FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope Benedict XVI's reference to a world political authority
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
...is hardly something new. From Bl. John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, (which is cited by Benedict in the relevant section of his encyclical):

"In our own day, however, mutual relationships between States have undergone a far reaching change. On the one hand, the universal common good gives rise to problems of the utmost gravity, complexity and urgency—especially as regards the preservation of the security and peace of the whole world. On the other hand, the rulers of individual nations, being all on an equal footing, largely fail in their efforts to achieve this, however much they multiply their meetings and their endeavors to discover more fitting instruments of justice. And this is no reflection on their sincerity and enterprise. It is merely that their authority is not sufficiently influential. We are thus driven to the conclusion that the shape and structure of political life in the modern world, and the influence exercised by public authority in all the nations of the world are unequal to the task of promoting the common good of all peoples.

"Now, if one considers carefully the inner significance of the common good on the one hand, and the nature and function of public authority on the other, one cannot fail to see that there is an intrinsic connection between them. Public authority, as the means of promoting the common good in civil society, is a postulate of the moral order. But the moral order likewise requires that this authority be effective in attaining its end. Hence the civil institutions in which such authority resides, becomes operative and promotes its ends, are endowed with a certain kind of structure and efficacy: a structure and efficacy which make such institutions capable of realizing the common good by ways and means adequate to the changing historical conditions. Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are world-wide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization and means co-extensive with these problems, and with a world-wide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such general form of public authority.

"But this general authority equipped with world-wide power and adequate means for achieving the universal common good cannot be imposed by force. It must be set up with the consent of all nations. If its work is to be effective, it must operate with fairness, absolute impartiality, and with dedication to the common good of all peoples. The forcible imposition by the more powerful nations of a universal authority of this kind would inevitably arouse fears of its being used as an instrument to serve the interests of the few or to take the side of a single nation, and thus the influence and effectiveness of its activity would be undermined. For even though nations may differ widely in material progress and military strength, they are very sensitive as regards their juridical equality and the excellence of their own way of life. They are right, therefore, in their reluctance to submit to an authority imposed by force, established without their co-operation, or not accepted of their own accord. "


Survivalist Protestants and adolescent anarcho-capitalists might have a problem with that. But Catholics shouldn't.
The erroneous premise of his argument is that the leaders of nations are actually interested in the common good and natural law.  If that were the case, then I would have no objection to some sort of global authority with oversight powers, so long as the principle of subsidiarity would be respected.  But this is not the case.  There is very little evidence that national leaders have the common good in mind, as the actions of the world's leading nations continue to demonstrate a push towards oligarchy and the rewarding of corporate elites.

I think Pope Benedict's articulation of this desire for a world political authority is superior to that of John XXIII's because he couches it in a strong reinforcement of the principle of subsidiarity and, most importantly, in a prerequisite need for recognition of authentic charity.
(07-10-2009, 03:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]The erroneous premise of his argument is that the leaders of nations are actually interested in the common good and natural law.  If that were the case, then I would have no objection to some sort of global authority with oversight powers, so long as the principle of subsidiarity would be respected.  But this is not the case.  There is very little evidence that national leaders have the common good in mind, as the actions of the world's leading nations continue to demonstrate a push towards oligarchy and the rewarding of corporate elites.

Couldn't agree more
World order, or a world political authority, is not something condemnable in itself. As with many other things it would serve good or evil depending upon its expression.

A world order that was Catholic in nature and in practice would be good.

A world order that was not Catholic would be evil.

The big problem here is that Benedict XVI does not seek a Catholic world order. He makes abundantly clear throughout the encyclical that he desires a world order based upon Intergral Humanism.
(07-10-2009, 03:34 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]World order, or a world political authority, is not something condemnable in itself. As with many other things it would serve good or evil depending upon its expression.

A world order that was Catholic in nature and in practice would be good.

A world order that was not Catholic would be evil.

The big problem here is that Benedict XVI does not seek a Catholic world order. He makes abundantly clear throughout the encyclical that he desires a world order based upon Intergral Humanism.

