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.
Truly, as I said before, Caritas in Veritate by title and content (the forest, not the trees) strikes me as Pope Benedict's meditation on what I called earlier the 'truest expression of love.'
And as I mentioned earlier based on my experience with that crazy facebook quiz there are indeed many people who believe the truest expression of love is words, simply someone telling them they are loved no matter what. Such a person would not likely agree with the Pope's encyclical.
And others in the quiz believed the truest expression of love was a hug or holding hands, etc. There were also those, by the way, who believed that the truest expression of love was gifting - a diamond ring, a car, flowers, candy, etc. These might have a problem with the encyclical.
But I agree with Pope Benedict that the truest expression of love is something that we do. It could be giving a homeless guy a meal or mowing the neighbor's yard, visiting someone who is lonely, giving up a parking place, helping someone find a job, etc.
The difference between the Pope's and my viewpoint is that I am thinking of what an individual Christian does to express love whereas he is thinking universally, as he has been called to do.
I hope you will not think I'm being "corny" here; but in truth, these lines bring tears to my eyes, for their truth. What you have said here is just, dearest sister in Christ, in the light of the Holy Spirit.
May God ever bless you and all your dear ones!
To God be all glory!
That is my spiritual leaning also, dearest sister in Christ. Israel is God's chosen people — chosen for His good purpose. He's been chastising Israel for 4,000 years and counting — but He loves them as His firstborn; and will never leave them, nor fail to fulfill His promise to them.
THAT is inconceivable. For God does not lie.
Not for nothing did Pope John-Paul II refer to the Jews as the "elder brother" of us all.
Thank you so much for your glorious essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
THAT is inconceivable. For God does not lie.
He fulfiled His promise to them. He sent a Savior to pay for the sins of all who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and King.
"All one in Christ Jesus."
God's promise to Israel came before the Incarnation of Christ.
A promise is a promise. Especially if God made it. I strongly doubt He would ever change "the original terms" He had with Israel. For the Lord does not equivocate: He knows what He's doing.
Unlike us puny mortals....
How dare you judge Him?
EXCELLENT POINTS, imho.
Thx.
Amen. It's a pity that so many inadverantly call the Holy One a lawyer and try to read "all Israel shall be saved" as "1% of Israel shall be saved."
Shalom.
Is that on a continuous loop in your mirror?
I don't KNOW that he is not, I just do NOT see him that way. I certainly hope he is not.
He seems to have kindly eyes and a gentle heart. I prefer to read into both a lack of horrific levels of evil.
NEVERTHELESS, I'm FORCED BY HIS WORDS to consider it extremely sobering and troubling that he is
ESSENTIALLY
ADVOCATING A GREATER DEGREE OF GLOBAL CONTROL over economics, migration, distribution of goods, etc. etc. than we have at present.
That's startling. I was startled with the earlier Pope's statement in the list of quotes the last 100 years ref'd in my tagline [I'm still eager to know whether you have managed to read ANY % of that list of quotes, or not].
I was MORE startled to read the critical paragraph in this encyclical.
When he clearly calls for MORE GLOBAL CONTROL, I tend to believe that he means MORE GLOBAL CONTROL.
I don't see any of his champions hereon really dealing with that statement of his much at all, if at all. Why? What's with the blindness or denial of those clear statements of his?
Why is it somehow OK, WONDERFUL, all sweetness and posies wrapping the GREATER GLOBAL CONTROL in sanitizing TRUTH IN LOVE AND SUBSIDIARITY????
Those things do NOT sanitize anything for many of us. They are white-wash. They are a water pistol against a forest fire. They are meaningless idyllic pontifications from either someone grossly out of touch with current global realities or someone grossly denying current global realities.
I CANNOT YET SEE ANY OTHER WAY TO CONSTRUE IT. I've tried for months. Nothing else makes the least bit of sense given the evidence. And it has nothing to do with me seeing Benedict as evil. I don't.
