Posted on 07/09/2009 11:42:11 AM PDT by markomalley
One point to make for you, though, is paragraph 67 (the controversial one).
The Latin (authoritative) version is not online yet. But there is a huge difference between both the Italian and German versions and the English version.
The Italian version says: 67. Di fronte all'inarrestabile crescita dell'interdipendenza mondiale, è fortemente sentita, anche in presenza di una recessione altrettanto mondiale, l'urgenza della riforma sia dell'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite che dell'architettura economica e finanziaria internazionale, affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni.
Translation: Faced with the unstoppable growth of global interdependence, it is strongly felt, even in the presence of a global recession, the urgency of reform in the Organization of the United Nations as well as the international economic and financial architecture, so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations.
The German says, Gegenüber der unaufhaltsamen Zunahme weltweiter gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit wird gerade auch bei einer ebenso weltweit anzutreffenden Rezession stark die Dringlichkeit einer Reform sowohl der Organisation der Vereinten Nationen als auch der internationalen Wirtschafts- und Finanzgestaltung empfunden, damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann.
Translation: In the face of the inexorable rise of global interdependence there is an urgency felt, even with an equally strong global recession, for the reform of both the Organization of the United Nations and the international economic and financial structures, so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form.
The English translation online says, In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.
Notice the differences in the bolded text:
- Italian: so that we can give real substance to the concept of family of nations
- German: so the concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form
- English: so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth
"Give real substance to the concept of the family" means about the same thing as "concept of a family of nations can be given a real and concrete form." But "Acquire real teeth" has an utterly different meaning (at least to English speakers "real teeth" implies authority -- "muscle", while "give real substance" or "give real form" implies a structure, how something is organized)
My question is, why would they use an idiomatic expression in their English translation but not in their German or Italian translations?
Which is right? We'll have to wait until the Vatican posts the Latin version.
I would consider the Italian text to be as good an indicator or better than the eventual Latin, since it probably was composed in German or Italian and the Italian text was probably the one that was labored over most carefully as it was revised. The Latin version will be authoritative when it is released but the fact that it is not yet released means that it will be an official translation, probably from the Italian, not from the German. I doubt that even the German version available now represents the pope’s own words—it was probably made from the Italian because Italian is the lingua franca that had to have been used on a document like this that underwent, by all accounts, a long series of discussions and revisions. The pope is absolutely fluent in Italian and my guess is that he either wrote it orginally in Italian or that very early on a German original was translated into a workin Italian base document.
Many encyclicals don’t even have their first draft directly from the pope’s own hand—often someone else drafts a working first draft to get things started.
That may not be the case here. Benedict may well have written a first draft and, if so, it might have been in German, but might just as well have been in Italian. He’s certainly capable of having written a first draft in Latin, but I very, very seriously doubt that that’s what happened.
So the Latin text, when released, will be helpful for comparison purposes, but it will represent a staffer’s translation from the Italian. Whether Benedict himself will have compared this official Latin translation, when it is published, with what he approved on June 29 in Italian, I don’t know. But even if he did, the Italian version remains the starting point for interpretation. The Latin authoritative but will necessarily be interpreted as to it’s meaning. Knowing that the Latin was not the earliest version means that, even though it is official, in interpreting it the Italian will be central.
I wondered the same thing: the “teeth” idiom is not in line with the Pope’s elegant and precise style. Thank’s for noticing.
As far as your specific question is concerned, I would say that the English translation’s use of “real teeth” is just an unfortunate choice by the translators. The idea in the other two languages is of actual, concrete form. The Italian is more concrete than the German but the English is too loose. But I wouldn’t place much weight on it—just an infelicitous translating choice in English. The Latin version probably won’t resolve anything. I’d just take the German and Italian together as pointing toward “concrete form,” which is probably a weaker way of putting it than “real teeth.” In some ways, I could wish that the Italian had had something closer to an expression like “real teeth” at this spot. But it didn’t and therefore it should not have been translated as “real teeth.”
