Is the Pope for New World Order?
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Chatter abounds around the web about a paragraph calling for a “world political authority” in Pope Benedict’s new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. John Zmirak writes that it is the only paragraph that he finds troubling. George Weigel concludes that this section and a whole variety of other statements he finds unacceptable are the result of intra-Vatican quibbling and the influence of the supposedly ideology-driven Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Weigel suggests that statements influenced by PCJP (as identified by “those with advanced degrees in Vaticanology”) are inconsistent with the rest of the “Benedictine” text. The implication is that we can ignore passages some might find troublesome, such as the “world political authority” section, where the strong language understandably has so many upset.
It should be acknowleged that Weigel, biographer of John Paul II, is certainly one of America’s most qualified scholars on the Vatican. But his interpretation of Caritas in Veritate is a bit like the now infamous signing statements of the Bush years, in which one conveniently ignores passages offensive to one’s own sensibilities while affirming the rest of the document. Alternatively, we could look more carefully at the paragraph that has so many agitated, attempt to put easily vilified phrases like “world political authority” in context, and perhaps find that these sections aren’t as radical and inconsistent as some initially thought. To do an adequate job of this would require more time and space than the blog permits, but let’s make an initial attempt.
Here’s the first part of the section that has many upset:
67. 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, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. [italics in the original text]
The need for global cooperation is argued for in the context of existing institutions such as the United Nations. Catholics certainly have many reasons to criticize the UN on human life issues, but it is hard to argue with the assertion that—at least as long as it remains the primary institutional means for global cooperation—the UN should be more effective in helping resolve the pressing cross-border issues identified above (food, disarmament, conservation, migration). At present, in what many consider a unipolar world, the only institution approaching a de facto “world political authority” is America, and we’ve seen how effective Uncle Sam has been in what were thought to be quick and easy democracy promotion projects in the Middle East.
Accordingly, what the Church seeks here is an authority that has wider legitimacy, and thus might be more effective in confronting the problems of globalization; since we already have most of the family of nations represented in the UN, Caritas argues that a reasonable solution might be for this organization to acquire more authority in areas of global concern. But doesn’t this pose a problem for sovereignty? Isn’t it preferable for America and other nations simply negotiate these solutions in more ad-hoc arrangements—at G8 meetings, for example? This is where the second part of this controversial section comes into play, explaining that there are too many potential injustices caused by the current asymmetrical influence among the community of nations.
Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority 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. 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. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of 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, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. [italics in original document, bold added]
Before considering the injustice claim, however, we must address some of the language that many find troubling, particularly the section here about “effective power to ensure security for all” and “to ensure compliance…” These phrases understandably trouble many conservatives, who imagine an Orwellian bureaucracy that eases the world into despotism. But in Caritas and other Church encyclicals, global authorities are always limited by the principle of subsidiarity, which in John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus is defined as the principle that
a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
Subsidiarity, as Caritas notes immediately prior to the controversial section under consideration here, is an “expression of inalienable human freedom” that “respects personal dignity” and thus is “the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.” Thus limited international authorities constrained by subsidiarity should not be feared.
Ultimately, however, the argument for more consistent and just world political authority rests on Caritas’ claim that there is an imbalance of “power among the strongest nations” that unjustly shapes the terms of international cooperation. One need only look at this week’s meeting of the G8—which only represents only the world’s richest countries, but discusses issues that have great impact on all peoples of the world—for evidence that the risk of injustice identified by Caritas is real.
How seriously one takes this claim of injustice is no doubt influenced by one’s perspective. Today a thoughtful friend remarked to me that the inclusion of the “world political authority” paragraph is evidence that the Pope has become a misguided utopian dreamer; he is living in a bubble, my interlocutor remarked, clueless as to the potential dangers of large-scale tyranny (I’m sure his use of bubble wasn’t intended as a joke about the Popemobile). But we must consider that perhaps it is we Americans who are living in a bubble. After all, it’s easy for Americans to dismiss the claim that other peoples of less firepower and economic might should have a seat at the table when America is already the de facto “world political authority.”
