Skip to comments.Papal Message Seeks "Global Authority" for Economy
Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.
The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy is run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations.
Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketeers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system.
The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I believe that train of thought was not the pope as anti christ but as the false prophet....in cahoots with the anti christ....not my philosophy, just one I’ve also heard...
I posted this elsewhere, but it may be more appropriate in this main thread.
George Weigel gives his commentary on the paper... http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTdkYjU3MDE2YTdhZTE4NWIyN2FkY2U5YTFkM2ZiMmE=
Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies
All fascists/all the time.
I'll have to look over this thread. I'm guessing the rapture theorists are getting all excited about it.
Apparently the pope ain’t a free market capitalist.
Probably isn’t celebrating Calvin’s 500th either.
The only controlled markets I recall from the bible were within beseiged, decadent cities.
It just doesn't wash. Pope Benedict signed the Encyclical, right? It's his. And in it he said, "Obviously [the new world political entity] would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties." That means "authority" from the barrel of a gun.
Pope Benedict favors an armed world government. That's the shocking news should have been the lede in Weigel's essay, and his failure to put it there makes me question his loyalty to the principles and liberty, freedom, and national sovereignty.
So brother Benedict is now just as blogger. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
They need to be prepared for more disturbances --
My comment had to do with the Bible’s prediction of a one-world government ultimately headed by the anti-Christ. it had nothing to do with capitalism. I think you are the ignorant one.
Sounds like it touched on faith and morals to me: faith in the leaders of the New World Order and the new socialistic definition of "morality".
Someone please tell me this was quoted wrong.
After plenty of years in Catholic schools, I know what’s infallible and what’s not. This is not.
Since he had prior dealings with unsavory types, I guess that is still affecting his mind.
Totally leftist spin. Here is the truth.
Its shocking naivete. You cannot have everyone in every country make $20 an hour and live a comfortable modest life with clean drinking water and health insurance.
Money, unlike Water does not seek its own level , it forms balloons and peaks.
Have you read the actual encyclical or are you forming your opinions based on a Reuters article?
“These 10 kings will rule in nations from the old Roman Empire (modern day Europe) just prior to the 2nd coming of Christ, and Jesus will destroy their kingdoms and set up His own at His return.”
But remember that the statue that correlates to the various kingdoms and the beasts, the final Roman Empire, has two legs. That the legs was the first Roman Empire, the two feet, will also come from the two legs. I do think that the West tends to forget that the Roman Empire had been in two pieces in her history, with Byzantium being the last to fall. So, the raised Roman Empire of the end times could well be 10 “kings” from the entire old Roman Empire, including North Africa, the area around Israel, and who knows, even the UK. It could very well be bigger than just Europe.
I am getting sick and tired of all the people who fall for the leftist spin on Catholicism.
I’m not picking on anyone in particular, just venting.
Read the post above this with bright red links for the truth.
Why are you bashing the Catholic Church and the Pope. Please read the entire encyclical and don’t belive Reuters at all!
You have fallen prey, my freeper friend, for msm spin.
I would suggest you actually read the encyclical, at the link provided in the article.
I got news for you -- everything that comes from this man's mouth or pen or keyboard is fallible.
The Pope’s position is an easy one to understand. He is the last of a long line of de facto kings.
Representative republics, and the idea of individuals making important decisions for their own lives (material or spiritual) are concepts contrary to his entire religion.
Note that Catholics do not allow the individual the freedom of religious ideas that Protestants enjoy. Central control is central to Catholicism.
Alas, central decision making has less success than diffused, decentralized decision making.
That's what great about Catholicism--you don't really have to take it seriously.
Why doesn't everyone understand that the media will always ATTACK the Catholic Church? Don't believe them -- read the actual document!
You can ignore anything that’s not infallible.
We must have a reason, based in reason, to reject a proposal. We can't simply reject an idea simply because we were taught to always reject it. That's not the way “reason” works; quite frankly that's how animals behave.
Fair words, but let's look at these words:
“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. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.”
This is not the UN, nor how it was ever intended to be. The UN specifically has no authority—that is the left up to international law and militaries, coupled with sanctions and such that can be agreed upon by the individual countries that make up the UN.
You see, the UN is supposed to be a gathering place whereby countries can seek agreement or disagreement, but in the end, they work independently. Some countries may not agree with something and do not “approve” such items. Should actions taken be left up to the UN? They never have before. The UN has only “peacekeeping” forces—they can't shoot or anything. That is left to the militaries of countries, such as the US, UK, Russia, to enforce things that might need military force.
The Pope is looking for a body that has enforcement powers over any and all countries. That is simply clear in his words.
Additionally, the Pope should know that political bodies do not make people accept Christ, so why should anyone listen to his words on this? His importance surrounds things of Christ, not things of politics, although he is the head of the Vatican, a very small “country” of its own.
