The Vatican Calls for World Government (?)

10/25/2011 @ 6:20AM |1,708 views

The Vatican Calls for World Government

That isn’t just the implication it’s the explicit call in the latest from the Vatican: that we need to move to a system of world government:

If Vatican cardinals have yet to join the Occupy Wall Street protesters, a document released by the Holy See calling for a “world authority” to crack down on capitalism suggests some are considering it.

Alphaville has a bit of fun quoting scripture back at them here. The full (although preliminary translation) statement is here.

As someone educated and raised a Catholic I can tell you what the problem is here. It’s the otherworldly parts of the Vatican’s worldview.

In an institution which is based upon preparing us for the life after this one that’s no bad thing of course, and continual reminder that we should raise our eyes from the mundane cares of this world and consider our place in the eternity to come. However, it does in fact lead to a certain naivety about what actually happens in this world.

The idea is that we ought to move to something like a beefed up United Nations. A supra-national body capable of:

These measures ought to be conceived of as some of the first steps in view of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction; as a first stage in a longer effort by the global community to steer its institutions towards achieving the common good. Other stages will have to follow in which the dynamics familiar to us may become more marked, but they may also be accompanied by changes which would be useless to try to predict today.In this process, the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics needs to be restored and, with them, the primacy of politics – which is responsible for the common good – over the economy and finance. These latter need to be brought back within the boundaries of their real vocation and function, including their social function, in consideration of their obvious responsibilities to society, in order to nourish markets and financial institutions which are really at the service of the person, which are capable of responding to the needs of the common good and universal brotherhood, and which transcend all forms of economist stagnation and performative mercantilism.

With one proviso I’ve no problem with the basic desire, that the world could indeed be made a better place if the rules by which the world were run were changed and then enforced. My problem comes from the idea that the United Nations, or indeed anything involving politicians, is going to achieve anything like that.

The United Nations has, recently you understand, had the Sudan as a member of the Human Rights Committee, heck it’s even had Libya as the Chair of the Committee (yes, the Ghadaffi era Libya). And that’s what the problem is. Not the desire to make the world a better place, but the idea that politics is going to do so. It’s this phrase that so grates:

the primacy of politics – which is responsible for the common good – over the economy and finance.

Given the spendthrifts, ogres, ignorants, panderers and outright thieves that actually manage to get into the positions where they can run the political process (yes, both democratically elected and self-appointed) we really don’t want to be giving them any more power: actually, we’d rather like to reclaim much of the power they already have, most especially over the economy and finance.

Which is where the Vatican has gone wrong. They’re just not noting how things actually turn out in this vale of tears. They actually think that politics is something done by people of good will and honesty. Something far more ludicrous than anything at all in the official theology.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/25/the-vatican-calls-for-world-government/

FORBES

Monday, October 24, 2011


Is the Vatican really calling for a Central World Bank? (UPDATED)


Hold da phone folks... it ain't what Drudge is suggesting it is. Here, via Fr. Philip Neri Powell, are some cogent points:

1. The document was NOT written by "The Vatican" or "The Pope." It's a product of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Not the Secretary of State. Not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Not the Congregation for Bishops. A pontifical council. In terms of magisterial authority, that's somewhere near a Christmas postcard from your pastor. 'Nuff said.
   
   
2. The document says nothing new about economics or economic theory nor does it promote one model of economics over any other. The focus is placed squarely on the current difficulties in the monetary market, arguing that some sort of international control needs to be established over these transactions so that we might avoid another global bank collapse. There is a pointed critique of what the document labels "economic liberalism and utilitarian thinking," that is, unregulated free market capitalism. This is nothing new either. The Church has been suspicious of unfettered capitalism since at least the mid-nineteenth century.
   
   
3. The "world authority" proposed in the document is placed within the context of all the usual Catholic caveats about human dignity, morality, respect for cultural and national traditions, the authority of the nation-state, subsidiarity, etc., etc. In other words, Global Governance advocates will dismiss this proposal out of hand. It's too religious/ethical and not nearly powerful enough. Oh, and there won't be enough opportunities for politicians to steal us all blind.
   
   
4. Yes, Church-haters and Prog Catholics will cover themselves with this document and proclaim a divine victory for the Occupy Wall St. type non-sense. Nothing we can do about that. Just don't be pulled into the whole Benedict Is Calling For A One World Bank framing of the issue.
   

Here are The Anchoress' wise and related words on today's headlines:

As with every Vatican pronouncement take media reports of this one with a grain of salt.

When my Southern Baptist friends read press accounts of news or statements coming from the Vatican, they sometimes write me saying, “what fresh hell is this? Was Jack Chick right? Is the Vatican a bunch of commies?”

And I always have to remind them to “ignore the headlines; the headlines are about the press framing their preferred narrative, because they know that two days of blaring headlines promoting one narrative will completely overshadow perceptions and set it in stone. Wait three or four days for the media “clarifications” that will more accurately reflect the story — but you’ll have to look for them, yourself, because the press won’t be running clarifications in 30 point bold pica on the front page and above the fold. Check toward the lost puppy section of the paper.”

T’was ever thus.

...