Phrases like “effective power to ensure security for all” and “to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties” should give us pause to consider the appropriate scale of international organizations. There is a danger that, taken out of context, this language could be used to support some kind of global tyranny. But a closer reading of Caritas demonstrates that more international solidarity is not necessarily a recipe for global Leviathan, particularly if it is conditioned by the Church’s formulation of subsidiarity.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Thanks for this, Lewis. It’s quite the anodyne, particularly for one who’s heard plenty of fretting about this short phrase, and consequently has been filled with trouble over it, but who has yet to get far into C.i.V.
I think that it’s critical to note that well before Benedict reaches this seemingly terrifying, NWO-esque bit in paragraph sixty-seven, he writes, in paragraph seven,
“To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or ‘city’. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them.”
Tom Fleming had a post at Chronicles recently about the appropriateness of bottom-up, rather than top-down, subsidiarity, and I think what Benedict asserts here is a wonderful manifestation of just that. Only to those socio-economic problems wherewith we cannot deal in charity at the level of the pólis should we attend at ever-larger levels. I don’t think that the Holy Father has any interest in instilling copious amounts of power in some centralized global authority, so much as, as you note, to redress matters of inequality and imbalance that, in a hyper-globalized world, we simply cannot repair at the front-porch level.
Some (I amongst them) may argue that a tearing down of hypermodern globalism is the ultimate goal, but it’s a patently unrealistic aim, at least presently (and, lamentably, perhaps always, at least in its most extreme form); this being so, Benedict’s suggestion, rooted, as he roots it, in subsidiarity is no less noxious than unrestricted “free trade”, and is likely at least pointing on the right track to restoring some sort of socio-economic balance to the world.
what a liar
say no to the new world order
The Pope’s call for one world government and promotion of labor unions and wealth redistribution in a papal encyclical is nauseating. As a Catholic, I felt as if a punch to my gut had knocked the spiritual wind out of me. Is there any doubt that the encyclical’s release was timed and coordinated with Obama’s appearance at the G8? The Pope’s words could have come directly off the teleprompter of the Chosen One. Either the Pope is extremely naive, or he’s in on Obama’s plan to crash the US economy to pave the way for a new world order. God help us!
I am Catholic, orthodox, and if the Pope can have heaven send down a legion of Angels to run a “world authority” then I am for it. As long as evil and broken human nature remain in people’s hearts, no way! I agree with the comment on a “world tyranny” developing. The current crisis was created by liberal do gooders who forced bad mortgages to poor people, who couldn’t or wouldn’t pay them back, on the financial system. Then the system greedly covered up the mortgage mess by lying and repackaging the worthless paper so they could dump it into the world’s lap and make some bucks off of it. Today 70% of the people who had their mortgages bailed out by Freddie/Fannie have defaulted a 2nd time! If the Obama take over of health care contains money to change peoples’ hearts to become “Charity in Truth” vessels then maybe. But since evil will continue, NO ANGELS NO WAY!
[...] haven’t had a chance to read the entire thread, but ya gotta read things in context… The American Conservative Is the Pope for New World Order? __________________ http://www.gunsaint.com function fbs_click() [...]
Given how thoroughly the EU has ignored the Holy Father’s request to acknowledge Europe’s Christian history, and given how horribly the global powers-that-be have taken care of charity and human rights, I find it extremely problematic that the Holy Father would tend to give legitimacy to a global authority. Yes, he says they should be subject to law, but tyranny tramples the law. The current American government is trampling the Constitution without consequence already. That is the only paragraph that has something NEW to say, otherwise the entire thing is a recap of 2000 years of Christian teaching and practice. If not for that paragraph, why issue a new encyclical?
“my interlocutor remarked [the pope is living in a bubble,] clueless as to the potential dangers of large-scale tyranny.”
