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.
Good grief, PWT — then what is the point of Christianity? You seem to suggest in these lines that it is a dangerous, misleading thing.
>>> And just who or what is supposed to make up this global authority who will control America’s national sovereignty? <<<
Brussels sprouts.
I have already given a "backgrounder" on the "with teeth" episode.
I gather you were not at all persuaded by it.
Not at all, 1000silverlings. People see what they see. But the criterion here is not what people see, from their viewpoint. The criterion is the Truth of God.
What “Truth of God”?
He is not arguing for "global control!" He is arguing for the Christian Spirit as having a fruitful role to play in the working out of human society.
The Truth that God reveals in His four revelations to us — Holy Scripture, the "Book of Nature," the Incarnation of Christ, and the Holy Spirit with us.
As the late (sainted!) Francis Schaeffer put it, God tells us truthfully of Himself — truthfully, but not exhaustively.
Well if you are relating all of those in some way to the Pope, that is just your own personal interpretation of the Truth of God.
Well I thank you kindly in return, dear brother in Christ. But I'm not attempting to "mind read you." I'm just trying to understand your argument. And at this point, I'm no further ahead than I ever was before.
Lol. That’s preferable to a few other options a lot harder to swallow. 8~)
I am not relating these things in any way to the Pope — I am relating these things to God's revelations. We ALL have the same revelations from God! He sends them for ALL of us.
If that were all he was arguing for, no Christian should have a problem with it.
But the pope has gone far beyond this "Christian spirit."
What is this global authority with the power of enforcement? Specifically.
### 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. ###
>>> Good grief, PWT — then what is the point of Christianity? <<<
Context is important, don’t you think? My “that” in the above sentence refers to the disasterous Bolshevik attempt to solve the problem of international capitalism. Do you really think that the Christian thing for BXVI to do is to step up to plate for his turn at bat?
I don’t think that the point of Christianity is to engage in international power politics and incite what is tantamount to a revolutionary approach to world capitalism. If the Church does THAT, who will be able to hear the word of the Lord over the resulting din?
>>> You seem to suggest in these lines that it is a dangerous, misleading thing. <<<
What I am suggesting is that to be in the world and NOT of the world is not an easy thing. Which is to say that in _Caritas_ I see BXVI advancing a political position that places him and the Church “of the world” to a dangerous degree. What I see is BXVI at the brink of an abyss; my response is to yell “Step back! STEP BACK!”
A Christian Spirit with “teeth” no less from the guy that wrote something about having the Inquisition reinstated?
A Christian spirit with “teeth” is like coercive charity — an oxymoron.
Perhaps that’s another way of putting it — that the _Caritas_ Encyclical, on the whole, has an oxymoronic quality to it.
>>> something about having the Inquisition reinstated? <<<
Geepers, don’t mention the I-word! You really want to derail this discussion, don’t you?
In chapter 11,
1) Paul starts by pointing out that God has always kept a remnant of the faithful even when the vast majority were in open idolatry.
2) He goes on to point out that the Gentiles partake of Israel's (family) tree by a miracle of God. He warns that the Gentile branches can be broken off just as swiftly as the natural branches.
3)
3) And it is in the light of the above that he said, "all Israel will be saved, as it is written . . . Concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your (the Gentiles') sakes, but in regards to election, they are beloved for the Patriarch's sakes."
The only way you can get around that plain interpretation is to either deny the "remnant of Israel now/all of Israel in the future" dichotomy that Paul is clearly setting up or to claim that the Church is the enemy of the Gospel because of the Gentiles that were grafted in. Frankly, I know Jews who might agree with that second interpretation, given how the visible church has treated the Lord's people in the name of a distorted "gospel"--but I wouldn't think that you'd prefer that interpretation to a straightforward reading that the Father will be reconciled with His firstborn son.
Shalom.
This pope is on record as calling all other religions other than Catholicism "defective" so he can't be planning in putting teeth in say, a Hindu's mouth.
How old are you? Maybe you should go back to reading the New York Times.
Then by all means keep on sinning! Meanwhile we have the Master's warning:
Matthew 7:21-29
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
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.