You asked,
Well, the key point is that “real teeth” is clearly a mistranslation. (And considering how egregious a mistranslation it is, it is likely an intentional mistranslation). The question is, “why?”
I’ve done a lot of translating. It’s not necessarily intentional. Sometimes translators just goof up. Sometimes they are too full of themselves and think they know better than the original, think they can improve it. I imagine the translators thought “real teeth” was an improvement because it’s, well, “more concrete.” They may just have not thought far enough to realize that, while it is “more concrete,” it also carries the elements of enforcement that you point out.
It could be an unintended but unwise error. It ought to be modified in the touched up translations that often are issued.
But I wouldn’t make too big a deal of this. It’s damn hard to translate under pressure and get every detail right. I don’t see a huge conspiracy behind this, just a mistake, one that ought to be remedied rather than merely ignored.
You are right to point it out but don’t go too far with it.
That is more than a little curious.
Why? Perhaps the translator wanted to tick-off the “Left Behind” Charismatics and Evangelicals!
Seriously, in light of section 67 as a whole, the idea that a REFORMED UN, economic institutions and international finance would provide “real teeth” for the “concept of the family of nations” doesn’t seem much of a stretch for the translator(s).
Let’s see (cf. sec. 67):
if “we” are to “manage the global economy,” “to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security, and peace,” “to guarantee the protection of the environment” then “there is URGENT need of a true world political authority...” (my emphasis; perhaps Obama’s, too!)
“Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the EFFECTIVE POWER to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights.” (my emphasis)
Sounds like wanting to use a reformed UN (etc.) to “give teeth” to the family of nations to me. I’d suggest that, given all of the things that the Holy See wants these reformed international bodies to do, the creation of a standing army would no doubt be in order. Sounds pretty “toothy” to me.
I think that the translator(s) should be commended for using a colloquial expression that accurately expresses the author’s ideas in section 67.