Let’s not forget that this man witnessed firsthand the atrocities of large-scale tyranny during his youth was raised in the shadow of the Iron Curtain. Perspective is needed when we analyze this. It is likely that the Pope is much more familiar with the real dangers than we Americans are…
I agree with Margaret’s argument concerning the encyclical’s seeming lack of understanding concerning just how evil the world powers are. The EU thing is a perfect example. The idea that the Popes were in support of the EU and asking them to recognize their Christian identity (what Christian identity?) just totally doesn’t make any sense to me. The Popes have long been accustomed to wielding power on the world stage, and more power to them if they are fighting the evils of the modern world. It just seems to me that they see more of a friend where I see a blatant enemy. It seems naive to ask for these powers to act according to Caritas in Veritate when they are informed, most importantly, by modern errors. Perhaps this is based in a faith in the evolution of history toward the good or something, or the idea that the world is progressing which it most assuredly is not (although goods do develop alongside evils).
Whether international reform is desirable or needed seems to me a separate question. I agree with much of what Lewis put down here, and that the more alarmist interpretations of the problematic language are probably over the top although I do think that language was gravely naive and imprudent. The main thing for me is the idea that somehow these world powers are going to work together toward the good. Even the powers that we see as good forces, like the US (this may be a mistake), are paying for abortions and distributing condoms all over the world not to mention causing unnecessary wars (at least under democrats). In an ideal world sure reform would be great, and some kind of practical reform meant to improve things may be possible even under realistic circumstances, but for the Pope to legitimize the idea of a world power considering the world powers are so evil just seems gravely naive. I just don’t understand why they are seeing friends where there are vicious enemies. The only thing I can conclude is that the Pope does not understand for whatever reason just how evil they are. This may be because of some naive belief in the progress of history.
PS The language about an “effective power to ensure security for all” was quoted directly from Gaudium et Spes.
Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces. Matt 7
As far as Margaret’s point about the rest of the encyclical being all hum drum, I don’t want to be associated with that kind of argument. I respect the Pope and his teachings, I just don’t understand this aspect of their continued naivete concerning the world powers.
The mere fact that people are scrutinizing the language and content of the Encyclical, Charity in Truth, this speaks volumes that this document is not clear nor is it acceptable. The USA is the most generous country in the world, but this administration is fast destroying the middle class and snuffing out all incentive to succeed.
The Hidden Agenda (Multi-billionaires) behind the more recent presidencies in the US is preparing for a one world order, one world banking system, one world religion and control of the population..These are power mongers, who are making billions more by directing the country in the way it wants it to go. Did not Soros buy stock in a company called “Powerless?” (Cap & Trade-projected Electric Costs?) Those who are buying the presidency and directing the path of this country should be thown in jail with no possibility of parole…these are traitors to our Constitution…is this not Treason? Check out the members…..check out their stock purchases in the past few years and the movement of the country. They should all be hung in the town square for all to see and their billions applied to the deficit! We need an Intelligent, Holy Spirit Empowered woman in power who is capable of speaking the truth to the Pope.
His Holiness is NOT calling for a NEW WORLD ORDER. wow you people are very naive and ignorant….the only thing that is standing in the way of the NWO is the Roman Catholic Church and whats left of America .thks and God Bless we are def. going to need it in the coming months ……pray hope fast dont worry —Padre Pio
My first reaction to the Pope’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, was exactly like many of the reactions and post here. But after thinking about it for a while, isn’t that what the Pope is suppose to teach. Jesus would most likely say the same thing. We should love one another and share our good fortunes with one another.
However, those of us in the day to day world just don’t trust enough in our politicians and governments to think this way and rightfully so. But I think the Pope still needs to say what he said and we should strive for it, but be very weary!! Utopia is not here yet.
God Bless the Pope and us all!