I'm beginning to wonder who's side he's on in terms of satanic glboalism. But that could be from being duped, deluded, or a list of other reasons having little to do with his heart after God or his heart after humanity.
And, I have to be adult enough, smart enough, logical enough, honest enough and informed enough to consider--WHO ELSE ON THE WORLD STAGE IS CURRENTLY CLAMORING FOR
MORE GLOBAL CONTROL?
Functionally, effectively, globally, there is ONLY
ONE
other force, group, movement, etc.
IN BEHALF OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT . . . though there are myriad sub-groups. THAT IS THE SATANIC GLOBALISTS.
THEY HAVE CLEARLY AND RATHER UNARGUABLY (at this point) been in essential control of the key aspects and parts of the globe and it's component interacting parts for AT LEAST 100 years. That is demonstrable. That is provable. That has tons and tons of hard primary source and primary actors' evidence to back it up. The quotes in my tagline ref are the tip of the ice berg.
So, we have the Pope on the one hand advocating for MORE GLOBAL CONTROL
We have the globalists tightening and extending their already under the table very tyrannical GLOBAL CONTROL over essentially all the main aspects of daily life for the overwhelming majority of the world's populace--and increasing same geometrically and overtly daily.
No, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that you view him primarily from the perspective that he’s some holy man, and then profess astonishment that someone else might view him from the opposite perpective, same coin, different sides
Perhaps you do not see Christ in Isaiah 53.
I strongly doubt He would ever change "the original terms" He had with Israel.
God didn't "change the original terms." He did what He said He would do -- He sent them a Savior, "bruised for their transgressions."
But this theological distinction seems intent on side-tracking the thread. Let's stay focused on the pope's global authority "with teeth" (and the means to coerce) which the pope is advocating.
Yeah, sorry about that. I found myself blessed with a wife and 7-year-old daughter all at once in June. The wedding prep beforehand and learning to be both a husband and a father afterwards have greatly limited my time. Definitely worth it, of course. I read FR through the day, but rarely have enough time to post more than a sentence or two.
Shalom.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." -- Romans 9:6,8"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel...
That's the last comment I'm making on this thread regarding Israel. Somehow the thread has been conveniently side-tracked off the pope's foolish and destructive agenda and onto another topic entirely.
Obviously the criticisms of this socialistic document out of Rome were hitting too close to the uncomfortable truth.
>>> The “good” that he wants “in” is for people to live in Christ, to answer His Call in their souls, hearts, and minds. The “bad” he wants “out” (described at section 14) is “the technocratic ideology so prevalent today.” <<<
If _Caritas_ were simply a call to live in the path of our Savior, then it could be simply expressed in 5-6 pages. Instead, we have 52 pages of the Call to Christ AND jargon AND policy statements (AND, not to mention, a call to a vague notion of spirituality). Christ’s word doesn’t get buried, but it gets kinda hard to discern. Not lost, just a little hard to hear clearly amongst all the competing voices.
It’s not an easy document to understand. I have a lawyer friend, a newly minted Catholic who has a degree in English and who has no problems with Encyclicals like _Evangelium Vitae_ or _Humanae Vitae_, and even he gave up in frustration before reaching the half-way point. I fail to see how it was intended to reach the laity, even an educated laity.
>>> The “technocratic ideology” is what people today mindlessly call “values-neutral.” It is unconcerned with ethical or moral criteria, it is radically anti-human, and brings degradation wherever it goes. In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. Rank speculation is of equal worth to human creative effort in such a system. This is what the Pope objects to, and I object to it also. Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown. <<<
Unfortunately, we post-lapsarian men are saddled with (self)degradation, avarice, and other moral faults usually covered by the notion of Sin. Regardless of ideology or economic system. The problems with solutions to capitalism — by the way, thank you for not using that weenie-word “globalization”: it’s obvious to me what is really being attacked here — is that they are/will be just as riddled with sin and (self)deceit and self(degradation) as the political-economic system it attempts to tame or replace. Just look at the human tragedy that the Bolsheviks created in Russia and elsewhere. To look at that, and to say in one’s heart that “I can do better, for I have Christian spirituality and Christian ethics on my side,” is — I would argue — to tread a very old and very dangerous path. It saddens me to see that BXVI appears to be on it.
