In all candor, I haven’t been following the threads about this encyclical very closely at all. I’ve actually been devoting my time to studying the document itself. Once I have completed studying the document and integrating its content in with the remainder of the social doctrine of the Church, my concern will be in educating my fellow Catholics on what it actually says and blunting efforts of those who call themselves Catholic from using this document to advance their evil socialist agendas. That, in of itself, is going to be a difficult enough task without having to defend the document to non-Catholics who are predisposed to believing the Church is evil and who will simply glom onto portions of this document in an effort to further justify this belief.
As Sarah Palin recently said, “Why explain? Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe it anyway?”
I really have no intention to go to some undead, 1,500 post thread and attempt to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. It’s a waste of my time and energy that could be better spent in an effort to understand a very theologically dense (i.e., lots of content in a little space) document that is very relevant to my life as a Catholic.
While I know that you, Quix, are predisposed to distrusting anything Catholic, I also realize, from our past conversations, that you are also intellectually honest enough to attempt to base your evaluations based upon what is *actually* Catholic versus what *other people say* is Catholic.
So let me give you a couple of little hints:
#1: Paragraph 67 of this document is on about page 40 of a 50 page document. It must be read in light of the previous 66 paragraphs.
#2: The words “acquire real teeth” appear to be a mistranslation (we will know for sure once the authoritative Latin is published in the Acte Apostolicae Sedis later on this year). The Italian, French, and German all allude to a statement that the “concept of the ‘family of nations’ becomes more concrete” — that is a more theologically sound statement. It doesn’t call for a universal government: it calls for reform of the existing international organizations. BIG distinction there, folks.
#2a: For what purpose?
#2a(1): to give poorer countries a real voice. So that they can cooperate in their development. If you go through earlier paragraphs of the document, you will see him deploring how international aid has been given by the richer countries to the poorer countries and how, in turn, that aid has been misused by those poorer countries. He called, in earlier paragraphs, for that aid to help those countries be able to legitimately participate in trade, rather than merely being vassals of the richer countries. (That’s why I say you’ve GOT to read this paragraph in context of the rest of the document)
#2a(2): For reform of the global economy. Again, you’ve got to read this in the context of earlier paragraphs decrying the trend in the past couple of decades of businesses operating solely for the purpose of providing short-term dividends to shareholders, with the products and services delivered as a secondary issue, vice having the mission of delivering products and services and having the profits being a natural result of that delivery. Again, this phrase has to be read in the context of what was written previously. (You may or may not agree with what he said in earlier paragraphs, but this can’t be read in isolation)
#2a(3): lowering the threat level in the world (disarmament, food security and peace). Again, all discussed previously in this document.
#2a(4): For protection of the environment. (Note: earlier in this document, he talks extensively about our responsibility to steward the earth as a duty to our descendants, but, thank God he doesn’t go into the global warming hoax)
#2a(5): to regulate migration (that should make folks happy here...again, in context, he acknowledges earlier in the document that unrestrained migration is not a good thing)
#2b: He does call for a “a true world political authority” HOWEVER, the are a number of constraints that he calls for, without those constraints, such an authority would not receive his endorsement.
#2b(1): He says, “Such an authority would need to be regulated by law.” So obviously, that places limits on such an authority to operate within defined boundaries.
#2b(2): He says, “Such an authority would need to ... observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity ... “ He talks extensively about subsidiarity elsewhere in the document, but essentially, this means that this authority would not be able to get into the internal affairs of member nations (that is exactly the opposite of what ao “one world government” that you envision would do)
#2b(3): He says, “Such an authority would need to ... observe consistently the principles of ... solidarity ... “ Again, solidarity is discussed extensively in the document. Working in solidarity means that it is not a situation of having the masses be the serfs of a few international corporations (as the conspiracy theory goes), but where all would regard each other as brothers (again, not what is envisioned by the “one world government” crowd)
#2b(4): He says, “Such an authority would need ... to seek to establish the common good ... “ First, note the placement of this phrase. He mentioned it *after* subsidiarity and *after* solidarity. That, in of itself, is significant. The “social justice” crowd talks a lot about “the common good” without mentioning subsidiarity at all. He places it AFTER subsidiarity. What that means is that you have to seek solutions to problems that benefit everybody, but you can’t impose them in such a way as would violate the principle of subsidiarity.
