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.
WRONG.
AS any even partial reading of the earlier half ot the quotes ref’d in my tagline would document.
The whole thing was set up deliberately to move the world toward global government . . .
drum roll . . .
by folks anti-God, anti-family and essentially sold out to the world government Scripture warns will be headed by satan.
That’s what the UN was FOUNDED in behalf of.
Any other blather about it is either ignorance or willful blindness.
I earnestly endeavor to stay grounded in
—God’s Word
and
other basic realities.
I earnestly endeavor to let reality provide evidence for conclusions . . . and let the facts lead where they will.
I realize that’s quite a contrast to so many folks so addicted to bureauctratically engineered GROUP-THINK.
. . . and too much of that contrary to Scripture.
Indeed.
Though too many protty leaders are just as bad on such scores.
INDEED.
Thanks for the ping!
>>> that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. <<<
FAMILY of nations? I seem to remember that in the body of _Caritas in Veritate_ we are told that a “family” of nations is not enough — we should have a global BROTHERHOOD of nations. What would a global family/brotherhood of nations entail?
Would such a “brotherhood” be akin to Virgil’s “imperium sine fine” (i.e., “empire without end”)?
>>> ...to bring about INTEGRAL and timely disarmament... <<<
>>> 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.” <<<
>>> 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.” <<<
Integral...integral...INTEGRAL!
Can someone please the significance of this term in the context of _Caritas in Veritate_. Does it have anything to do with the Catholic “integralist movement” (Pius X and all that)?
“Can someone please the significance of this term” should be “Would someone please EXPLAIN the significance of this term.” Sorry.
This nails it so well, but will be tough for the sound-byte mentality to grasp.
In fact, and unfortunately, we can look forward to radicals taking the Holy Father's words out of the context of holiness and wisdom and instead using them to justify that awful end of all secular governments that we know in our guts is only a matter of time...
Attempts by the head of the Roman Catholic Church to first convert them and second to have them work towards a world government sounds to me, and I daresay others, like an absolutely ridiculous proposal.
It would be most prudent for America to pull out of the UN, expel its headquarters and go about our quest for peace, freedom and love of God within our own nation which can never be achieved when our government is comprised mainly of liberal, godless pansies who rule and ruin our lives, mock our God and our religion.
The main problem with current papal writings is that they are, apparently by design, very difficult to understand their true intent.
It's bad enough when we have to wade through the verbosity of our so-called 'leaders' without the burden of doing the same wading through what the leader of our Church is saying.
Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified.
How can one be a communing Catholic (oh, of course there are exceptions like Pelousy and Kennedy) and condone abortion?
>>> Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified. <<<
If the Declaration of Independence had been written in the “clear and accessible” style of _Caritas in Veritate_, we would still be a British Colony!
This is not a “timeless” document; Aquinas would start begging for a glossary after about page 3.
Seriously, though: does ANYONE here have the foggiest idea what phrases like “integral human development” and “authentic human development” signify? The “development” of peoples and, apparently, humanity? What does this jargon mean?
In Section 13 we read:
“Paul VI clearly understood that the social qustion had become worldwide and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In the notion of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he identified the heart of the Christian social messsage, and he proposed Christian charity as the principal force at the service of development.”
Some thoughts:
“the impetus towards the unification of humanity “ — What does this mean? It seems to mean that BXVI is arguing that unification as globalization is inevitable. There also seems to be the implication that this unification is morally neutral, that it can be “developed” and made right. This is cold comfort for those of us who believe that globalization is inherently evil and cannot be made right.
A WORLDWIDE “social question” — the implication being a world society. What would that entail, and does the notion even makes any sense? There seems to be a lot more going on here than just restating the Enlightenment notion of humanity in Christian terms.
“Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” — What does this mean? Since when has a world-wide and “single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” been a Christian ideal this side of Christ’s Return? This seems to be a lot more than just a call for some new Christendom, or an oblique restatement of the Great Commission. There seems to be a real strain of apocalypticism here, albeit one that has less to do with the Bible and more to do with what Dostoevsky was thinking about with his parable of the Grand Inquisitor.
and "world political authority" isn't necessarily synonymous with "world government," at least as the latter is popularly construed.
That said, any halfwit can see that sooner or later global government will be established. It's been attempted repeatedly throughout history. It has never been more imminent than now, the day when weapons of mass destruction, instaneous communication, near instantaneous travel, instantaneous capital formation, legacy stockpiles of weapons, highly trained militaries, and breakdown of social order in the West are manifest.
In fact, the high level of interaction in legal and commercial matters argues that in some senses, it already has. Would you have it not be so? If you think the market forces that push globalization, much less the unholy ambitions of men, can be tamed with legal structures you need to familiarize yourself with black markets. The Holy Father addresses this fact squarely, and argues for the very same thing he would argue for at any level of social development: truth in love for the human person.
Perhaps your disagreement with him is such you think he shouldn't address the realities of modern life, but he does, just like he's supposed to.
The problem is technology at the disposal of fallen human nature; the problem is not the Holy Father's diagnosis and prescription.
But why does the leader of the Roman Catholic Church have to codedly attempt to advance the NWO?
...he would argue for at any level of social development: truth in love for the human person.
Here we go again. What exacly does that mean in respect to the topic of this discussion? It's just more jumbled newspeak that would suggest we are our brothers' caretakers.
Our Savior didn't select Peter to continue His Church on earth so that a successor 20 or more centuries down the line would decide, for his flock as well as what's left of the Christian world, that socialism is a good thing!
Socialists, communists have a rough time earning their way into Paradise! That's what world government is all about.
Most of us clearly understand the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of The United States.
WTF is the "NWO" -- the inevitable,inexhorable historical march toward a global society? You might as well say he's trying to advance tomorrow's sunrise. And "codedely?" Come on. Switch to decaf for a while.
oy. read the Encyclical to answer your questions.
Nice talk. Christian?
**Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?**
NO, why are you believing the liberal spin on this?
>>> Most of us clearly understand the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of The United States. <<<
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say THAT. I have my doubts about various USSC justices and the millions of Americans who regularly vote Democrat.
But they certainly are written in clear prose and are as jargon-free as you are likely to get in a legal document.
>>> ...the inevitable,inexhorable historical march toward a global society? <<<
Wow. What Popper calls the “historicism” of Hegel and Marx at its purest.
How (cough-cough) Progressive of you.
Now, what does this have to do with _Caritas in Veritate_? Do you agree with my assertion that the document sees globalization as a morally neutral force that has to be tamed through Christian charity, or do you think that globalization is seen as mostly good?
There are those Freepers (me included) who see globalization taken to the point of “toothy” institutions as irredeemable and intrinsically evil. I don’t think you are addressing their/our concerns by saying they should just “bend over” to the historically inevitable and pray for the best.
>>> oy. read the Encyclical to answer your questions. <<<
I have read it. Have you?
I must say that it raises as many questions as it answers. The jargon that no one seems willing or able to define certainly contributes to that.
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.