““..an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good”
Since it does not say whose law we look to the second part of the clause to see what principles the proposed law would operate under. If you look up the meaning of subsidiarity in Catholic teaching you will find this:
This is from Wikipedia is a concise understandable defintion.:
“Subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. Functions of government, business, and other secular activities should be as local as possible. If a complex function is carried out at a local level just as effectively as on the national level, the local level should be the one to carry out the specified function. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole.
So right there we see that local institutions both private and public should be the chief providers of services and as such would also be the ones levying laws to meet local needs. Or (more helpfully) relaxing existing laws to make it easier for private organizations to meet local needs.
It would be very difficult for a centralized governing authority acting under its own jurisdiction to fullfill the principle of subsdiarity. It would be too big and too removed for one thing. For another it would not be answerable to local control. It would not rely on cooperation and equal input from particpating nations. It does not meet the criteria for subsdiarity. It can’t.
The second principle addressed is that of solidarity. Like subsidiarity it is based on the Catholic teaching on the dignity of persons. That individuals working together in free association can and do accomplish goals that advance the common good. That can hardly be said about a one world government that compels individuals to contribute their labors and the fruits of those labors for the good of the State.
The law regulating such an authority would therefore have to be answerable to National laws in order to meet the criteria for subsdiarity and solidarity. Any international law formed to regulate the authority would have to be subservient to National laws and would only be invoked if individual nations were unable to deal with a current crisis.
Now do I think it would be possible for any global authority no matter how well intentioned to not usurp authority from sovereign nations? No I don’t. Do I think it is possible for such a global authority to fall into the hands of idealogues who will advance principles contrary to Western democracies? Oh boy do I.
And that is what I think is dangerous about the Pope’s musing on this. Yes it would be wonderful if we could all band together and deal with the latest food crisis in Africa. But since the one of the root causes of such crisis is usually the corrupt doings of an tyrannical despot all the aid in the world will just be so much chaff in the wind. And such crisis usually gives rise to cries for even a bigger power grab.
Keep problem solving local and keep it within NGO’s. That is the best way to accomplish true peace and justice. Save inter government reactions for military operations. That is what armed forces are there for.
Subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently
But a certain class today see individual or small private groups as the ignorant masses and those who hold to Biblical morals as dangerous, and that they are the elite who know what is best for us, and whose rule should be imposed, for our own good.
That individuals working together in free association can and do accomplish goals that advance the common good. That can hardly be said about a one world government that compels individuals to contribute their labors and the fruits of those labors for the good of the State.
But who/what defines "good" is the question.
The law regulating such an authority would therefore have to be answerable to National laws in order to meet the criteria for subsdiarity and solidarity. Any international law formed to regulate the authority would have to be subservient to National laws and would only be invoked if individual nations were unable to deal with a current crisis.
Same question as above.
Now do I think it would be possible for any global authority no matter how well intentioned to not usurp authority from sovereign nations? No I don’t. Do I think it is possible for such a global authority to fall into the hands of idealogues who will advance principles contrary to Western democracies? Oh boy do I.
The authority of men of God in the Bible who provided new authoritative doctrine was established by their conformity to what was prior established as from God and by Gods manifest power. Thus false leaders claim to be both but fail when examined by Berean type souls and method, and the man of sin will mislead those who by his working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. Of whom we are forewarned (without damning those hold to a preterist type eschatology)