#2b(5): He says, “Such an authority would need ... to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” To understand that statement, you would need to study such a thing in the contents of this entire encyclical letter, particularly in light of paragraphs 1-7 which define the concept. Again, such a “world political authority” would need to adhere to those principles or it would not receive his endorsement. (For example, in paragraph 36, he says: “traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated” — how transparent do you think international relations would ever be — unless there was a radical change in how governments act?)
And, of course, you have the remainder of the paragraph, which I don’t have time to break down as I did the above portion.
How has the MSM reported on this? Have they gotten it even remotely right? Of course not. And chances are, when this is talked about on the late-night shows like Coast-to-Coast, they will get it wrong, as well. Even Fox Business News has gotten it wrong.
That’s why I am not wasting my time on defending this document against its non-Catholic attackers. They are not going to take the time to read it and study it in full. And, that’s their business. My concern is to study it and integrate it into my understanding of the remainder of Catholic social doctrine and then to do what I can to make sure it isn’t too badly abused by those who call themselves Catholic.
THANK YOU for your kind comments about my intellectual honesty. I certainly try.
I won't trouble you or myself ATT with a paragraph by paragraph reply.
I will note . . . I have read, as you know, the encyclical before this one in its entirety. I think your points are consistent with that one, too.
I do plan to read this entire encyclical when I can manage it and comment paragraph by paragraph.
Yes, there are many lofty sentences and paragraphs far in abundance above the troubling ones--as far as I can tell from what's been said and you have written.
However, they do not, for me, mollify the troubling ones for the following reasons:
1. The NWO folks say most of those lofty things as well--as justification for their tyranny--of course while pretending they have nothing to do with tyranny. It's a bit like the Soviets claiming all their tyranny was necessary on the road to the idyllic utopia of "pure Communism."
In fact, even in your paragraphs about the lofty points, some of the wording was very disturbingly almost identical to the wording in some of the NWO documents . . . some such docs decades old. In fact, I can't, at the moment, think of one of your paragraphs about the lofty content that I have NOT read in essential form in some NWO document that I've read the last 45 years or so.
2. YES, the NWO folks also talk out of both sides of their fingers. I'm sorry to have to use that phrase with you but that's how I read both sorts of documents. It's a bit like a velvet covered brick or a rabbit fur glove over an iron fist. They even have their version of subsidiarity wherein they claim that local Nations, government entities will have the freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't trouble the common good etc. etc. etc.
However, with their control of individuals down to implanted ID/locator chips . . . and police empowered & charged to be prosecutors, judge, jury and executioners on the spot . . . I'm still not impressed with such a notion of subsidiarity.
3. Some of the Pope's lofty phrases seem identical to me with the ones of the NWO folks rationalizing and justifying reducing the population to 200 million; insuring a global currency; managing international trade very wholesale and integratedly; dividing the world into 10 governmental regions (interestingly--consistent with Biblical prophecy about the global government);
Sure, evidently, many of the Pope's lofty statements would be in contradiction to many of the ruthless tyrannical goals and schemes--and certainly methods--of the NWO. BUT THE SAME IS TRUE OF THEIR OWN DOCS.
4. It boils down to . . . essentially . . . smoke screens and white-wash . . . distracting from the ruthless tyranny with visions of more utopian wonders--always "in love" and "in truth" and "for the children" and for "the survival of humanity" and for the "survival of the planet."
5. EVEN IN THE HIGHLY UNLIKELY EVENT that the NWO folks would come out with a document tomorrow applauding this one of the Pope and agreeing carte blanche with every sentence the Pope signed-on to . . . a somewhat plausible event . . . it would be a cruel farce. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch because their own documents have said so many of the identically same things.
6. YET, ANYONE TRUSTING SUCH A DOCUMENT would be akin to those trusting Chamberlain about Hitler and Hitler's early statements about Hitler's own plans and goals. It would be lofty words with the gestapo waiting in the wings for a wholesale different kind of enforcement awaiting close at hand.
7. SO, I'M SORRY. I remain keenly and highly sobered and aghast at the encyclical. To me, still, all the talk about the lofty sentences and paragraphs is akin to talk about how beautiful the fabric is on the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Excellent discussion, M.
Well stated.