It is painfully apparent that even though you were posting on this two months ago, you still have not read the actual document which you call the "global authority" encyclical. You have evidently relied on some skewed press summary, possibly Phillip Pullella's Reuters article, if I may hazard a guess, since he's the guy who stupidly headlined "global authority" within hours of the 100-page document's publication (in Latin!). Any fair-minded person would say "screw Reuters" and read it for themselves in English.
Here's a link to the encyclical: Veritas in Caritate
Reuters has its own reasons for cutting out short quotes with an x-acto knife and slicing away pages and pages which define the meaning of the quotes. Pages like this:
"A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility.
"Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans.
"Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together.
"Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must [must again!] be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."
Reuters ignores the very texts which define the way the Pope used the word "globalization", a definition which excludes any "dangerous universal power" and insists on the moral obligation of responsibility being assumed as the smallest and most local level. Starting with the individual, the family, the parish, the business sector, the city, the nonprofits, the professional organizations, etc. etc--- these are the "several layers and different levels" he is talking about.
Reuters has its own reasons of rash judgment, ignorance, manipulation or malice for forcing its own definitions upon papal documents. Others choose to believe Reuters for their own reasons: I wouldn't dare to guess why.
Let's move on to your reference to: "his [Benedict's] 2001 letter to the bishops which reaffirmed Crimen Sollicitationis and threatened excommunication to anyone, including the victim and his family, who would speak publicly about being sexually assaulted by priests..."
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even understand the title of this document, let alone what it's about. "Crimen Sollicitationis" is about the "crime of Soliciting," namely, the sacrilege of a priest soliciting sexual contact in the Confessional.
In other words, this is focused on the specific canonical delict of abusing a Sacrament (Confession). The media have often misreported this as being about sexual abuse itself (which it is not) and have also misreported the oath of secrecy about the conduct of a canonical trial (not a criminal trial, not a civil trial, but a canonical trial) as if it were an oath of secrecy about the abuse itself, contrary to what the instruction itself explicitly stated.
In short, there is nothing in canon law which calls for secrecy about charges of sexual abuse itself, or which in any way restrains any person, layman or cleric, from blowing the whistle, calling the cops, or bringing criminal or civil charges.
Am I making myself perfectly clear? "Crimen Sollicitationis" requires a person who has been sexually solicited by a priest in Confession, to denounce that priest within one month; requires other priests to inform penitents of this obligation (to denounce the abuser), and requires the abuser-priest to be subjected to serious ecclesiastical punishment.
But I'm sure you didn't read this document, either. Here's a direct quote for you:
"Canon 904. In accordance with the apostolic constitutions, in particular the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV of 1 June 1741, a penitent must within one month denounce to the local Ordinary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office a priest guilty of the crime of solicitation in confession; and a confessor must, under a grave obligation of conscience, inform a penitent of this duty.
"Canon 2368 §1. Anyone who has committed the crime of solicitation dealt with in canon 904 is to be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions and, if the gravity of the crime calls for it, he is to be declared unfit for hearing them; he is to be deprived of all benefices and ranks, of the right to vote or be voted for, and is to be declared unfit for all of them, and in more serious cases he is to be reduced to the lay state."
It has nothing to do with the criminal or civil prosecution of abuse per se. It is exclusively focused on the canonical investigation of, and penalties for, the abuse of Confession.
You evidently didn't know that, and you can be forgiven for not knowing that. But I wish you would quit running on and on for months about things you don't know anything about. Who do you get your information from? The eminent canon lawyer Christopher Hitchens?
Finally, Dr., E, the Pope has by no means come to the defense of Hamas terrorists. The Instrumentum Laboris for the Middle Eastern Bishops conference hasn’t even been published yet (it was embargoed for release until Monday --- tomorrow) . But perhaps you’re referring to the way he has focused (as almost nobody seems to notice) on the conditions of the Middle East Christians--- those luckless, landless, forgotten people --- which have been made more difficult both by Islamic extremism and by Israeli occupation. This is undeniable. Or maybe you’re referring to the Pope expressing anguish over the bloodshed (didn’t specify whose bloodshed) and appealing to international leaders to try to reduce the tensions.