He should shut up ASAP on this other stuff, save for wanting to help change people's hearts.
I read the encyclical. See post #143.
No, I haven't read the whole encyclical --- over 30,000 words and 159 footnotes ---- but just skimmimg the text, my eyes happened to light on this:
"Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be formed into harmful ones. But it is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility."
This sounds to me, not like an indictment of market economies and their instruments, but a call to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.
Waiting for Reuters to take that angle? Don't hold your breath.
And as you can see, the scripture prophecy is coming true that the minds of many will be blinded...
You need to read the Pope’s words in context, in post #143.
IF, I say IF, the quote in which the Pope calls for global organizations "with teeth" is true, then all the other words in the encyclical are rendered moot.
Again, assuming the quote is accurate, he is clearly calling for centralized world government with the power to coerce by force. The Catholic Church has no right to get back into the centralized world government business. Period.
I mean no offense, I simply believe he is flat wrong.
So, is there no discussion of a global economic authority? I didn’t see any in the link provided (which I read).
How can a “thing” be infallible?
Why do The Republicans on FRee Republic NOT believe the media when they spin things leftist on politics, but everyone is so quick to believe the lamestream media when it spins Catholicism to the left??????
I’m frankly getting sick and tired of it.
I’m not picking on you as an individual, but thanks for letting me vent!
Because the world is looking, really looking for either the 12th Imam or the Rapture. I've rolled much of this behavior over and over in my mind, in scriptures, and ancient texts of most religions.
0bama won on Hope & Change, yet we're specifically told to "hope in the Lord," Psalms 16:8-9 NKJV,1 Peter 1:13 NKJV. Many will be deceived and 'fall away from faith,'1 Timothy 4:1.
World culture today places little hope or faith in the church. Even those who claim Christian, look elsewhere instead of to the Lord. All these things must come to pass.
How can you not know what I meant?
Well, if he knows so much about the Bible, then how come he can’t even get salvation right? An honest question.
You need to read better. Read this in light of subsidiarity. Do you even know that that is?
“You ignorantly assume that just because I/we currently pay taxes to go to entitlement programs, somehow that makes it ok or moral? BZZ! Try again.”
You’re being extremely ignorant. Are taxes inherently against morality? No.
And that Free Republic will place that attack at the top of Breaking News, inviting a Catholic-bash-fest.
“I just did. You are beyond stretching the truth.”
Nope. Read the book “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” if you want it in more detail.
“You don’t like the question, so you pose another and fail to answer both. Pathetic.”
No, you’re pathetic. Only someone pathetic would think that a Church must be named in the Bible to prove it is from Christ. Last time I checked the Bible was from God and it was still just called the Bible - and not by God either.
“There is no precedent for this anywhere in Jewish practice.”
Doesn’t have to be. There’s no precedent in Jewish practice for God becoming a man either.
“You can’t find in the Tanakh anything presaging this conclusion. His statement was metaphorical and symbolic, just as was the passover lamb was a symbol of Him.”
No, Psalm 27:2 shows it was not a metaphor. Do you know why?
“Somehow I’ve missed the RCC keeping that Sabbath thingy. This is pure spin on your part.”
Nope. No spin ever. We keep the sabbath - we just keep it in the New Covenant.
Re-reading the paragraph in question, I can see your point. I don’t have any response at this time, at least none that could be a cogent reply. Perhaps later.
I’m mainly posting this to say thanks for your input, and also as a placemarker in the thread. This discussion should be interesting.
I would also like to encourage my fellow Catholics to consider this point carefully. While I have read a good number of articles offered on FR explaining the meaning behind the Encyclical, and how it shouldn’t be taken as a call for a “one world government with enforcement powers”, I must admit, in the interests of intellectual honesty and “poverty of spirit” on my part that paragraph 67 seems quite clear on this, at least at this time. And none of the articles I’ve read in “defense” of the Encyclical have addressed that paragraph point blank.
I’m looking forward to the discussion this should generate, hopefully not the usual anti-Catholic diatribe but actual discussion on this point. Ultimately of course, Catholics are not bound to agree with the Pope when he proposes specific economic and political structures, but I do not like to rely on this “fall-back position” too often, as it seems to be a bit of a cop out when abused.
After all, he is the Pope, and as Catholics, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his thoughts on any subject, regardless of whether or not we “have to” agree with them, just because they might at times be inconvenient to our own personal philosophies that do not directly speak towards “faith and morals”, such as politics and economics.
However, again, as of right now I may have to leave it at that, that I disagree with his proposal for a world government “with teeth”, and I am free to do so, as the term “with teeth” is a purely political suggestion, and not a teaching of “faith and morals”.