42. Sometimes globalization is viewed in fatalistic terms, as if the dynamics involved were the product of anonymous impersonal forces or structures independent of the human will[102]. In this regard it is useful to remember that while globalization should certainly be understood as a socio-economic process, this is not its only dimension. Underneath the more visible process, humanity itself is becoming increasingly interconnected; it is made up of individuals and peoples to whom this process should offer benefits and development[103], as they assume their respective responsibilities, singly and collectively. The breaking-down of borders is not simply a material fact: it is also a cultural event both in its causes and its effects. If globalization is viewed from a deterministic standpoint, the criteria with which to evaluate and direct it are lost. As a human reality, it is the product of diverse cultural tendencies, which need to be subjected to a process of discernment. The truth of globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good. Hence a sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to transcendence.
Despite some of its structural elements, which should neither be denied nor exaggerated, “globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it”[104]. We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development. 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. For a long time it was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of development, and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed this mentality in Populorum Progressio. Today the material resources available for rescuing these peoples from poverty are potentially greater than before, but they have ended up largely in the hands of people from developed countries, who have benefited more from the liberalization that has occurred in the mobility of capital and labour. The world-wide diffusion of forms of prosperity should not therefore be held up by projects that are self-centred, protectionist or at the service of private interests. Indeed the involvement of emerging or developing countries allows us to manage the crisis better today. The transition inherent in the process of globalization presents great difficulties and dangers that can only be overcome if we are able to appropriate the underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity. Unfortunately this spirit is often overwhelmed or suppressed by ethical and cultural considerations of an individualistic and utilitarian nature. Globalization is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all its different dimensions, including the theological dimension. In this way it will be possible to experience and to steer the globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of communion and the sharing of goods.
This seems to be reflective of the general theme of the letter. The reality of Christ must impact every aspect of what we do, or else, not only are we not truly living Christianity, but also, we aren't being fully charitable. Thus, I believe what the Holy Father is saying is, that if everyone were to walk in imitation of Christ, then the type of globalization that would occur would naturally be beneficial for everyone.
Also, what he appears to be saying is something to the effect of, "Like it or not, but globalization is going to happen".
I may get castigated for this, but quite frankly, I would agree with that sentiment. It's up to us, as Christians, to ensure that the type of globalization that does occur is a Christian one. At least as "Christian" as imperfect humans can make.
If we refuse to accept this reality of our changing world, then the type of globalization that will occur will be the type Benedict describes here, "if [globalization is] badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis."
IOW, the type of "redistribution of wealth" he talks about here is a purely voluntary one, one motivated by imitation of Christ, that is, by "charity".
The more I read this letter, the more I do not see a proposal for some kind of "one world government". It's remarkable to me that some do. The only time something remotely like that is mentioned is in paragraph 39, but simply reading the "offending" phrase in context makes it clear the Holy Father isn't calling for some kind of state-enforced socialism or communism: "[it was proposed during the Industrial Revolution 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.
That paragraph was posted on another thread allegedly to support the idea that the Pope was calling for a "one world government", when it's clear, or it should be, from the context (bolded and underlined) that that is the exact opposite of what the Holy Father is saying.
After reading as far as I have, I think I should retract my previous statement on this thread, in somuch as to say, "This encyclical has nothing to do with proposing a specific economic system. It is merely attempting to remind us all of where our true destiny lies (in Christ), and that in such a realization, a truely beneficial transformation of society can begin."
I wouldn't be surprised though if the words "globalization", and "redistribution of wealth" used in this letter cause a knee jerk, almost instinctive reaction in some, which is a shame. It truly isn't "poor in spirit" to act in such a way, this much is certain.
Post #143 highlights why you are wrong in your interpretation.
The pope seeks a world authority that has the teeth to enforce among the nations what he is proposing. There is no doubt, that is, if you trust the pope’s own words, straight from the Vatican.
The Catholic Church, i.e. the Vatican, should set an example by selling all of their elaborate buildings and treasures and give the money to the poor.
I fiercely disagree.
He is sanctioning, essentially,
at least some very clear elements of the NWO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to end up ran by satan.
How can anyone read those key paragraphs any other way?
Boggles the mind.
Scripture is clear who will lead the world government at least for 3.5-7 years until Armageddon.
ANONE speaking to any degree in behalf of such a satanic government
IS CLEARLY ON SATAN’S SIDE.
There’s no middle ground on this as much as the Pope seems to enjoy riding the barbed wire fence.