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.
I thought you might find this interesting. I don’t know if you’re much of a “Pope-watcher,” but looky here:
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host
The liberal Catholics are all aflutter about BXVI revealing his “inner Teilhard” during a recent Vespers speech. I think it relevant to _Caritas_ because of the encyclical’s notion of a progressive evolution of peoples into a global family and, later on, a universal fraternity. And, finally, into some sort of universal community or Unity.
What we haven’t been touching on in this thread is the signal importance given to “integral human DEVELOPMENT” in _Caritas_. One has to ask “development towards WHAT”? Here I can only suggest that Teilhard’s work might be key to understanding what’s going on here by giving some content to what that WHAT might be.
If you want it, here’s the 24 July Vespers speech on pdf. file (see pp.3-4):
www.stthomasmoreusc.org/bulletin/bulletin_20090802.pdf
Yep. We disagree on that one. 8~)
My own theory is that when the Adversary rebelled, he did so having deluded himself that the Holy One was just some sort of super-angel who could eventually be superceded. That's why evolution and the idea of the overthrow of the elder god(s) are both such important elements in so many pagan belief systems: They're a reflection of the Adversary's desire to be "like the Most High."
His strategy all hinges on the hope that he can somehow outmaneuver God and prevent even one of His promises from coming to pass. If he could, that would prove that God is not truly Eternal (that is, outside of Time) and therefore not truly the Creator of Space and Time. Furthermore, in Genesis 15, the Holy One entered into a one-sided covenant with Abraham, and did so according to an ancient form that said by its symbolism: "If I break My word, then let me be torn apart like these animals." Satan is so focused on destroying the Jewish people because if he could do so, God would either have to destroy Himself or would be shown to have broken His promise to do so in front of the whole universe.
Of course, since the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Eternal One, the Adversary doesn't have a chance--but after some six thousand years of rebellion, lies, and death, Satan a) probably has deceived himself into believing his own lies, and b) doesn't really have a choice but to push through and to hope against hope that he can find some strategem that will work. He stands condemned either way, with no hope of redemption, so why stop now? Why not at the very least steal away some of the Father's joy by destroying many of His children?
The Chevlei Mashiach, the Birth-Pangs of the Messiah, are not judgments by God per se. Rather, the increasing tempo of chaos, of false messiahs, wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, disease, and signs in the heavens result from the Adversary's increasing desperation as his every attempt to block the completion of the Great Commission, destroy Israel, prevent the reconciliation of Israel's children, stop construction of the Third Temple, etc. are defeated. This will culminate in his final expulsion from the heavenlies at the midpoint of Daniel's Seventieth Week: "But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time" (Rev. 12:12).
Therefore, this is not a time to fear or become complacent. It is a time to rejoice even as we roll up our sleves "as you look forward to the Day of God and speed its coming" (2Pt. 3:12).
Shalom.
He has reportedly convinced the globalist oligarchy that with the fallen angels’ technology and human something—that part’s not clear—some say—invitation—that Almighty God is merely just another “ET’s” and will be defeated at Armageddon.
Satan knows better. But imagine what a heady bunch of arrogant buttons got pushed with the human global leaders on that fantasy!
And what a way to sucker more idiots into hell.
God bless you, dear Petr.
Thanks, Dr. E. When I talk about this, Catholics will say he was poorly catechized. That’s all they CAN say, I guess, LOL.
LOL. Keep up the good work, hosepipe. It’s fun to read your replies.
Same here, back atcha.....................
Amen!
The "good" that he wants "in" is for people to live in Christ, to answer His Call in their souls, hearts, and minds. The "bad" he wants "out" (described at section 14) is "the technocratic ideology so prevalent today."
The "technocratic ideology" is what people today mindlessly call "values-neutral." It is unconcerned with ethical or moral criteria, it is radically anti-human, and brings degradation wherever it goes. In a system of capitalism where this ideology reigns, profit becomes an end in itself, instead of the by-product of something else: the creation of new economic value in satisfaction of real human needs and wants. Rank speculation is of equal worth to human creative effort in such a system. This is what the Pope objects to, and I object to it also. Arguably, this ideology was a major culprit in bringing on the current global economic meltdown.
Still in Caritas in Veritate, the Pope has not advanced any program for correcting this situation, no plan to "limit profit." In the first place, such a thing is entirely beyond the scope of his competence and authority. In the second place, in this encyclical his purpose is to evoke a major cultural renewal based on the Word of God, in charity and in truth. In his last encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, he wrote of God's love.... He is informing the world at large of these things; this is what is called Christian evangelization. He bids us all to do likewise, and then the "profit thing" will just naturally smoothe itself out in time, God willing. Profit should be based on the creation of new value, not on "pushing paper around." (My term.)
I've been very puzzled by the responses of many of you to Benedict's encyclical on charity in truth. I just don't understand them, probably because I don't see something that you see. I've been wondering what that could possibly be. Then I had a strange thought. Is it possible that there is an undisclosed assumption behind your testimonies? And that assumption is the belief that the Pope is an evil man, perhaps the Anti-Christ — maybe Satan himself???
If that is your belief, then your conclusions become understandable to me.
But I would question that assumption.
Please forgive me for not having written sooner. I've been having computer problems.... ARRGGGHHHHH! (I hope they're nipped in the bud now; we'll see.)
Thank you so much for wrriting, Poe White Trash!
I would probably drop the "arguably."
No, I see just a mortal man, albeit a world elite, with an agenda, however you view him as something more and like people with Obama, are willing to project your own feelings on to him. Just like Obama screams "racist", any attempt to look at him objectively without all the accompanying accoutrements of the Vatican, is met with "that's hatred".
No "undisclosed assumption." Just reading the man's words and disagreeing with what he's saying about the need for a global authority "with teeth" to dictate America's economic, judicial, social and political future.
And it is likewise "puzzling" that some conservatives don't see this.
If he thinks the world should be ordered according to Christian principles, let him say that clearly and then work to transform those institutions through the force of debate and logic and faith, not coersion as despots prefer.
LOL dear r9etb!
Consider it done!
Maybe because it's not there???
Don't you get it?
If you don't share their delusions, it's YOUR failure...you're not a Christian OR a conservative unless you agree with their own personal interpretation of Scripture...and everything else.
But now you are attributing motives to me of which you cannot possible know anything! Plus you are also suggesting that I am "brain-dead," such as your standard, garden-variety Obamanoid.
Thanks a lot! :^)
I "view him" on the state of my knowledge, according to reason.
Marvelous, marvelous insights, Buggman!
What a beautiful essay/post! Thank you oh so very much!
And what fascinating insights you have brought to the discussion. It's a great example of why I look forward to reading your posts!
Your explanation of Satan's focus on Israel is particularly interesting. But no matter what he tries, no matter how many he influences, God will not cast off the seed of Israel for what they've done.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jer 31:33-37
Instead, we see God's mercy and judgment writ large - Satan has enough rope to hang himself, personally - and so do we, personally.
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.