>>> In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. <<<
The problem is that power-mongering, lust, avarice, pride, injustice etc. ALSO satisfy “real human needs and wants” in our Fallen humanity. In a “new” economic value system, I don’t doubt that our sins would have their traditional forms whilst taking on new forms and causing different miseries. What worries me is that a new “global” authority that would be needed to “integrally humanize” international capitalism would be even more of a degrader of persons and peoples than the system we currently have. All that power will have to go somewhere... my guess is that it will go downhill — and not so gently — on our heads. I have no faith in unlimited gov’t this side of Judgement Day.
>>> Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown. <<<
Ideology has nothing to do with it. Capitalism has business cycles. Boom and bust. This has been obvious for centuries. Changing ideologies won’t change the reality of how the system works — or doesn’t work.
>>> Still in Caritas in Veritate, the Pope has not advanced any program for correcting this situation, no plan to “limit profit.” In the first place, such a thing is entirely beyond the scope of his competence and authority. <<<
One does not have to advance a political program or particular policies when one can point to and advocate policies already in existence. Or simply argue for “what is to be done.” Which is what BXVI does in _Caritas_. Catholic “integralism” and the “distributism” of Belloc and Chesterton have been around for many decades; to see the jargon of “integral” and “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” evinced so strongly in the text, and yet to deny the connection with economic and political programs long associated with the Church, bespeaks a peculiar kind of blindness on your part which I do not understand.
>>> In the second place, in this encyclical his purpose is to evoke a major cultural renewal based on the Word of God, in charity and in truth. In his last encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, he wrote of God’s love.... He is informing the world at large of these things; this is what is called Christian evangelization. He bids us all to do likewise, and then the “profit thing” will just naturally smoothe itself out in time, God willing. Profit should be based on the creation of new value, not on “pushing paper around.” (My term.) <<<
Once again, I couldn’t disagree with you more. _Caritas_ is much more than an exercise in the Great Commission, or an admonition to capitalists and statesmen to “play nice” and be less like Scrooge. This Encyclical is calling for world-wide and REVOLUTIONARY changes in how “business” is done, both between real businesses and between nations.
To take your example: if profit were to be administered so that it is “based on the creation of new value, not on ‘pushing paper around’ — which to means to me that there would be no M-C-M’ or M-M’, and certainly little or no capital accumulation — then I don’t doubt that global capitalism would fold pretty fast. And then social order. Where’s the Christian morality in that?
>>> I’ve been very puzzled by the responses of many of you to Benedict’s encyclical on charity in truth. I just don’t understand them, probably because I don’t see something that you see. I’ve been wondering what that could possibly be. Then I had a strange thought. Is it possible that there is an undisclosed assumption behind your testimonies? And that assumption is the belief that the Pope is an evil man, perhaps the Anti-Christ — maybe Satan himself??? <<<
Are you addressing me, Betty Boop? I can only speak for myself, but I do not assume that BXVI is an evil man or the Anti-Christ, or that the Church is the Whore of Babylon, or any such stuff. Shades of Dan Brown! What I see are words on paper in the form of _Caritas in Veritate_, words which convey arguments for global changes which I find disturbing and worth discussing. I thank you for the discussion so far, but I think that an attempt to “mind-read” my intentions is beneath you.
And just who or what is supposed to make up this global authority who will control America's national sovereignty?
>>> And it is likewise “puzzling” that some conservatives don’t see this. <<<
I had thought that “limited government” was not just a conservative idea but one of the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution.
... and that the principle of “limited government” was inextricably bound to the idea of “GOOD government” via natural law.
I had thought these “truths” were “self-evident,” but it looks as if I’m wrong.
Certainly Benedict has not proposed anybody. Nor does he wish to mess with America's national sovereignty.
methinks you are beating a dead horse.
Touche!
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.