humanize globalization. It can be seen as the global application of John Paul IIs 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 UNs major conferences of the 1990sCairo and BeijingBenedict 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.
Thankfully, it's in black and white and we all can read it and judge for ourselves...
67. 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[146] 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, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. 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. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
Frankly I'm getting tired of underlining sentences here - they ALL run counter to our embattled Republic.
Do you want a single, global authority telling the United States how to regulate disarmament, immigration, food allocation, the environment and security?
Your pope does. He just told both of us.
But from his own words I have little doubt the pope thinks "love" means a single, global, controlling authority "with teeth."
I don't. What do you think our Founding Fathers would say about the pope's outline for global governance of the United States' immigration policy, food allocation, our environment and security?
>>> Ive learned a lot from Catholics on these posts. <<<
I’ve learned that they won’t answer seemingly simple questions like “what’s all this about ‘integral’ human development”?
:^(
Amen!
I believe in my heart that Vatican II and what proceeded from that cabal was intrinsically evil. (I have copied what you have posted because it saves time in digging, digging and more digging then attempting to parse what our new pope is saying.)
Although many of those participating no doubt felt they were doing good works by 'modernizing' the Church they forgot that God never changes, so why should the Roman Catholic Church? After all, our Savior Jesus Christ doesn't wear Nike's and I believe that he is very disappointed in what the followers of Peter have done to the Church He left behind on earth to carry on.
Those popes who were complicit in allowing, for example, the novus ordo mass to be deep sixed in favor of a sterile, protestant-type 'service' and all the evils that ensued have much explaining to do to their Maker.
We have all seen what was wrought. Altars removed and destroyed, statues, votive candles and, indeed, the tabernacle moved to side rooms and as far away from what serves as an altar today as possible.
Now, instead of doing the Lord's work and reversing the inherent evils of Vatican II our new pope, like his predecessors, engages in writing about things that have absolutely nothing to do with souls and the Church. Rather he engages in issuing forth very confusing encyclicals that play into the hands of satan's followers who would rule the world.
Yes, and when some of them don’t have the answers, they throw insults around.
Their parents raised them well. The church may have taught them some things, but the responsibility for the way they turned out was their parents and other people who helped them. I appreciate that they were good church goers, but I appreciate even more the fact that they were born again and are both now serving God in ways they never would have before. God completely changed my husband’s personality and rid him of many fears he had growing up. He’s a different person since he was born again. And he’s still growing. If the Church would stick to the basic about Jesus Christ and not get involved in all the Mariology, infant baptism as salvific, the Eucharist as salvific, praying to the saints, etc., there would be no argument from most of us here. I’m drawn to them through Christ, not through any Church. I appreciate your question. Thank you. Mary
I guess we’ll never know what goes on behind the scenes in either administration, but there ARE people who know the truth and I hope they will speak out against these allegations.
Thx.
Good point.
I’m not sure that any influence on global/ world government dynamics, issues, movements
by a very powerful world leader of more than a billion people
is irrelevant
to me.
He has a lot of power to hasten, buttress, alter to a very limited degree said looming world government—that already has reached into almost every life on the planet.
Good points.
It does appear, Dear Heart,
that some things that seem brazenly evident in key sentences,
to some of us
are evidently not there, for you.
That’s difficult to understand.
Certainly my decades of studying the push for a world government influences my perceptions. You probably think it distorts them.I probably think it makes them more sensitive and astute.
The words he uses . . . AT LEAST acknowledging, if not affirming some sort of world government, are most troubling.
How quickly liberals can transform themselves. The left has said ‘morality’ cannot be legislated, yet along comes Bama, quotes Cain, and says that his fix for the health care economy is the moral thing to do.
Good points that trouble me, too.
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 elses.
= == =
VERY KEY POINTS. Thanks.
Those are not wimpy sentences.
Those sentences have . . . well . . .
fierce teeth in them.
Why do some see those sentences as toothless?
Mystifying.
INDEED.
Yet those were not "his own words," but rather a poor translation.
. . .
= =
that play into the hands of satan’s followers who would rule the world.
= = =
A VERY key point, imho.
That no longer washes in the least.
There’s been more than sufficient time to publish a better translation of the contested phrases and sentences that have raised such a widespread furor.
The Vatican is clearly comfortable enough with the translation to let it stand as a published Vatican position.
The Vatican is evidently happier with it than you are.
I guess I don’t understand very well being wholesale submitted to the Pope etc. on the part of Roman Catholics.
Perhaps they’d adjust things post haste on receipt of your email.
Please let us know how they reply.
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.