Finally some sanity. Thanks for this article. I am pretty much coming to the conclusion no one has read the document (it is not that hard) but going off sensational news reports
A world authority makes sense to me. Hasn’t the human race shown that because it has a common language, religion, and philosophical view, that it is perfectly capable of working through one system? Certainly no great injustices can happen under one world authority.
Unless “the world” pursues the Catholic view of charity, “the world” will never have a just global authority. There are as many views of “charity” as there are nations, peoples, religions, and philosophies. The Pope and all Catholics are fooling themselves if they think a global political authority is going to acknowledge the truth; the Catholic philosophy.
I wholeheartedly agree with Pope Benedict, and those of you who jump on the bandwagon to deride him forget the mission of the Church…to baptize all peoples in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Having read this encyclical, Deus Caritas, Spe Salvi and almost all of Pope Benedict’s previous works, I can tell you that this is not a departure.
The Holy Father is keenly aware that the official Catholic Church has to set the bar high and this “world political authority” (WPA ) will not be the UN, but its theoretical successor. The UN is already too far gone. What B16 is proposing is a Christianity-inspired global parliament. By Pope Benedict’s own definition it would HAVE to be moral, just and based on the twin pillars of solidarity and subsidiarity—respect for the dignity of every human life would be it foundation stone.
What have we do fear from such a dialogue?
Is it better to keep watching President Obama and his cronies stealing our freedoms here in America and bankrupting us, while we do nothing?
He just might turn over US sovereignty to the UN while we are distracted by the media (busy worshipping Michael Jackson, or American Idol).
Our President needs to be taught and shepherded. He needs to see that there is another dialogue that needs to take place, another possibility. Whether he is convicted by this TRUTH is another matter.
I applaud the Holy Father for suggesting a noble alternative. We Americans need to get off of our high horses and recognize that our so-called “American Dream”—which too often is based on or leads to corruption, greed and immorality—make us unfit to lead the world.
A very wise Catholic priest has recently told our community that when God wants to chastise a nation He takes away their leadership. Look around folks. Where are America’s true courageous leaders? Bishop Robert Finn and Alan Keyes are two.
I don’t believe for a minute that such a WPA is possible without divine intervention.
And think about this before you cast stones…what would you propose, given the state of affairs in the world today?
Just maybe, y’all are taking this all out of context?
“…[T]rue world political authority…” is consistent with the entire encyclical, and with PBXVI. How many times has the Pope underscored TRUTH equals God, ergo, the TRUE authority is none other than God and not any human being.
“Hell is full of good intentions and desires.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
The proposal by Pope Benedict of there being an urgent need for a world political authority is alarming when taken from the context of his encyclical. Within the context of the teaching establishing a New World Order makes perfectly good sense. The problem is that even the best laid plans can go off track and even if the plan has come through a Holy filter it can still be corrupted by sin.
Potentially, what was thought of as a way to solve the world’s economic crisis could be perverted into a form of social control and, at it’s most perverse distortion, as a platform to usher in the reign of the Anti-Christ.
What’s really bizzare is the timing of it’s release, just days before the Pope’s meeting with President Obama (given enough time to read and absorb the material). It’s as if the Pope has provided a blessing to the President’s view of a socialized world utopia before they even meet to discuss the direction of the world. It’s being served up on a silver platter.
What is disconcerting is the understanding that if satan does exist, and it’s his objective to seperate man from God, and to meet that objective he needs to rule over the entire world, and to rule over the world he must have authority over all governments, then supporting a plan to establish a global political authority would assist satan in meeting his objective. And, presumably, the Pope must understand this potentiality (after all he lived through the nazi regime).
So, why on earth would the Pope call for a new world order? As you ponder the number of possibilities you might come to the realization that regardless of why that the course has been set.
This Pope has been a solid, logical thinking man. Lets first learn about the ideas he is attempting to convey and lets refrain from typical media “fire from the hip” mentality. The Sanhedrin felt the same way about Christ’s teaching.