A fundamental lesson in church-related stories: Pope is not “the Vatican” and “the Vatican” is not the pope; the Curia is not the Bishop of Rome and while they are usually in sync, their pronouncements are separate and distinct; it may seem like a small point, but — for the sake of accuracy and understanding — provenance should always be clear; when one sounds a tone-deaf notes the other should not bear the burden, and when one plays a thing sweetly, the other should not get the credit. Today’s paper on financial reform was released not by Benedict but by The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. This is an outreach and communications entity — just like the Pontifical Council for Social Communications or the Pontifical Council for Culture.

There'll be more on this, guaranteed... but as in all things Catholic (it seems to me), all is not what others are telling you they are.

Stand by for more.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

UPDATE: George Weigel, prominent Catholoc theologian, weighs in:

"Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish," says voice therapist Lionel Logue to King George VI as the brassy Australian walks the about-to-be-crowned king through a particularly orotund part of the coronation ceremony in The King's Speech. Logue's comment nicely sums up the media and Catholic Left commentary on a "Note" released today by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary System in the Context of Global Public Authority."

Drudge got it wrong: "Vatican Calls for ‘Central World Bank'." CNBC got it wrong: "The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a ‘global public authority' and a ‘central world bank'." The best of the Italian Vaticanisti, Sandro Magister ofL'espresso, linked Occupy Wall Street and "the Vatican at the Barricades" in the headline of his insta-commentary, a theme also harped upon by the deposed editor of America, Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J.

All of which was "rubbish, rubbish, rubbish."

The truth of the matter is that "the Vatican" - whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church's teaching authority, or the Church's central structures of governance - called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a "Note" from a rather small office in the Roman Curia. The document's specific recommendations do not necessarily reflect the settled views of the senior authorities of the Holy See; indeed, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the press spokesman for the Vatican, was noticeably circumspect in his comments on the document and its weight. As indeed he ought to have been. The document doesn't speak for the Pope, it doesn't speak for "the Vatican," and it doesn't speak for the Catholic Church.

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2011/10/is-the-vatican-really-calling-for-a-central-world-bank.html



WE'LL SEE.

its only a matter of time.

"Finally, We look to all men of good will, reminding them that civil
progress and economic development are the only road to peace. Delegates to
international organizations, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers
and educators—all of you must realize that you have your part to play in
the construction of a new world order. We ask God to enlighten and strengthen
you all, so that you may persuade all men to turn their attention to these grave
questions and prompt nations to work toward their solution."

POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES

MARCH 26, 1967

LINK: Official Vatican Website

From a technical to an ethical "governance'

In his Message for the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2004, John Paul II made two assertions - closely linked to each other - which I wish to recall here.

"Humanity today", he wrote, "is in a new and more difficult phase of its genuine development. It needs a greater degree of international ordering"; and he added, "The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral centre" (14).

These two sentences connect the need to give ourselves not only a new international order but also a "superior" order and, at the same time, the need to focus on relaunching a new ethics in international relations. Of course, the hope that John Paul II expressed to the United Nations Organization does not exclusively concern this Organization, but rather all who play a role in international society.

LINK:Casina Pio IV, Vatican Monday, 30 April 2007

From LINK : Vatican Official Acta 13

Pages 30 and 31

1.4. The Governance of Globalization

General approach: the question of a world government. It is impossible
to deny the impression of precariousness within the international order at
the economic, juridical and political levels. Wars continue to break out and
there is a shortage of effective and just global initiatives. Structures of the
international milieu seem to resist any form of democratic control. On the
threshold of the twenty-first century, global governance requires a new set
of international ethical standards. Civil democracy founded upon public
opinion, non-governmental institutions and the acceptance of the standards
of international agreements constitute one of the premises.

Additionally, appropriate governance solutions should care for limiting the
weight of purely economic considerations. One of the main motivations of
the request for a world government is the need to keep peace through binding
international law and sanctions, and it is also connected with the
notion of universal common good. It is utopian to think of it as a structured
central government, but not if we think of a coordination of the decision
process at the international level. World governance requires the participation
of all the governmental levels – local, national, international – as
well as a first class leadership. In this framework, an alternative concept
to globalization can be envisaged, and it is universalization, emerging at
the social, more than at the political level, as it can be seen in the proliferation
of a lot of non-governmental organizations. It is possible to feel that
the embryo of worldwide governance is being sketched out, following a
growing consciousness of a common responsibility. This can be seen in the
recognition of the right to intervene, the legitimacy conferred to the UN
Security Council, the institutionalization of world leaders’ summits, the
efforts to rationally and jointly manage the planet’s resources, together with
the preoccupation for a sustainable development and the establishment of
a worldwide judiciary system – as is the one put in place in the
International Criminal Court – in which all governments could be summoned.
But power politics is still alive, and it seriously threatens all that
has been done during the last twenty five years to build a cooperation- and
consultation-based international order. Additionally, other reforms are still
to be performed to put in place a better governance of globalization, like
the reform of the UN and its economic institutions; putting in place new
norms to regulate the environment, trade, finances, investments and the
activities of trans-national corporations; the elaboration of a worldwide
tax or fiscal system and the building of new relationships between the civil
society and the public and private sectors.

--------------------------

And it goes on and on and on......

wow.

ty doc.........i wonder how far off we really are from the completion of this thing?