>>> 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. <<<
What BXVI SEEMS to be arguing for and what inter-national apparatus would have to be in place in order for his “wish list” of changes (cf. Chapters 3-5) to be actually granted are two different things.
No one doubts that international capital spans the globe, as does the power of many nation-states and their several confederacies. This has been going on for well over a century. Much of this “globalization” is carried on mostly through the action of accident and force, and not so much through reflection and reason. And certainly not through charity or good will!
What BXVI desires is that reason and charity have a much greater control of “late capitalism” or globalization. Not only is there to be “globalizing”; there is to be “development” — the “integral human development” of not just individuals, but whole peoples. I think it is fruitful to look upon _Caritas in Veritate_ as the expression of this desire, an expression which takes the form of a prayer. _Caritas in Veritate_ is a kind of prayer in which BXVI asks that this beast of “globalization” be tamed, that the Machiavellians who presently run it be routed.
Have you ever read Mark Twain’s “The War Prayer”? The unspoken, unthought of part of a petitionary prayer for victory over an enemy is revealed in a shocking way as being a plea for patriotic gore. I think what Quix and Dr. Eckleburg are pointing out in their own way is the unspoken and unarticulated part (aside from Section 67 and a few other places) of BXVI’s “Development Prayer.”
Want to limit profit world-wide? (cf. Section 21) What bureaucratic apparatus will you have to create in order to do this? How will its will be enforced? How will “free” markets be sustained? How many capitalists and their defenders will have to be killed before their resistance to this bureaucracy is broken? How will you be able to avoid war?
Want to solve the problem of “food” or “water security”? (cf. Section 27) Once again, what bureaucratic apparatus will you have to create in order to do this? How will its will be enforced? How will sovereign nations be forced to “tow the line” when their political existence depends upon maintaining insecure food and water for their citizens? What will happen to the reality, legal or otherwise, of national sovereignty if you do this? How will you be able to avoid war?
One could go through the whole “wish list” from _Caritas in Veritate_ in this way. What is prayed for, what is desired in order to tame the beast of globalization and “develop” humanity reveals its dark underbelly: not reason but force or threat of force; not charity but bureaucratic indifference; not order but revolution; not love but war. And, most chillingly, not subsidiarity and the cherishing of wide-ranging political values, but a final solution of the world’s problems through the establishment of an “imperium sine fine.”
Some beasts are to be left alone or “admired” from a distance. Not tamed.
(apologies to Quix and Dr. Eckleburg if they feel my attribution of the above position to them is unwarranted)
I didn't find the word "limit" in connection with "profit" in Section 21.
Here's Section 21: p>
21. Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He understood the term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy. From the economic point of view, this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international economic process; from the social point of view, it meant their evolution into educated societies marked by solidarity; from the political point of view, it meant the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and peace. After so many years, as we observe with concern the developments and perspectives of the succession of crises that afflict the world today, we ask to what extent Paul VI's expectations have been fulfilled by the model of development adopted in recent decades. We recognize, therefore, that the Church had good reason to be concerned about the capacity of a purely technological society to set realistic goals and to make good use of the instruments at its disposal. Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty. The economic development that Paul VI hoped to see was meant to produce real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable. It is true that growth has taken place, and it continues to be a positive factor that has lifted billions of people out of misery — recently it has given many countries the possibility of becoming effective players in international politics. Yet it must be acknowledged that this same economic growth has been and continues to be weighed down by malfunctions and dramatic problems, highlighted even further by the current crisis. This presents us with choices that cannot be postponed concerning nothing less than the destiny of man, who, moreover, cannot prescind from his nature. The technical forces in play, the global interrelations, the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing, large-scale migration of peoples, often provoked by some particular circumstance and then given insufficient attention, the unregulated exploitation of the earth's resources: all this leads us today to reflect on the measures that would be necessary to provide a solution to problems that are not only new in comparison to those addressed by Pope Paul VI, but also, and above all, of decisive impact upon the present and future good of humanity. The different aspects of the crisis, its solutions, and any new development that the future may bring, are increasingly interconnected, they imply one another, they require new efforts of holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthesis. The complexity and gravity of the present economic situation rightly cause us concern, but we must adopt a realistic attitude as we take up with confidence and hope the new responsibilities to which we are called by the prospect of a world in need of profound cultural renewal, a world that needs to rediscover fundamental values on which to build a better future. The current crisis obliges us to re-plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future. In this spirit, with confidence rather than resignation, it is appropriate to address the difficulties of the present time. [Itals in the original]Much vision, no "technical plans" for implementation of anything. But then, that's not the Church's job, as Pope Benedict himself tells us early on in .
No, I haven't read Twain's "The War Prayer." Must look it up! Is this something he produced late in life? IIRC, his late years sadly were marked by darkness and depression.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful essay/post, Poe White Trash!