God Bless our Pope
“There is an urgent need for a true world ecclesiastical authority.”
Inspired by the Pope, this is a quote from my forthcoming encyclical ‘The Splendid Unity of Coercion’.
We need a World Church to rule over the churches and all
religions to soothe the disharmony among peoples and to empower men/women/transgenders/inanimate objects to express authentic solidarity in their one culture as one family under
one religion.
Justice demands that this World Church have all the necessary
power and authority to compel obedience to its decrees. This
must be done, of course, in the spirit of Christian charity, with
a view towards the principle of subsidiarity guarding against
any potential tyranny. We don’t want tyranny. We just want
everyone to submit because it’s for their own good.
The ethic of coercion is the only truly Christian way to unite
the peoples of the world. The selfishness exhibited by free
association only leads to strife. The One Family needs One
Ruler and One Doctrine. We cannot allow for spiritual greed
in this governance. Therefore, we must select godless men
to rule the World Church since they have already proven
their facility with this eternal ethic of coercion.
Unity is within our grasp, dear children!
Thank you, Pope Benedict! Now I see the path we must take!
All hail the One Power!
The Holy Father is giving witness to what is necessary for the world’s spiritual and moral survival. In this age, witnesses to the truth are most often ignored, rather than sent to the arena.
Except for isolated pockets of hope overlooked, subsidiarity is likely to be crushed, and central power is likely to be massive and crushing.
Take the Pope’s message for what it’s worth – a declaration in favor of sanity. What else is he there for?
Margaret took the words right out of my mouth … about Pope JPII and his encouragement towards a united Europe but founded on and cognizant of it’s Christian history … however like many they were pickers and choosers … and I fear that this will turn out likewise … those who will pick out what they want to emphasize to capitalize on the prestige of the Holy Office of the See of Peter, but omitting the more crucial foundational principles of respect for the dignity of all human llife and subsidiarity (just like B.O. at Notre Dame and recently how much he has said he admired Cardinal Bernardin, who although espoused the “seamless garment” analogy of life and social justice issues, nevertheless emphasized the absolute, non-negotiable essential principle of the right to life of all from conception until natural death.
Probably the only way to counter this tendency of the secular materialist humanists from lifting portions out of context to show how the Pope agrees with them, is to constantly repeat throughout an Encyclical/papal document … those fundamental themes which are absolute and binding.
O Most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
“O, Jesus of Divine Mercy, hear my pleadings to You, for I am here to do Your will.” Prayer recommended by Our Lord to be on our lips often during these trying times as they intensify.
Cody in Arizona I am right there with you! My first reaction to this controversy was if Jesus is coming back then I’d gladly accept His global authority but until then no mere mortals should have that much power. Maybe Benedict XVI really believes Christ is returning soon. If so this encyclical would make more sense.
Reading this article and some of the comments, left me a little shaky, now after re-reading the first portion of his previous encyclical on hope, “Spe Salvi”, I’m reminded how brilliant and insightful Pope Benedict XVI is. Not only brilliant, but deeply steeped in the mystery of Christ and Divine Revelation, as he draws on the Old Testament, New Testament, the early Church Fathers, and the lives of the Saints. This man, the legitimate successor to Peter, is firmly grounded on the Rock, Jesus Christ, and the rock, the foundation which Jesus laid in Peter. So he is infallible when teaching on Faith and Morals, but not on politics, government or economics. However, where those areas impact Faith and Morals, or vice versa … we better listen. But we better read every word and try to understand every concept as it builds on the previous one and not take anything out of context, but in light of the whole work and its intent, also keeping in mind the audience to which it was directed. Likewise, in order to understand it fully, because his encyclicals build on the previous ones … it has to be considered in the light of them also … if you really want to understand what he is trying to teach and communicate … Again, let there be no doubt that this man is deeply rooted in Christ, abiding in Him, professing Him, seeking to “teach them all that I have commanded you”.
