IMO, this is part of the Pope's role in "saving souls." There's a couple of goals, clearly aligned with the Church's role in the world, highlighted in the article:
“to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.”
“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.”
The Pope is rightfully calling out the UN (and other existing international organizations) as failing miserably "to make themselves worthy of authority".
"The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment." Pope Benedict XVI is spot on in criticizing the UN. As the head of the Church, he also must advocate for "giving poorer nations an effective voice" and 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." IMO, this is a call for a reformed UN, an extreme makeover, not some new world order.
Yes, the fundamental idea of a UN as a global forum isn’t necessarily bad. However, it has entirely been taken over by the left and the corrupt Third World (also usually Marxist) and is completely worthless by now. But then, we’ve seen the US, in the space of a few short months, move into that camp and start defending Islamic and Communist dictators and evil in the Middle East and Latin America and Asia.
I think the significant thing is that he says that it should be based on moral values, that is, Christian values but those that in a sense are common to all because they are part of natural law. That’s the whole difference.
The Pope believes in natural law; the UN and suddenly the US do not, and believe only in positive law, that is, laws made by states or people not necessarily based on natural law but reflecting things that those people or states find convenient at a given moment. This enables them to take a thoroughly utlitiarian view of human life, which is of value only to the degree that the state assigns it a value.
He’s talking out of both sides of his miter.
He can chide about the flaws of the UN up one side and down the other.
The bottom line remains . . . he’s advocating
MORE global authority.
Biblically, in this era, that
CAN ONLY GO ONE DIRECTION . . . STRAIGHT INTO THE SATANIC GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
Whitewashing that fact is nonsense, duplicitous, disingenuous, foolhardy and probably willfully blind.
That key sentence is far tooooo UNambiguous for thoughtful freedom lovers to dismiss by a long shot.