The UN section is tough to understand outside of the context of the rest of the encyclical.
This is his key caveat to his idea of re-purposing the UN:
“In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”
One has to read all the prior sections to see what he means by “subsidiarity” and how it relates to government and liberty.
~~
While we differ on issues of the Church, I would hop eyou would reflect on this. Right now, I see a lot of knee-jerking going on (not just you).
Do you plan to read it and discuss further, perhaps starting another thread?
Don't try to gloss over this with technicality jargon. He's against a free market economy and for redistribution of wealth. Let's face it, the Catholic Church has always been for redistributing everyone's wealth (that is except their own). They have never been for a free market economy for the last 600 years and their vision has been for control. I'd have to agree with Dr. Eckleburg that this is fascism, if not worst.
The Pope is only showing his leftist tendencies that probably dates back to Germany. Frankly, his comments are despicable and unscriptural (as if that matters). I'd be ashamed if I were a Catholic but, then again, the Pope is infalible.
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."
Such an authority would have to be "regulated by law" and "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."
"Universally recognized?" lol. Obama is "universally recognized." So is Michael Jackson. It hasn't given either of them much credence.
"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," he said.
"Authority?" What kind of world-wide authority? A world court? A global stock market? Maybe he wants to change the petro-dollar to Euros. Think that's a good idea?
This country is being sold down the river Nile at lightening speed.
The UN section is tough to understand outside of the context of the rest of the encyclical.
Not so tough. About as tough as understanding "encroaching fascism." Bureaucracies do not diminish. Like all parasites, they just multiply until they kill the host.
Re-purposing the UN - to what end? In Section 42 he says,
[...]"ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty"Redistribution of wealth is the end. With that purpose in view, the principle of subsidiarity starts looking a lot like "community organizing", and, Think Globally, Act Locally.
He says in 57, from which you quoted -
[...]"A particular manifestation of charity [...]Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.
Principle of subsidiarity or not, anything enforced at the barrel of a gun cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered "charity".
You have heard the saying, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I personally am not interested in being trampled under the boots of deranged people who think themselves authoritative, elite, competent "managers of globalization" and redistribution of wealth.
Cordially,