Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
As observers continue to decipher the meaning of Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, all appear to agree that the passage of note, the passage that may prove historic in its implications, is the one that is already becoming known as the “world political authority” paragraph:
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. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. 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; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority. . . .
Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization.
It is true that Benedict believes that a transnational organization must be empowered to address transnational problems. But so has every pope since John XXIII, who wrote in 1963 that “Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are worldwide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization, and means coextensive with these problems, and with a worldwide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such form of public authority.”
But such an authority has been established, and we have lived with it since 1948, and in many ways it has disappointed. So Benedict turns John XXIII’s formulation on its head: Morality no longer simply demands a global social order; now Benedict underscores that this existing social order must operate in accord with morality. He ends his own passage on world authority by stating that “The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater 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. . . .” Note the phrase “at last.”
What went wrong? According to Benedict, a world authority worthy of this authority would need “to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment.
To understand how the UN has failed, we must delve into the rest of the encyclical. According to Benedict, the goal of all international institutions must be “authentic integral human development.” This human development must be inspired by truth, in this case, the truth about humanity. Pursuit of this truth reveals that each human being possesses absolute worth; therefore, authentic human development is predicated on a radical defense of life.
This link is made repeatedly in Caritas in Veritate. “Openness to life is at the center of true development. . . . The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help. . . . They can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and individual.”
To some, it must seem startling how often Benedict comes back to life in an encyclical ostensibly dedicated to economics and globalization. But this must be understood as Benedict’s effort to humanize globalization. It can be seen as the global application of John Paul II’s own encyclical on life, Evengelium Vitae.
Without this understanding of the primacy of life, international development is bound to fail: “Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human?”
Throughout the encyclical, Benedict is unsparing in the ways in which the current international order contributes to this failure; no major front in the war over life is left unmentioned, from population control, to bioethics, to euthanasia.
But none of this should come as a surprise. Since at least as far back as the UN’s major conferences of the 1990s—Cairo and Beijing—Benedict has known that the UN has adopted a model of development conformed to the culture of death. He no doubt assisted John Paul II in his successful efforts to stop these conferences from establishing an international right to abortion-on-demand. At the time, Benedict said, “Today there is no longer a ‘philosophy of love’ but only a ‘philosophy of selfishness.’ It is precisely here that people are deceived. In fact, at the moment they are advised not to love, they are advised, in the final analysis, not to be human. For this reason, at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians . . . have a duty to protest.”
Now, in his teaching role as pope, Benedict is not simply protesting but offering the Christian alternative, the full exposition of authentic human development. Whether or not the UN can meet the philosophical challenges necessary to promote this true development remains uncertain. But it should not be assumed that Benedict is sanguine; after all, he begins his purported embrace of world government with a call for UN “reform,” not expansion.
Yes, the fundamental idea of a UN as a global forum isn’t necessarily bad. However, it has entirely been taken over by the left and the corrupt Third World (also usually Marxist) and is completely worthless by now. But then, we’ve seen the US, in the space of a few short months, move into that camp and start defending Islamic and Communist dictators and evil in the Middle East and Latin America and Asia.
I think the significant thing is that he says that it should be based on moral values, that is, Christian values but those that in a sense are common to all because they are part of natural law. That’s the whole difference.
The Pope believes in natural law; the UN and suddenly the US do not, and believe only in positive law, that is, laws made by states or people not necessarily based on natural law but reflecting things that those people or states find convenient at a given moment. This enables them to take a thoroughly utlitiarian view of human life, which is of value only to the degree that the state assigns it a value.
You first.
How far into the Encyclical are you?
Your integrity on this score is most admirable.
The paragraph remains a very sobering and sad declaration, to me.
NONE of the rationalizing, equivocating, explaining, white-washing etc. by the RC’s hereon has been in the least bit convincing.
Lipstick on a pig is still just a painted pig.
Global government regardless of how it’s dressed up and rationalized is still Biblically prophecied tyrannical satanic global government.
The Pope ought to be as many galactic clusters away from that as possible.
He’s clearly not.
NONE of his cautions etc. etc. etc. will last any longer than a fog in the Phoenix sun in July in the face of the AntiChrist’s demands.
It’s sheer idiocy to even pretend otherwise.
I gather you’ve not read the quotes ref’d in my tagline.
In this era, ignorance will be far from bliss.
Baloney.
It’s starkly clear in that paragraph that he is calling for a Global Government.
All the rest is window dressing and white-wash.
He’s talking out of both sides of his miter.
He can chide about the flaws of the UN up one side and down the other.
The bottom line remains . . . he’s advocating
MORE global authority.
Biblically, in this era, that
CAN ONLY GO ONE DIRECTION . . . STRAIGHT INTO THE SATANIC GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
Whitewashing that fact is nonsense, duplicitous, disingenuous, foolhardy and probably willfully blind.
That key sentence is far tooooo UNambiguous for thoughtful freedom lovers to dismiss by a long shot.
The Pope is infallable in matters of Church Dogma as presented by the Holy Spirit and Morals. I believe that Satans curse of abortion is a good example of where the Holy Father is infallable
Don’t forget that old fly-in-the-ointment, The Desperately Wicked Heart Of Man, Benny. I think that might throw a monkey wrench into your New World Order.
I stopped pretending after the dust settled from Vatican II. I’m a Catholic, but I only attend mass in traditional Catholic churches and chapels.
I did read the article and his statements. They should serve as an embarrassment to practicing Catholics as they are larded with 'newspeak' and make no sense.
Parse that.
not to a lot of us, and moreover we don't want him ruling over us any more than we want 40 African nations ruled by China ruling over us, no matter what kind of social gospel or visions of humanity they're preaching. One world order is One World Order, it's antiChristian period
Probably a wise move . . . providing those characters and groups avoid making more of minor stuff than is Biblical or fitting.
INDEED.
TRUE! TRUE! TRUE!
LARDED with newspeak . . .
Too true.
I think I might put it . . . that . . . there’s the usual bureaucratic magicsterical gobbledygook-pontifical-royal-loftiness-theo-sliced-diced-mangled-massaged-speak
Actually, I’ve never seen those two posters before, but I do welcome their input. I just got pinged to this so I’ll just hang around and see what happens, LOL.
The Holy Roman Empire lasted from AD 800 to AD 1806. It wasn’t always holy, didn’t center on Rome, and was a federal empire instead of a centralized monocracy, but it was real, it beat back Islam, and it united Christendom for eight centuries. Get back to me when any democracy or republic beats that record.
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.