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.
And truly, even in the areas of faith and morals where he actually does have authority vis-à-vis self-identified Catholic Americans, he is mostly ignored. If that were not true, we would not have an elected President who supports live birth abortion. There were enough self-identified Catholics to reject him.
Indeed, should the day come that abortion, divorce, contraceptives, the death penalty, sexual deviancy and so on are outlawed in the U.S. based upon Catholic teaching (i.e. the majority of voters becoming seriously Catholic and living and voting their religious beliefs) - then I might be concerned that his political musings would have “teeth.”
As it is right now, his musing about what he perceives would be a perfect world - where benevolence is law, wealth is shared, no one is starving, swords are beaten into plowshares and every small nation of people is relevant - is as moot a point to me as the Muslim ayatollahs’ and imams’ dreams of an Islamic world under Sharia law.
In other words, I am not shocked when religious authorities dream of one world theocratic or quasi-theocratic governance wherein their morals and/or doctrines are, in their minds, vindicated. Nor am I shocked when they act on that dream. Indeed, world history suggests that political power and religious authority were often hand-in-glove. And it remains that way in those countries (e.g. Iraq and Iran) wherein a single religion is established by the nation and there exists no freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
But the United States is not at all like that. It is a representative democracy founded on unalienable rights granted by our Creator. Those inalienable rights are called self-evident; they are the axioms, the postulates that justify this form of governance.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is infused with Calvinist political beliefs (e.g. the presbyterian structure of a representative democracy) and therefore without pitching the Constitution itself, the United States cannot become a theocracy.
Or to put it another way, the greatest threat to the United States is not a politically powerless, mostly ignored, religious authority musing over a one world theocracy. The greatest threats are spiritual in nature.
The first threat is a ‘falling away’ of Christians such as in England wherein atheism has become the established “religion” by default. These people are “primed” to be convinced by a demonic force wielding power by signs. They are a blank slate.
The second is the demonic force itself, as prophesied for the end-of-days – where an anti-God, anti-Christ power indeed rises up to form, successfully, a one world theocratic governance based on a great display of signs and wonders.
If it happened, the first would mark the end of the United States as it was formed. And the second would herald the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and ironically the one world theocracy resembling the one the Pope is dreaming about.
So, no, I am not troubled at all by the Pope’s political musings. I do however play close attention to his beliefs - faith and doctrine – as I do with other religious authorities, e.g. Islamic, Mormon, Eastern mystic, Judaic, other Christian.
The hallmark of the one I am watching for is – perhaps subtly – that he denies Christ and declares himself to be a “god.” He may have an aura of goodness about him, but he will deny Who Christ “is” – and he will perform signs that are convincing to many. When I see such a person, I will mark the calendar because Christ will be coming again, very soon.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. – 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
So no, his political musings are irrelevant to me.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
clearly looks that way and it’s right there in black and white.
>>> Yet those were not “his own words,” but rather a poor translation. <<<
That’s nonsense, Petronski, and you know it.
The “toothy” translation of section 67 makes perfect sense in the context of Chapter 5 and the document as a whole. Section 67 is the conclusion and culmination of Chapter 5, which presents a slew of policy proposals related to finance, labor, poverty, the environment and so on, all in the context of the “integral” “development” of our planet’s human peoples. To deny the “toothy” translation — or to try to sweep the significance of section 67 under the rug by focusing all attention on this red herring — is to deny the key significance of “managed globalism” to _Caritas in Veritate_. Such a denial would only make nonsense of the entire document.
Please let me know if you want to engage in a serious discussion of the meaning of _Caritas in veritate_. A willingness to discuss what is meant by “Integral Human Development,” of individuals and of whole peoples, would be a start.
But as a member of the current world elite he is putting forth an opinion that would lead to a force, a tribunal,or someone that intends to be in world control. The PTB don't even hide it anymore, openly calling for the NWO.
I would be concerned that the pope's followers are going to be a lot like those who voted for Obama. Obama is just moving the football for his overlords. One term? he doesn't care, he'll slash and burn to get the job done.
The pope is even more culpable in that he purports to be a spiritual leader. The bible warns against these false shepherds, now whether he is or not, only by his fruits can we know.
Lol. A "poor translation" from the Vatican itself!
If the Vatican doesn't like this translation why hasn't it put out another, more "accurate" one?
