The whole point of markomalley’s original post - before we got into the usual Pope-bashing - was that the translator did NOT accurately use that expression. I can tell you too that it was not accurate at all and so far the English translation is the only one that seems to imply force or imposition of this “concept of the family of nations.”
Not only is it not in the Italian original, it doesn’t even come close to reflecting the original idea.
This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories.
Dear Livius, you’ve really muddied the waters. Poe White Trash and Q. were convinced that those who see the mistranslation do so only because they want to gussy up and defend the encyclical.
Now here you come along and agree that the “teeth” translation is awful and falsifies the meaning
but far from gussying up the encyclical, you find it seriously wanting, stemming from Communion and Liberation and Archbishop Martino.
I think, folks, we’ve discovered the mysterious Third Way between sycophantic defenders of the encyclical and unabashed trashers: Livius finds the translation wanting along with all us sycophants but finds the encyclical even more wanting, along with all the pope-trashers.
Sheer genius.
Even I, shill that I am, have some serious problems with some parts of it. But I never got that far, since Poe kept hammering away at fruitless hopes for a reformed UN.
>>> I can tell you too that it was not accurate at all and so far the English translation is the only one that seems to imply force or imposition of this “concept of the family of nations.” <<<
From what I’ve gathered from reading CiV so far, globalization is seen as a kind of natural or “world historical” process that needs to be guided or tamed by international institutions suitably informed by Christian charity and truth. The “family of nations,” I gather, would be the suitably tamed end-result of globalization. I don’t see how such a taming of national and international interests can occur without the use of force; the “teeth” translation may not be literal, but is sure is accurate.
>>> Not only is it not in the Italian original, it doesn’t even come close to reflecting the original idea. <<<
I’ve only made my way to section 35, but it’s pretty clear by now that CiV isn’t arguing that the family (or fraternity) of nations — or the goal of integral human development — will be achieved by divine fiat. If, for example, “the question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries is not to be ignored” (Section 27, lines 23-24), I fail to see how the international institutions invoked in Section 67 can achieve this without at least the threat of international sanctions (trade or whatever) and or the threat of military force. Thus, “teeth.”
One thing I admire about CiV — it doesn’t avoid tough issues.
>>> This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories. <<<
Well, it does look like it was written by committee. Is that the case?
Perhaps you can explain the significance of the constant reference to “integral human development” and the “integral condition of man.” Pope BXVI refers to Pope Paul VI’s “Populorum progressio,” who refers to Maritain’s _L’humanisme integral_.
1. DISAGREEMENT = HATE [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
2. DESCRIPTION = HATE [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
3. A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN THE POPE'S = POPE BASHING [RUBBER DICTIONARY DECEPTION]
Please amend your copies of the RUBBER DICTIONARY--or at least make a note of it so you can understand the GROUP-THINK mangled English of those who worship the institution on these threads.
This encyclical is based largely on the mushy social ideas of a group named Communion and Liberation, an Italian social-religious movement with which Bishop Martino is involved and one that is very, very popular in Italy. They have grand and sweeping but ultimately meaningless ideas on politics and economics, usually expressed in foggy language that uses a lot of terms in ways they have defined as being peculiar to themselves and their theories.
The notion of coercive "charity" in this document is incoherent.
A word search of "redistribution" in the document turns up the following:
[...]Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development. [...][...]Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.[...]
[...]Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”[94]. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.
[...]The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed.[...]
Walter Williams -
"Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
P.J. O'Rourke -
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.
The lunacy expressed in this encyclical as expressed above could be laughed off out of hand were it not for the fact that much of this insanity is already a sad fact of life imposed by powers of government, and the inmates "managing" it all covet yet more consolidated power. Never underestimate the power of crazy ideas to take hold of people's minds.
Cordially,