I have exactly the same opinion.
Hell is paved with good intentions.
The seek of an "universal common good" by a wordly global authority? Wasn't this aim the former communist USSR was looking for during the last century?
I am a bit puzzled that the Holy Father didn't dare to speak of God in preamble.
Without God isn't universal right to abortion, a "common good"? Aren't the stem cells research, cloning, euthanasia,  too?
(07-10-2009, 03:34 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]World order, or a world political authority, is not something condemnable in itself. As with many other things it would serve good or evil depending upon its expression.

A world order that was Catholic in nature and in practice would be good.

A world order that was not Catholic would be evil.

The big problem here is that Benedict XVI does not seek a Catholic world order. He makes abundantly clear throughout the encyclical that he desires a world order based upon Intergral Humanism.

I agree.  The encyclical is ambiguous about this point and lacks clarity (perhaps stemming from his background as a phenomenologist rather than as a Thomist).  He articulates points in favor of a Christian order (the whole point of the encyclical being that charity without the guidance of truth is nothing but sentimentality), but he doesn't articulate that such a Christian order should guide the aforementioned world political authority.  He also simultaneously criticizes an excessive trust in man-made power structures.  It would have been more helpful if he could have connected the dots a little better and pointed out how these seeming contradictions can actually work together.  But this is typical of phenomenology's style of argument; it's kind of all over the place. It doesn't take the logical, systematic approach of Thomism.
(07-10-2009, 03:34 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]World order, or a world political authority, is not something condemnable in itself. As with many other things it would serve good or evil depending upon its expression.

A world order that was Catholic in nature and in practice would be good.

A world order that was not Catholic would be evil.

The big problem here is that Benedict XVI does not seek a Catholic world order. He makes abundantly clear throughout the encyclical that he desires a world order based upon Intergral Humanism.

Yes, that is the problem. I don't think any of us are opposed to a "One World Order" if it was Catholic; check my profile for my political views.

Unfortunately, as rbjmartin stated:

(07-10-2009, 03:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]The erroneous premise of his argument is that the leaders of nations are actually interested in the common good and natural law.  If that were the case, then I would have no objection to some sort of global authority with oversight powers, so long as the principle of subsidiarity would be respected.  But this is not the case.  There is very little evidence that national leaders have the common good in mind, as the actions of the world's leading nations continue to demonstrate a push towards oligarchy and the rewarding of corporate elites.

We also know that anti-Christ can only reign over all the earth through a world political organization. Scripture tells us that we won't know the hour of the end, but we'll know the season.
”Pope Benedict XV, July 25, 1920” Wrote:The coming of a world state is longed for, and confidently expected, by all the worst and most disordered elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possession, would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgment would be made of the authority of the father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror.
(07-10-2009, 05:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
”Pope Benedict XV, July 25, 1920” Wrote:The coming of a world state is longed for, and confidently expected, by all the worst and most disordered elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possession, would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgment would be made of the authority of the father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror.

Lamentabili Sane,

I must ask why you cite that passage:  merely to point out the danger of a non-Christian world order, or in some way to criticize Blessed John XXIII & Benedict XVI's proposals?
(07-10-2009, 03:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]The erroneous premise of his argument is that the leaders of nations are actually interested in the common good and natural law.  If that were the case, then I would have no objection to some sort of global authority with oversight powers, so long as the principle of subsidiarity would be respected.  But this is not the case.  There is very little evidence that national leaders have the common good in mind, as the actions of the world's leading nations continue to demonstrate a push towards oligarchy and the rewarding of corporate elites.

Is this not more a consequence of most nation states being led by people chosen according to their demagogic abilities? I don't think it's a "premise" of the Pope's argument that the leaders of nations are necessarily interested in the common good and natural law; his view is that they should be, and that any form of political authority operating at a global level should

"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."

Where do we look for those values?

"In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth."

So the authority being proposed as desirable is one that would be inspired by the truth which comes to us in Christ.

I can understand why some neoconservatives are upset about a perceived challenge to US hegemony. I find it harder to make sense of traditionalist opposition, given that I would've imagined most traditionalists not to have given up on the ideal of Christendom. As for the quotation from Benedict XV: I think it is fairly clear that the Holy Father is not advocating a world state. There is nothing to suggest he imagines a global political authority having a monopoly on use of force worldwide, or anything of the sort. As he points out, "the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity".
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7