So before anyone goes flying off the handle, please be familiar with your subject … Read the encyclical in full, not in part, and then read his previous one … you will see.
God bless you, in Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God made flesh.
The paragraph quoted from the Pope is more of a rebuke of the U.N., a call for renewal, and not an endorsement to reward this organization with more power.
“There is a danger that, taken out of context, this language could be used to support some kind of global tyranny. But a closer reading of Caritas demonstrates that more international solidarity is not necessarily a recipe for global Leviathan, particularly if it is conditioned by the Church’s formulation of subsidiarity.”
That quote at the end of your piece is excellent, I commend you for expressing the term of subsidiarity, and you separate yourself from most commenters in this regard!
Read the Pope’s address to the U.N. in April of 2008.
(The 60th anniversary of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
“Today, though, efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests. The Declaration was adopted as a “common standard of achievement” (Preamble) and cannot be applied piecemeal, according to trends or selective choices that merely run the risk of contradicting the unity of the human person and thus the indivisibility of human rights.”
Of course the pope wants a new world order. It will go along nicely with the one world church that will be centered around the Vatican during the last days. It’s all about control and the pope wants his share.
Let’s get down to the nitty gritty….Benny is not the pope. The seat is vacant and contrary to all good catholc thoughts..he is part of the NWO and is attempting to jockey for position. The Church has been infiltrated and is on its way to lead all to the One World Religion and Order
How different this response, in which the author attempts to understand and learn, than the responses of the Novaks and Wiegels, who attempt to grandstand and pontificate.
The differences between paleocons and neocons go far beyond politics.
Certainly with the corruption in the UN it should be obvious that a world governing body would end up in more greed and corruption….but recently, I understand that the Vatican bought into the idea of genetic engineering of seed. This also makes me extremely nervous..
Rather than try to teach the pope as a certain Mr. Novak has done, Mr. McCrary has the humility to try to learn, and concludes that “a closer reading of Caritas demonstrates that more international solidarity is not necessarily a recipe for global Leviathan, particularly if it is conditioned by the Church’s formulation of subsidiarity.”
I guess the differences between paleocons and neocons go far beyond politics.
My feelings about the Pope’s latest encyclical are identical to Thomas Bosco’s. I am sad. As a Catholic I feel let down, and broken-hearted. We need our Pope to be a spiritual leader of the Catholic Church and not a World Politician. It is occult forces that energize the global hierarchy and their agenda. No one, not even the Pope, should try negotiating with this brood of vipers!
Benedict’s crunchy-con encyclical…
If you want to read the full 30,000-word text of Pope Benedict’s new (and third) encyclical, Charity in Truth (Caritas in Veritate), go here. But Catholic Culture offers a fine summation of it. Here are excerpts from that precis relevant……
[...] as the “grossest of errors.” He should be more worried about Pope Benedict XVI’s call for world government in his latest encyclical. This “world political authority” would undoubtedly force [...]
Re: global authority
I can understand why some are worried about tyranny, the usupation of sovereignty, paving the path for the AC, and so on. But I think this is a good summary of why the pope has this position:
1. Globalization is neither good or evil in itself.
2. Globalization is a fact of life.
3. Globalization affects the global common good, and just not the good of particular countries or nations.
4. Since it affects the global common good, the only competent authority that can deal with or regulate globalization is that which has care of the common good.
It is a question of who has the proper authority to deal with this matter. Not individual nations claiming this authority for themselves, if we are talking about the global common good.
If we do not want such an authority to develop, then individual nation states can try to prevent globalization from happening. Good luck with that.
You can disagree with some of the points, for example, the extent of globalization as it currently exists, or whether it is intrinsically good or evil. I tend to think that it is evil, in so far as it is not sustainable, relies too much on cheap energy, and is detrimental to the good of all countries involved. But if governments see globalization as a good or necessary, then what can be done but to attempt to regulate it so that some measure of justice is attained?