I have to retract the claim that the Italian is more concrete than the German. They are identical. I was working from memory having read both cursorily. The German is an exact translation of the Italian. The English is not.
“But “Acquire real teeth” has an utterly different meaning (at least to English speakers “real teeth” implies authority — “muscle”, while “give real substance” or “give real form” implies a structure, how something is organized)”
It depends on how the Italian means “form”—for someone as philosophically as inclined as Benedict is, he might mean by “form” something more than merely structure. Then again, since this was heavily revised by advisors, it may be more bland, along the lines you describe. But I doubt that the Latin will help here. I agree that “acquire real teeth” does imply enforcement and authority and in that sense the English translation is seriously flawed.
I don't speak Italian but see concretezza
Italian for "substance" is sostanza
The difference between Italian and German versions is illusory.
Actually, the Italian does not use “form” at all, only the German does. The Italian merely speaks of a concretization of the concept. The German turns this into “concrete form.”
It would have been better to use a verb: “so that the concept of a family of nations might be really concretized”
in both the German and the English, though this is hard to do in German—the verbs available tend to be abstractifying Latinizations. “Konkretiert” can, I suppose, be used, and perhaps it would be just odd enough to make the point.
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.
"...in order to give a concrete reality to the concept of the family of nations..."
It won't, as people will use this toward their own ends. You're right as far as that goes.
However, for those of us who want to know what is really said, the Latin version is the authoritative version of any document (the Latin version is the one published in the Acte Apostolicae Sedis), so if there are references to teeth in Latin, then it's teeth...if not, then the English is a bad translation that supports a certain agenda (whether intentionally done by a staffer or merely accidental) and should be suppressed.
**Which is right? We’ll have to wait until the Vatican posts the Latin version.**
Others are waiting for this too.
Excellent point. It certainly was what Reuters and AP leftist media glommed onto.
Editorial: Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for One-World Government and New World Order
Caritas in Veritate: language in paragraph 67 [Vanity]
Why does Pope Benedict talk about Humanae vitae in the new encyclical? [Catholic Caucus]
[Caritas in Veritate] Father Fessio: A New Framework for Social Justice [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Capitalist or Anti-Capitalist Encyclical? [Caritas in Veritate]
A Capitalist or Anti-Capitalist Encyclical? [Caritas in Veritate]
Caritas In Veritate (Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical)-Full Text
Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against New World Order [Catholic Caucus]
On the 3rd Encyclical (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Best Pro-Life Quotes from Pope Benedict XVI's New Encyclical
Encycli-bites for reading “Caritas in veritate”
In new encyclical Pope Benedict slams population control, urges openness to life
The New Encyclical [Cairtas in Veritate -- Love and Truth] {Ecumenical]
AP, Reuters Go Full Tilt in Spinning Latest Writing of Pope
Caritatis [sic] in Veritate: papal encyclical calls for new moral approach to global economy (CWN)
Supreme Knight criticizes use of Pope's encyclical for political agendas
Benedict XVI explains gifts and limitations of free market economy
Benedict XVI Tightens Up the Church's Social Teaching
Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI New Encyclical "CARITAS IN VERITATE" (CHARITY AND TRUTH)
Love for others requires involvement in politics, pope says
Sorry, Mark,
Those differences do not diminish my points in the least.
I wish something did.
They don’t.
The net bottom line is ESSENTIALLY the same.
Euphemisms are still euphemisms.
The global family of nations is merely another name for collective global government.
The 10 regions have already been articulated quite in keeping with Biblical prophecy.
There will be NO retreat from those goals between now and Armageddon.
Papal pontifications of the sort I’ve read regarding this document can ONLY facilitate such a rush toward hell on earth.
Regardless of the word dicing and slicing, the Pope also quite disturbingly, comes across as writing out of both sides of his fingers.
And to do so about such an important issue is more than a little disturbing.
The bottom line still is . . .
—The globalist oligarchy probably cares about what the Pope says only in as much as it makes their goals easier and faster or harder and slower.