The simple answer is that the Vatican likes this translation just fine. It says what the pope wants it to say.
Right, you would think that he’d rush to clear up any real or perceived ambiguities
The pope is calling for the destruction of all national sovereignty via some single, global super authority who calls the shots regarding the United States' defense, immigration, environmental, nuclear, legal, economic and social policies. The hubris it takes to make such an anti-democratic declaration is astounding...and more than a little frightening.
He has not called himself God.
"Alter Christus" comes too close for comfort.
Yep.
"Wake up.". Great tag.
As I recall, that would be aiding or abetting the murder of innocents and therefore tantamount to a self-excommunication.
Then again it might be human nature for a voter to cherry pick and declare, falsely, that he was following the Pope when in reality he was following his own carnal desire which happened to agree with the Pope's statement on a narrow point.
Likewise, the only advantage I can see for any political "power that be" in the Pope's political remarks is that he can say "see, the Pope agrees with me." That is also following one's own carnal desire.
So again I aver the threat to the United States is spiritual per se. The first threat is not one man or a "power that be" but what's going on in the hearts and minds of the American people.
That's the public square battlefield where we have been losing ground for decades - where the Name of God, Jesus, has become acceptable as a curse and unacceptable as a blessing.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. - 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Yes, especially when ordering lunch...always let the Pope order first and follow his lead...magritte
As for the rest, we will evidently have to agree to disagree on the relevance of the Pope's political remarks.
No. And neither does Pope Benedict.
It seems everybody has read Section 67 of Caritas in Veritate. What I wonder is how many of them have read the encyclical's other 39 pages. (I strongly suspect Alamo-Girl has.)
Just an aside on Section 67 — its language of "...so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth." That sounds aggressively "political."
It is not known in what language the Pope wrote this encyclical, whether in Italian, German, or Latin; he speaks all three fluently. What is certain is that he did not compose it in English, where his fluency is comparatively limited. What we have is a translation. Know that in the Italian, Latin, and German versions of this text, the "real teeth" comment isn't there. I chalk it up to the misguided fancy of the English translator, and I find it regrettable. It has created nothing but a stumbling-block for some people. Especially if they are reading this passage in isolation from the rest of the text. To get a sense of the overall context in which these passages appear, which gives them their intended meaning, it really is necessary (IMHO) to read the entire 40-page document.
But I digress.
Globalization is already a fait accompli. Pope Benedict acknowledges this. And he knows that it unavoidably has an impact on States.
24. The world that Paul VI had before him — even though society had already evolved to such an extent that he could speak of social issues in global terms — was still far less integrated than today's world. Economic activity and the political process were both largely conducted within the same geographical area, and could therefore feed off one another. Production took place predominantly within national boundaries, and financial investments had somewhat limited circulation outside the country, so that the politics of many States could still determine the priorities of the economy and to some degree govern its performance using the instruments at their disposal. Hence Populorum Progressio assigned a central, albeit not exclusive, role to “public authorities."In short, the Pope is not arguing for some One-World totalitarian order that abolishes nation-states. What he is arguing for is a dynamic, flourishing family of nations under their own state systems; and, in an increasingly globalized world, these state systems need, if anything, to be strengthened — lest they be swallowed up by an ideological world mega-state, which is the final object of the promoters of the "culture of death." Here is yet another instance of the principle of subsidiarity at work in his thinking.In our own day, the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which is characterized by increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of production, material and immaterial. This new context has altered the political power of States....
The principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide interdependence, commonly known as globalization. Paul VI had partially foreseen it, but the ferocious pace at which it has evolved could not have been anticipated. Originating within economically developed countries, this process by its nature has spread to include all economies. It has been the principal driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity. Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family. Hence charity and truth confront us with an altogether new and creative challenge, one that is certainly vast and complex. It is about broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of that “civilization of love” whose seed God has planted in every people, in every culture....
Perhaps at one time it was conceivable that first the creation of wealth could be entrusted to the economy, and then the task of distributing it could be assigned to politics. Today that would be more difficult, given that economic activity is no longer circumscribed within territorial limits, while the authority of governments continues to be principally local....