Are comments being held for moderation?
There was a Gremlin slowing down comment approval. Should be fixed now.
The pope needs to hear, by a deluge of Catholics, what his speech indicates and to clarify what he said that causes concern to the faithful. I cannot believe that he could be aware of how his speech could be twisted into (and has been before in other ways) something that supports a world order governent. His responsibility is to the faithful catholics who look up to him and he needs to hear from us. Remember, there are many so called ‘clergy’ in the Vatican who will do everything to liberalize the faith to suit themselves and their own agendas, and are disobedient to Church teachings. That has been so since the beginning of the Church. It has always been up to the faithful to help the Church to keep on the right path. Do not fall away from the Church. We need the faithful to let him know what we think. If he is of God, he will listen.
Remember, there are many so called ‘clergy’ in the Vatican who will do everything to liberalize the faith to suit themselves and their own agendas, and are disobedient to Church teachings.
And there are so many soi-disant Catholic Intelligentsia who want to “conservatize” the Faith to suit their agendas, too. Right about now, they’re , I fear, far more problematic than the liberals. Particularly, say, Weigel and Novak, the sophists supreme.
Our Lady of La Salette,sept. 19 , 1846 Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Anti-Christ……The church will be in eclipse. this says it all
The principle for the Pope’s call for such a body would derive from Catholic Social Teaching, based upon the purpose and legitimate need of authority to protect human rights by law and enforce those laws, given that because of original sin, there is always the temptation to deny the rights of others. Any community of persons needs a governing authority – from the family to the village to the state to the country – each sphere where there is community activity, needs a corresponding authority – deemed necessary by God Himself as all authority comes from him.
Thus in today’s world with the growing globalization, international trade and political agreements – shucks, even our wars are becoming international – there is a need for a legitimate authority to legitimately govern in this international sphere. That is why the Church backs the reality of the UN, and it was thru the UN that the Nuremburg(sp?) Trials after WWII were set up to prosecute war crimes – this was an international body. This body would then protect human rights from those who are rich and powerful and can manipulate the global economy to their own ends – resulting, in what we have seen, in upsetting global trade, world oil prices, etc etc, all to the detriment of the poorer nations and people. This is an abuse.
So, given that this is an international sphere and money-makers are exploiting the human rights of the poor and others for their own gain, (not to mention drug cartels, international gun runners, etc) there is a need for a legitimate authority with power equal to it’s task – here, international power – to rule in order to protect human rights and the common good of the peoples.
Now, where you are having a problem is that we have been being enlightened about the dangers of the ‘new world order’ over the past few years and we see this as encouraging the abuse of power – ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ – and possibly giving reign to the power and authority of the anti-Christ – is this not so?
Even in this, though – we need to look at it in two ways – in our state and our countries, we elect representatives and they rule by force of law for our good to meet the state and national needs. This authority to rule is legitimate and necessary – this is church social teaching. So too, an international body, elected with representatives from each country, is necessary to rule and enforce law on those concerns relating to international issues the more we become a global community. This is what the Pope is teaching
Now, the very fact that someone can come along and ABUSE legitimate authority, does not lessen the legitimacy of the right and need to exercise authority. It is not the presence of an international body of governors that is wrong – it would be the ABUSE of this legitimate authority to rule for one’s own ends instead of protecting human rights and the common good.
To put it another way – homeschooling is legitimate – parents abusing homeschooling is an abuse of their authority, and law makers can’t make laws to outlaw homeschooling based on this abuse by the few. So too, governments are legitimate in their necessary spheres, and even though some people abuse the power they gain in being elected, it does not change the legitimacy of the need and duty to have governments. Do you see?
So yes, while the Pope is teaching only what is true, you can also see the abuse that this would lead too – just like our national, or state or civic leaders can use wisely or abuse their power, but it does not change the fact that their OFFICE is legitimate.