—To have him even SOUND LIKE—to whatever degree—that he is encouraging any move at all even TOWARD global government must leave them gleeful.
—Beyond that, the globalists’ boss, satan, must be ecstatic realizing that it will be all the easier seducing more Roman Catholics into his globalist snares with such phrasing from the Pope.
That is more than a little curious.
Mark,
I have read absolutely no RC on any of the threads even attempt a logical reply to my points.
I don’t think there is one. That may be why.
Yet, it is a bit sad that, seemingly, the only replies are side-stepping invective.
BLESSED BE THE NAME,
THE WORD,
THE WAYS,
THE PLANS,
THE KINGDOM OF OUR GOD AND KING.
INDEED. MARANATHA!
Well put.
May we be found in Him.
67. Ente el imparable aumento de la interdependencia mundial, y también en presencia de una recesión de alcance global, se siente mucho la urgencia de la reforma tanto de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas como de la arquitectura económica y financiera internacional, para que se dé una concreción real al concepto de familia de naciones.
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.
This is an excellent point. The expression jumped out at me, too, because it was too idiomatic in the first place (almost journalistic) and it sounded completely out of character.
I am traveling and hadn’t seen the original (I think it was written in Italian) until now. But it is very clear that the English translation twisted it significantly. There has been a problem with many, many of the English translations coming out of the Vatican, and IIRC, they even replaced some of the translators a couple of years ago. BUt the problem probably lies more with the people who approve the translations than the translators themselves.
There won’t be any references to teeth in the Latin version. It’s clear it was a bad translation. I don’t think we need to wait for the Latin. The Italian is evidence enough on this issue.
You really don’t know what you are writing about. Markomalley’s generous exposition is quite accurate—subsidiarity is for real and the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO. Sorry, it’s just not. We face a greater threat to our freedoms from the bureaucratic tyranny of our own US government. And that tyranny will oppress Catholics who, bolstered by love of Life as taught in this encyclical, will refuse to knuckle under. You might think about the coming day when you might appreciate Catholic brothers-in-arms (figuratively—I do not advocate armed resistance).
To the degree that a Culture of Death comes to dominate the world, as it will, I think you’ll find that the most courageous opponent of it will be the bishop of Rome.
Take care that you, in you twisted fear of the Bishop of Rome, don’t wake up some day allied with the actually existing NWO against its leading opponent. The NWO will take forms that you probably won’t even recognize because you are blinded by your own fervid search for it.
“para que se dé una concreción real al concepto de familia de naciones”
I’d translate it “so that the concept of family of nations may be given real concrete form,” or even “really concretized.”
“Concrecion” is not a very commonly used Spanish word and is clearly being used simply because it is closest to the Italian; in other words, while it may not read really well in Spanish, the translator picked that word because he didn’t want to shade the meaning of the Italian in any way.
This is completely unlike the English translation, which not only picks an idiomatic expression but picks the wrong one. One might say “flesh out the concept of” or “be a concrete expression of the concept of” family of nations, if one wanted to be more idiomatic in English. But “give teeth to” is completely unsupported, unjustified and wrong.
Mark O’Malley’s find is very interesting and reveals a lot about the machinations of Vatican politics. I wish you had addressed your comments to that and not diverted this thread with another bout of “the Pope is the Anti-Christ pawn of the New World Order.”
The problem is that there are many warring forces in the Vatican, some of which probably are pawns of the New World Order who would be perfectly happy to announce that Obama is their new Pope. Heck, Kathleen Kennedy is already raving that he’s “more Catholic” than the Pope, why not?
On the whole, the encyclical has some positive points; much of the rest of it is just the bureaucratic vaporing of the Peace and Justice committee that wrote it. In fact, in the original Italian, even this paragraph 67 was the usual vague nonsense. It’s only the English version, so far, that seems to have this disturbing phrase in it.
Thank you for sharing your insights and concerns, dear brother in Christ!
I wonder if you’ve understood a word I’ve written.
I think you make some valid points.