If you think that amounts to supporting Hamas terrorism, you are wrong, and you don’t understand his pastoral heart.
Finally, here’s a Fox News video of a Hamas cartoon which portrays Pope Benedict as a Nazi, draped in a Danish and an American flag and protecting the USA and Denmark under his robes. I don’t know about you, but in my eyes, anyone Hamas blasts as “criminal, arrogant, ignorant, and stupid” has received an honor worth coveting.
I think, Dr. E., you should pay a little more attention to the enemy of your enemies. He may not be "your pope" but will certainly prove to be your ally.
As am I, believe it or not.
But I'm sure you didn't read this document, either
You evidently didn't know that...But I wish you would quit running on and on for months about things you don't know anything about...
It is painfully apparent that even though you were posting on this two months ago, you still have not read the actual document which you call the "global authority" encyclical. You have evidently relied on some skewed press summary...
Mrs. Don-O. You take great liberties with the rules on this forum.
Not only have I posted from the entire encyclicial, I have stated that I actually paid hard-earned cash to buy a copy of this idiotic and dangerous treatise written by a man whose agenda is antagonistic to liberty, democracy and the welfare of the majority of this planet.
I also encouraged others to do so because the most damning evidence of Ratzinger's communism is his own words in black and white. Perhaps you missed my suggestion, so I'll refrain from offering you the same snarky comments you made to me about "not knowing what you're talking about."
The rest of your screed is just that.
Believe whatever propaganda you wish. This country is still a republic. For now, anyway.
Thanks again for presenting clarity.
Forever, it seems to me, the Catholic church has honored the principle of subsidiarity.
I would like to make a comment also about “globalization”.
Born in the 1920’s, I can remember a time when it would have been surreal to imagine that one could take passenger international flight. It was enough just to think about air warfare in WWI and WWII (prop engines). It would have been surreal to think that you didn’t have to go to the wall to lift the receiver off the hook and call someone—IF you could get them off the party line first. I still remember my grandmother’s phone number, which I had to ask the operator to dial for me. (it was 74K !) It would have seemed surreal to think that I could talk to my son on another continent on a cordless phone, or that I can do so now by looking at him on the computer monitor as we speak. I can even go to google earth and see where my son is at this moment.
Much younger people can’t imagine such a world as I knew in my youth.
All of these highly technical things have been the impetus for global communication, global commerce, global posting of realtime news, global transit. By the very nature of the time we live in, we can’t escape the global situation anymore.
But that does not, nor should not, eliminate sovereignity of nations. Every sovereign nation wills—or should will—to be self-governing. That is the whole meaning of the importance of the law of subsidiarity.
The concept of sovereign nations governing and protecting themselves as opposed to international global terrorism, is a whole other concept of what happens when there is abandonment of national self-governance.
We can’t turn back the clock on the world gone global. But we are certainly called to bring Christ to it, as we’ve been called to do in every era since the Resurrection.
If you think that amounts to supporting Hamas terrorism, you are wrong, and you don’t understand his pastoral heart.
Finally, here’s a Fox News video of a Hamas cartoon which portrays Pope Benedict as a Nazi, draped in a Danish and an American flag and protecting the USA and Denmark under his robes. I don’t know about you, but in my eyes, anyone Hamas blasts as “criminal, arrogant, ignorant, and stupid” has received an honor worth coveting.
I think, Dr. E., you should pay a little more attention to the enemy of your enemies. He may not be "your pope" but will certainly prove to be your ally.
As am I, believe it or not.
**********************
Excellent post, Mrs. Don-o. As always.
Mrs. Don-o,
It is well known that some anti-Catholics here do not actually read the documents that they claim to know.