This is the faithful Catholic response to this question… distinguishing between the legitimacy of an international authoritative governing body for an increasingly globalized world, and between the abuse of that office by someone like the anti-christ. Whether or not globalization is a good thing, it is happening , and this then takes the form of a call from God to initiate a global level authority to protect the people from abusers.
Note also , that in the absence of laws now by any international authority, the entire world, as shown by this past economic crisis, is already at the fate of the hands of those who would profit at the world’s expense – the insurance people, the mortgage people, the bansk, etc… this is also an abuse – one that the Lord would have rectified by a legitimate authority.
Secondly, a key word used by the Pope is ’subsidiarity” and he uses this to ‘qualify or limit’ the exercise of authority. This means that the governing power does not have the right to take away or interfere with the proper use of authority of smaller bodies. So, the international government cannot take over the national government’s duties, nor can the state government take over the family’s responsibilities… This protects from totalitarianism. But note, even in our countries, there are abuses of this.
He is also calling for the social interactions on a global level to be determined by sound morality.
Think also that the Church teaches that all men have the natural law written in their heart, and no amount of sin can destroy it. So, in the formulation of laws, even the US constitution and the UN BIll of Human Rights carry MUCH good as men get together and responsibly seek to determine what is good. That there will be imperfections and abuses is obvious, given original sin and actual sin and differing cultures etc, but basically, the Church also teaches that human nature is good, even if weak or darkened, and there is hope! Especially since, ‘by reason, man shares in God’s providence.’ and Christ has promised to never leave us and acts actively to bring about good in the world.
Anyway, I think when we hold to Church teaching, we can see very clearly that our job is to pray and offer sacrifices for the development of a holier world…!!!!!!!
Don’t you guys think that if Obama, Gordon Brown or one of the other “world leaders” would have said the exact same thing, that the folks here at the American Conservative would be up in arms about it screaming how they’re trying to establish a global government?
Yet the Pope does it and the spin machine starts and the Catholic apologists come out in defense of the Pope’s sickening encyclical. I’ve read the entire thing, and it’s all disturbing.
But the should be no surprise. May I suggest the book “Ecclesiastical Meegalomania” by John Robbins. Here you will learn that the Roman Catholic Church State’s political and economic thought is very unfriendly to private property rights, free markets, and very small government.
Why not make the Vatican this political authority?
[...] American Conservative blog in this reasonable post attempts to allay fears about the encyclical’s suggestion for a “world political [...]
In adding to Garrett Anderson’s statement–The United Nations’ Agenda 21 is all about abolishing private property, the re-education of our youth to adhere to globalists’ views, and eugenics. Check out http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org. The Pope’s suggestion of restructuring the UN so that it has “more teeth” is scary. I wish the leader of the Roman Catholic Church would show “more teeth”, so to speak, and show more anger about what the global bankers and global elitists are doing as Jesus did when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
Garrett,
The difference is Obama and Gordon Brown would not be extolling the virtue of subsidarity. Subsidiarity, the teaching that everything can and should be handled at the lowest level possible (the family , the neighborhood, the city, then the state, etc.) would not be promoted by someone who wants to lord authority over people. Garrett, your comment and those of other Republicans on this blog who feel sucker-punched, make me wonder if you (and others) really read this blog post.
I have a question of who has the proper authority to deal with this matter. Not individual nations claiming this authority for themselves.
“Love your enemies. Do good to those who injure you.” Have you ever heard such foolishness? “To the Jews a stumbling block; to the Greeks foolishness.” “The wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God.”
Just a few thoughts from the Bible. The critiques of the Pope fall flat in the context of solidarity and subsidiarity. His suggestions are open to abuse, no doubt but, given fallen human nature, so are all suggestions. What he has to say is not foolishness as some express on this blog. He speaks for the “foolishness” of the Gospel which I,for one, will embrace any day. And I for one,again, am not two impressed by the tragedies of the 19th and 20th century Enlightenment.