Political authority also involves a wide range of values, which must not be overlooked in the process of constructing a new order of economic productivity, socially responsible and human in scale. As well as cultivating differentiated forms of business activity on the global plane, we must also promote a dispersed political authority, effective on different levels. The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State's role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development. The focus of international aid, within a solidarity-based plan to resolve today's economic problems, should rather be on consolidating constitutional, juridical and administrative systems in countries that do not yet fully enjoy these goods. Alongside economic aid, there needs to be aid directed towards reinforcing the guarantees proper to the State of law: a system of public order and effective imprisonment that respects human rights, truly democratic institutions. The State does not need to have identical characteristics everywhere: the support aimed at strengthening weak constitutional systems can easily be accompanied by the development of other political players, of a cultural, social, territorial or religious nature, alongside the State. The articulation of political authority at the local, national and international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of democracy. [Itals in the original — I haven't "emphasized" anything.]
His focus throughout is on worldwide "integral human development," economic and spiritual. The adjective "integral" in his usage refers to man's nature as body and soul. To feed the body and neglect man's spiritual being would be the opposite of "integral." The Pope believes that the human soul seeks completion in Christ. Thus man seeks always to "be more" than he is as a merely physical being. The Pope would like to remind all persons in power anywhere, at any level of authority, that they must respect this central fact about man.
In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict is describing his vision of a world culture of "Life, more abundantly."
Thank you so much for writing, dear sister in Christ!
I couldn't agree with you more, dearest sister in Christ! Obama would not exist were it not for the spiritual disorder in people's souls, and especially among Catholics.... LOL, but we need a more "integral development." :^)
Thank you so much for your outstanding essay/post!
Keep your day job. You're no mind-reader.
Yes.
The spiritual disorder that has given us the present Administration is not isolated to American Catholics. Protestants voted for this in too great a proportion as well.
And the fact that the American Jews voted overwhelming for Obama when his life history and the background of his pastor and closest advisers was in clear view is mind-boggling.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
I pray earnestly for the United States and Israel.
. . . whatever degree of quibble would be along these lines . . .
1. The satanic world government is already here and has been here under the table for at least 100 years as demonstrated by the quotes of it's leaders ref'd in my tagline.
2. OThuga is racing toward shredding the USA in behalf of making the setting up of the VISIBLE, OVERT WORLD GOVERNMENT ALL THAT EASIER and sooner.
3. It still seems inescapable to me that the leader [with whatever degree of influence/power in each individual's life under him] of more than 1 billion people
4. who makes a seemingy clear enough declaration that GREATER WORLD GOVERNNANCE IS TO BE DESIRED
5. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ALREADY IN PLACE SATANIC GOVERNMENT
6. CAN ONLY result in playing MORE into the hands of encouraging said more overt tyrannical world government.
7. It is inescapable to me [given decades of increasing evidence all over the place of increasing import--and now with OThuga leading the charge very brazenly with Kissenger, Brezenski, Soros et al cheering him on overtly and brazenly] . . . it is INESCAPABLE THAT THE BIBLICAL SATANIC WORLD GOVERNMENT is already well entrenched with all the economic and military power levers firmly under their control . . . marching foward to the satanic theocratic world government so vividly predicted in Scripture.
8. IF folks are determined to deny that reality--that context AGAINST WHICH the Pope's encyclical MUST BE considered, then I guess there's not enough shared reality to have a genuine dialogue.
9. I've persistently found that dealing with THE REALITY THAT IS, is much BETTER for survival and a productive successful life . . . than denying reality ever turns out to provide for.
10. We can all dance our fingers around all manner of platitudinously wonderful words and fantasies. Doesn't matter. At the end of the day or week or month or year . . . REALITY is what will slap us upside the head--not usually our fantasies.
11. The reality is that the encyclical INESCAPABLY MUST be giving aid and comfort to the satanic oligarchy in their press, rush and glorifying of world government. That's either so wittingly or unwittingly. However, I consider it inescapably absolutely so.
12. All the cautions about TRUTH IN LOVE etc. may make the encyclical full of warm fuzzies for the faithful. However, if the satanic ruling oligarchy pays any attention at all to those parts--it must be to laugh derisively at the futile silliness of such pontifications . . . or possibly to applaud what they might see as gloriously well obsfucated deadliness in behalf of the tyrannical global government that has refined obfuscation and deception to a very refined unholy art form.
What is persistently mystifying to me is how difficult the above seems to be for far too many very bright and thoughtful people to wrap their understanding around. Why is that, Dr. E, Harley?
INDEED.
Well put.
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.