Sadly, none of them deal with my points.
Thanks for your kind reply.
The very sad thing, IMO, is that politics is read into everything that comes from the Vatican when this is more anti-political than not.
Excellent discussion, M.
“so that the concept of a family of nations might be solidified”
IMHO.
Quite well, indeed, have I understood what you wrote. My question is whether you understood what you wrote.
It's quite conceivable, that after studying the topic for 44 years, that I don't know what I'm writing about.
. . . unlikely . . . but conceivable.
On the other hand, it's quite conceivable that some Vatican sanctioned mirrors are broken.
subsidiarity is for real and the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO. Sorry, it’s just not.
I haven't observed "it's just not" to be a very valid nor convincing bit of evidence to the contrary.
Subsidiarity is real? That would depend on a list of things.
1. One of the things it would depend on in the world postulated in the encyclical is that the global government would implement it in the most lovingly charitable and most local manner possible OTHER THAN making all policemen prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners on the spot.
IF ANYONE thinks the global government is likely to do that--THEN there is some serious lack of sufficient synapses firing between their ears.
IF ANYONE thinks that the global government Biblically predicted for the END TIMES is not already in force and about to spring overtly on the world stage, THEN perhaps there is a vacuum between their ears.
We face a greater threat to our freedoms from the bureaucratic tyranny of our own US government.
Uhhhhh . . . . a growing number on FR and around the Nation realize that . . . our Constitution has been increasingly shredded the last many decades. Our government is now 'headed' by a puppet from hell. The Senate has very few true Americans left in it. The House leadership is compromised. The MSM have been controlled lock stock and word smithing for at least 100 years. Many State governments are similarly utterly controlled by the globalists.
Europe is worse. South America is worse. Africa is worse. Asia is mostly worse. Australia is worse.
Whatever tyranny horribly exists [and it's near maximally hideous and plentiful already] within our Republic's government is A SUB-SET of the global realities. Ignorance or disbelief in the truth of that won't change the realities at all.
So that sentence is more than a little nonsensical. To whatever degree Vatican components or even the Pope himself are wittingly or unwittingly complicit with the NWO is also a SUB-SET of the global realities. It would just be an important sub-set.
And that tyranny will oppress Catholics who, bolstered by love of Life as taught in this encyclical, will refuse to knuckle under. You might think about the coming day when you might appreciate Catholic brothers-in-arms (figuratively . . .
Perhaps more than most "Christian" groups, millions of self-labeled Roman Catholics will follow the yellow brick road to globalist hell because they have been 'properly' conditioned, propagandized etc. etc. by the MSM and even by some of their own customs and habits as well as by encyclicals like this one and the one before it.
Y'all make a LOT of nuances and various shadings of diplo-speak as though those shadings of meaning made a gnat's burp's worth of difference. In some respects, they do--in that shadings and nuances of meaning are more effective in seducing people down that yellow brick road. They end up in hell before they realize what they've really been agreeing with for quite some time.
OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE, HOPEFULLY, millions of RC's joining on God's side. I worked joyfully arm in arm with a Mary Knoll sister on the mission field. She actually shared the Lord's Supper with us a number of times with the blessing of her priest. I'm happy to relate to all those who authentically Love Jesus and endeavor to put Him first as brothers and sisters in Christ.
To the degree that a Culture of Death comes to dominate the world, as it will, I think you’ll find that the most courageous opponent of it will be the bishop of Rome.
It already dominates the world.
It remains to be seen whether the Pope ATT will stand on the side of God, or not. I suspect not . . . as Malachi Martin's prediction seems to indicate. imho, Such encyclicals as this one are not promising in a Godly direction.
Take care that you, in you twisted fear of the Bishop of Rome, don’t wake up some day allied with the actually existing NWO against its leading opponent. The NWO will take forms that you probably won’t even recognize because you are blinded by your own fervid search for it.
That paragraph appears to be so ignorant as to almost be beyond bother.
