Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
WRONG.
AS any even partial reading of the earlier half ot the quotes ref’d in my tagline would document.
The whole thing was set up deliberately to move the world toward global government . . .
drum roll . . .
by folks anti-God, anti-family and essentially sold out to the world government Scripture warns will be headed by satan.
That’s what the UN was FOUNDED in behalf of.
Any other blather about it is either ignorance or willful blindness.
I earnestly endeavor to stay grounded in
—God’s Word
and
other basic realities.
I earnestly endeavor to let reality provide evidence for conclusions . . . and let the facts lead where they will.
I realize that’s quite a contrast to so many folks so addicted to bureauctratically engineered GROUP-THINK.
. . . and too much of that contrary to Scripture.
Indeed.
Though too many protty leaders are just as bad on such scores.
INDEED.
Thanks for the ping!
>>> that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. <<<
FAMILY of nations? I seem to remember that in the body of _Caritas in Veritate_ we are told that a “family” of nations is not enough — we should have a global BROTHERHOOD of nations. What would a global family/brotherhood of nations entail?
Would such a “brotherhood” be akin to Virgil’s “imperium sine fine” (i.e., “empire without end”)?
>>> ...to bring about INTEGRAL and timely disarmament... <<<
>>> 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.” <<<
>>> 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.” <<<
Integral...integral...INTEGRAL!
Can someone please the significance of this term in the context of _Caritas in Veritate_. Does it have anything to do with the Catholic “integralist movement” (Pius X and all that)?
“Can someone please the significance of this term” should be “Would someone please EXPLAIN the significance of this term.” Sorry.
This nails it so well, but will be tough for the sound-byte mentality to grasp.
In fact, and unfortunately, we can look forward to radicals taking the Holy Father's words out of the context of holiness and wisdom and instead using them to justify that awful end of all secular governments that we know in our guts is only a matter of time...
Attempts by the head of the Roman Catholic Church to first convert them and second to have them work towards a world government sounds to me, and I daresay others, like an absolutely ridiculous proposal.
It would be most prudent for America to pull out of the UN, expel its headquarters and go about our quest for peace, freedom and love of God within our own nation which can never be achieved when our government is comprised mainly of liberal, godless pansies who rule and ruin our lives, mock our God and our religion.
The main problem with current papal writings is that they are, apparently by design, very difficult to understand their true intent.
It's bad enough when we have to wade through the verbosity of our so-called 'leaders' without the burden of doing the same wading through what the leader of our Church is saying.
Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified.
How can one be a communing Catholic (oh, of course there are exceptions like Pelousy and Kennedy) and condone abortion?
>>> Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified. <<<
If the Declaration of Independence had been written in the “clear and accessible” style of _Caritas in Veritate_, we would still be a British Colony!
This is not a “timeless” document; Aquinas would start begging for a glossary after about page 3.
Seriously, though: does ANYONE here have the foggiest idea what phrases like “integral human development” and “authentic human development” signify? The “development” of peoples and, apparently, humanity? What does this jargon mean?
In Section 13 we read:
“Paul VI clearly understood that the social qustion had become worldwide and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In the notion of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he identified the heart of the Christian social messsage, and he proposed Christian charity as the principal force at the service of development.”
Some thoughts:
“the impetus towards the unification of humanity “ — What does this mean? It seems to mean that BXVI is arguing that unification as globalization is inevitable. There also seems to be the implication that this unification is morally neutral, that it can be “developed” and made right. This is cold comfort for those of us who believe that globalization is inherently evil and cannot be made right.
A WORLDWIDE “social question” — the implication being a world society. What would that entail, and does the notion even makes any sense? There seems to be a lot more going on here than just restating the Enlightenment notion of humanity in Christian terms.
“Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” — What does this mean? Since when has a world-wide and “single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” been a Christian ideal this side of Christ’s Return? This seems to be a lot more than just a call for some new Christendom, or an oblique restatement of the Great Commission. There seems to be a real strain of apocalypticism here, albeit one that has less to do with the Bible and more to do with what Dostoevsky was thinking about with his parable of the Grand Inquisitor.
and "world political authority" isn't necessarily synonymous with "world government," at least as the latter is popularly construed.
That said, any halfwit can see that sooner or later global government will be established. It's been attempted repeatedly throughout history. It has never been more imminent than now, the day when weapons of mass destruction, instaneous communication, near instantaneous travel, instantaneous capital formation, legacy stockpiles of weapons, highly trained militaries, and breakdown of social order in the West are manifest.
In fact, the high level of interaction in legal and commercial matters argues that in some senses, it already has. Would you have it not be so? If you think the market forces that push globalization, much less the unholy ambitions of men, can be tamed with legal structures you need to familiarize yourself with black markets. The Holy Father addresses this fact squarely, and argues for the very same thing he would argue for at any level of social development: truth in love for the human person.
Perhaps your disagreement with him is such you think he shouldn't address the realities of modern life, but he does, just like he's supposed to.
The problem is technology at the disposal of fallen human nature; the problem is not the Holy Father's diagnosis and prescription.
But why does the leader of the Roman Catholic Church have to codedly attempt to advance the NWO?
...he would argue for at any level of social development: truth in love for the human person.
Here we go again. What exacly does that mean in respect to the topic of this discussion? It's just more jumbled newspeak that would suggest we are our brothers' caretakers.
Our Savior didn't select Peter to continue His Church on earth so that a successor 20 or more centuries down the line would decide, for his flock as well as what's left of the Christian world, that socialism is a good thing!
Socialists, communists have a rough time earning their way into Paradise! That's what world government is all about.
Most of us clearly understand the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of The United States.
WTF is the "NWO" -- the inevitable,inexhorable historical march toward a global society? You might as well say he's trying to advance tomorrow's sunrise. And "codedely?" Come on. Switch to decaf for a while.
oy. read the Encyclical to answer your questions.
Nice talk. Christian?
**Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?**
NO, why are you believing the liberal spin on this?
>>> Most of us clearly understand the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of The United States. <<<
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say THAT. I have my doubts about various USSC justices and the millions of Americans who regularly vote Democrat.
But they certainly are written in clear prose and are as jargon-free as you are likely to get in a legal document.
>>> ...the inevitable,inexhorable historical march toward a global society? <<<
Wow. What Popper calls the “historicism” of Hegel and Marx at its purest.
How (cough-cough) Progressive of you.
Now, what does this have to do with _Caritas in Veritate_? Do you agree with my assertion that the document sees globalization as a morally neutral force that has to be tamed through Christian charity, or do you think that globalization is seen as mostly good?
There are those Freepers (me included) who see globalization taken to the point of “toothy” institutions as irredeemable and intrinsically evil. I don’t think you are addressing their/our concerns by saying they should just “bend over” to the historically inevitable and pray for the best.
>>> oy. read the Encyclical to answer your questions. <<<
I have read it. Have you?
I must say that it raises as many questions as it answers. The jargon that no one seems willing or able to define certainly contributes to that.
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.