The Bishop of Rome nor the whole Vatican edifice is not to be feared. Pitied, would be more apt. Given this encyclical, very pitied would be even more apt.
I'm not at all convinced that the Pope will be overtly against the NWO when the rubber meets the road in the not too distant future.
Your remaining comments about the NWO and my perceptiveness about it are . . . too absurd & laughable for further comment. Evidently the topic is not well studied on your side.
It’s a well known Neuro Linguistic Programming strategy to . . . note something . . . even highlight it in a certain way . . . as a way of neutralizing it.
This document COULD have a number of sentences fitting that strategy quite well. I’ll feel more confident of that after I’ve read the full version. What I’ve read so far is not comforting.
Let me put it this way . . . talking out of both sides of one’s fingers has long been a skillful way for tyranny to advance. Hitler was an artist at it. The NWO is, too.
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.
You’re a good man, Charlie Brown. You’ve got more stamina than I. I rest my case.
Can’t copy and paste at the moment in Firefox. sheesh. I hate buggy software.
. . . I think your last 2 paragraphs particularly are quite accurate.
Thanks.
>>> the encyclical is not a brief for your NWO <<<
Quix’s idea of a NWO is no doubt indebted to extreme eschatological fancies, but I’m trying to figure out what fantasy land you live in when you write:
“subsidiarity is for real”
Yup, it’s for real. It’s even in our own 10th amendment. And how respectfully do you think that’s been treated the past century or so? “Subsidiarity” is treacle.
“We face a greater threat to our freedoms from the bureaucratic tyranny of our own US government. And that tyranny will oppress Catholics who, bolstered by love of Life as taught in this encyclical, will refuse to knuckle under.”
Do you really think a reformed UN _et al_ would be any less beholden to the Culture of Death than our current US government? Let’s not forget that, with UN support, 30-40 million abortions occur worldwide every YEAR. A reformed UN would have a much greater power to tyrannize good Catholics than the US govt, at the very least because under a UN-policed “family of nations” good Catholics would have nowhere to run.
A really reformed UN would be a great good.
I don’t expect to see a really reformed UN any time soon.
If I were the pope, I wouldn’t put much hope in seeing a really reformed UN.
But then, I’m not the pope. He’s the expert on hope. (Not hope and change—the Church develops but does not change.)
So it all depends on whether one accents the “really reformed” or the “UN” part.
You accent the “UN” part. I agree, the present UN is evil.
But the pope did not write about the present UN. He wrote about a reformed UN.
If there ever were a truly reformed UN along the lines outlined by Pope Benedict (which would mean that the Truly Reformed UN would respect subsidiarity), it would indeed be a good thing.
That’s a big IF.
But you ignored the IF. I didn’t.
So your critique of me is totally off target.
As I was careful to say in my first post, _Caritas in Veritate_ suggests the NEED for a reformed UN AND economic institutions AND international finance.
>>> If I were the pope, I wouldn’t put much hope in seeing a really reformed UN.
But then, I’m not the pope. He’s the expert on hope. (Not hope and change—the Church develops but does not change.) <<<
Ah, so in your view Pope BXVI is the expert on “fruitless hopes.” That’s a pretty insulting thing to suggest.
>>> But the pope did not write about the present UN. He wrote about a reformed UN. <<<
No, he wrote about the NEED for a reformed UN AND economic institutions AND international finance. Reformed enough to do the Herculean (and toothy!) labors that need to be done to realize the ideal of a family of nations.
>>> If there ever were a truly reformed UN along the lines outlined by Pope Benedict (which would mean that the Truly Reformed UN would respect subsidiarity), it would indeed be a good thing. <<<
Personally, I don’t see what is being called for as “needful” by CiV as being anything more than a gussied-up version of a world empire. Let’s look at the final two sentences of Section 67:
“The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.”
Aside from noting the presence of the “subsidiarity” pixie-dust (is the word UN-ese for “speedbump”?), why bother to comment further? I find the last sentence to be especially troubling. Might have saved some ink by just writing “It’s high time we immanentize the eschaton.” This isn’t what I would call a good thing, although I admit my view is open to argument.
>>> That’s a big IF.
But you ignored the IF. I didn’t.
So your critique of me is totally off target. <<<
Sorry, I didn’t see any “IF” when Pope BXVI wrote that the reformed UN _et al_ were NEEDED. He didn’t write IF they were needed. Once again, IF what you say about the irredeemable nature of the UN IS true, it can only be true if we assume that the Pope is a peddler of false hopes — which is a pretty nasty slander, and one which I do not believe.
IF the defenders of CiV respond by being captious, then perhaps Pope BXVI needs better defenders.
Lighten up. Saying a reformed UN is needed includes an IF. It is not an endorsement of the present.
The pope’s the expert on hope because his second encyclical was Spes salvi, saved by hope.
Hope is different from optimism. You don’t get it. You only know optimism/pessimism. You introduce “fruitless” where I simply wrote hope. In doing that you have reduced hope to optimism and concluded optimism is unwarranted. I conclude optimism is unwarranted but that’s the point at which hope takes over.
You don’t believe in hope. Only in optimism, so where there’s no grounds for optimism (and I agree there are none), you have nothing left.
I am a Christian. So I am obligated to hope even where humnanly speaking I have no, zero, nada optimism.
But since hope does not even exist in your way of thinking, you and I are on different planets.
But since you are unwilling to even stipulate for the purpose of discussion, the world of hope that the pope believes in, you really have no business criticizing his encyclical. You are reading it through mere-optimism eyes. It was written with eyes of both human optimism/pessimism and eyes of divine hope.
So stow your bashing of the defenders of CiV. If you are not willing to engage the pope’s thought in its own context, you should go and engage things with which you do have enough common presuppositions to permit discussion.
You know the future and that the future is hopeless.
That’s more than the pope knows.
However, they do not, for me, mollify the troubling ones …
Once you've had a chance to read the whole document, then we can talk about it. The trouble is that you may stress upon the couple of "troubling statements" out of their overall context (just as we saw with your review of Populorum Progressio -- not that your concerns were completely resolved, but a lot of them, in fact, were after dealing with the actual document).
Having said that, let me repeat one thing I said back on 1 July, before the release of the document, Please withhold judgment until you have a chance to read the document for yourselves (after all, how often does the MSM get anything right about the Church?)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
LOL
>>> Lighten up. Saying a reformed UN is needed includes an IF. It is not an endorsement of the present. <<<
Your partly right. It’s not a full endorsement of the present UN. It IS an endorsement of the UN Charter (which includes the past and present) and a reformed UN (and OTHER internnational financial and economic organizations)
I don’t buy your argument that Pope BXVI’s support for using international organizations to underwrite and enforce his “family of nations” is just a “what if” exercise. This is a complete distortion of the Pope’s obvious statement that there is a need for MUCH greater control of the world’s nations.
>>> You don’t believe in hope. Only in optimism, so where there’s no grounds for optimism (and I agree there are none), you have nothing left. <<<
You don’t know me from Sam Hill. The hope I most, and ultimately, believe in comes from Jesus Chist my Lord and Savior. I am sure that I and Pope BXVI would agree on this matter.
Although I am not Catholic, I have a deep respect for the Catholic Church, its teaching and its history. However, that doesn’t mean that I have to assent to every encyclical, past and present, in all of its parts. I find section 67 of CiV especially troubling, for the reasons I have stated. That I place no hope in the UN Charter does not make me a man without hope, just as a person who doesn’t buy Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign isn’t a man with no hope.
>>> So stow your bashing of the defenders of CiV. If you are not willing to engage the pope’s thought in its own context, you should go and engage things with which you do have enough common presuppositions to permit discussion. <<<
I’m certainly willing to engage the Pope’s thought in it’s own context and its own terms. That’s why I engaged those who thought they could hide that context by nitpicking at the translation. If his defenders are neither willing nor able to engage criticisms of CiV effectively, then perhaps they should be doing something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.