No doubt our Fundamentalist Protestant brethren will see this as proof-positive that our Church is the dreaded Whore of Babylon. After all, our own Pope expressly calls for a One-World Government.

Thank you, Holy Father, for making the job of your children all the more harder in defending our holy faith.

Governments are comprised of men, who are imperfect. Thus, they need to be restrained by checks and balances at the national government level, and at the international level by nations being governed by different governments. These different governments do not need to be at odds or at war, but POWER MUST BE DIVIDED. Governments tend to accumulate power, be they Democratic or Dictators, and even Democratic governments can drift to tyranny.

If the United Nations is an example of "World Government", you can keep it, thank you.

The words from your heart are the most important to the world.

So now it’s the words of Benedict XVI which the pundits will try to dissect and explain for a few months or a year or two. These words are good “food for thought” for today but the only eternal words to be consumed by our souls were spoken thousands of years ago by our Incarnate Lord and these were meant to be the light and truth for all ages.

We can’t all be Mother Teresa’s, Bishop Sheen’s, or John Paul II’s. History has seen the likes of these many times and we are the richer for their contributions to the faith we hold dear. But keep in mind; with few exceptions all of us can add our portion to the value of our faith and wealth of the Church of the Apostles and saints before us through living simple, humble, and obedient lives within our station.

However, no matter how humble or noble our position may be our true commonality is brought together and best offered to God for the sake of His kingdom through prayer. Yes, PRAYER has and will forever be the most powerful weapon against the evil which has engulfed the world with such brutal force and vicious intent as is evident in our time.

Our time is also Our Lady’s Time. She constantly prays for us and humble begs that we join her in prayer for a world adrift in a sea of sin. We need to turn our eyes and ears from the blaring glitter of secular guile and open the voices of our hearts with the words and thoughts which define our hope for the future of all mankind to our most merciful God who alone can lead us from the misery this world has fashioned for us. Our Father in heaven is eager to hear the voices of those who join with the pleas of His bride, the mother of His Son, who was named in the Garden of Eden to, in her time, return and crush the head of the serpent.

Mr Zmirak, with sincere respect, did you miss these:

'...to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity...

'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.'

The quote you have pulled is so "catch-all" as to be (potentially) all things to all people: an institution that deals with transnational problems but also keeps the management of delivery and deliberation at the lowest level. 'Should keep realists and human security enthusiasts happy.

Sounds to me like everyone in the world would have to be a saint for it to work however, with everyone exercising their proper vocation. Sure it's lofty but then, surely aiming higher is the preserve of the Pope (although Obama-philes might disagree).

It also sounds like the closest thing to an authentic Christian anarchy (for the benefit of those who didn't suffer political theory at university, not disorder, but a state where "the state" is no longer necessary because people are Inspired and no longer need coercion), at least at the present national level.

These parts of the excerpt also seem to me to be noteable:

'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...

[It's easy for us to forget that the idea that there is such a thing as the "common good" is alien to the lobby-laden UN of "competing conceptions of the good". Not that I need to point that out to Insidecatholic readers.]

'The integral development of peoples and international cooperation...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'

[That is, something unlike any supra-national entity at the moment. Certainly not the UN or the EU).

Sure, it's lousy political science/international relations but nevertheless, I think there's a great deal there to inform the kind of politics and international relations we should be aiming for.

GB

Martin

I share the John's, and other readers, concerns about the potential abuse of global political authority but I am also concerned about the very real and already present abuse of global economic power. Many corporations in todays world are significanlty more powerful than many nation states. They are able to use that power to play nations off against one another and thereby circumvent or avoid reasonable and valid provision for taxation, social policy, environmental protection and perhaps even criminal liability. Global political authority may be necessary to provide a check and balance against excessive global economic power. The question in my mind is how can global political authority be implemented with adequate and appropriate safeguards, truly democratic governance and, as the pope said, an appropriate and balanced practice of the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

The problem of excess capitalism means not that there are too many capitalists, but there are too few, controlling too much of the capital. This, as I understand it, violates the principle of subsidiarity.

It's wrong for community organizations to take from a man what can rightly do for himself; it's wrong for national government organizations to take from a community what it can rightly do for itself; it's wrong for internatnional organizations to take from nations what they can rightly do for themselves.

This also seems to me that it can (although it does not have to) thwart techological advancement and the efficiency of economies of scale which help feed and clothe and power the world.

B16's given us much to think about.

I think you're getting a bit overwrought for nothing, or on very tenuous grounds.

I don't see a call for a one-world government here. What I see is a pope expressing a very real need for our current situation. The idea that the world needs an institution to help guide and manage its complexities, is not so radical. It's really what the UN was created for (and failed at).

A “true world political authority” does not equate to a true world government. It points to the failure of the UN, or it wouldn't mention a “true” authority.

The authority to ensure compliance with its decisions doesn't equate to a global police force or military. It equates to a World Court that actually has some real-world ability to ensure justice.

Managing globalization would be a great idea. If we had a little more of that, globalization wouldn't have run amok as it has. Maybe a few of our jobs wouldn't be in India or the Philippines. Maybe Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have been able to bring down the global economy.

But notice how Benedict is tempering all of this. The social order is to conform to the moral order.

The simple fact is this: We have globalization whether we like it or not. We can leave it unmanaged, or we can attempt to manage it in some moral and ethical way. Leaving things unmanaged doesn't seem wise. (Extreme example - We can turn a global Maddof loose, or we can regulate such conduct.) The UN has, by and large, failed at its task. I see Benedict seeking a renewal of what the UN originally stood for in the climate of globalization.

Sure, people will read into it what they want. But they do that to the words of Jesus Christ himself. Why be surprised when they do it to a pope.

I hope that the Pope is NOT calling for a world government. Various press accounts have already started quoting this encyclical (favorably) for doing just that. I am delighted to read another possible interpretation of his statement, albeit an uncertain one. In any case, this is a matter of prudential judgment, not faith or morals, so we're free to argue about it.

I think the Pope respects the soverignty of all nations,
but he is envisioning things as they could be if the church
were to accepted by all nations. There would be differences
and conflict; but I think there would be less of them, with
better means of true resolution. The only institution that
could be ideal would be "the body of Christ" of which ideally
we are all to be members of. Maybe no need in that case, for
all nations to be socialist or democrat, industrial or
agricultural....and so on.

The sad thing for me has been the reception of the document. Certainly the encyclical is a broad, wide-ranging, and at the same time highly nuanced consideration of the topic. But what has happened is that, precisely because of that nuance, the document lends itself to textual poaching. The liberals take what they like and leave the rest. The conservatives do the same. The idea that the document has an integrity is never considered. It is an example of the unfortunate state of public discource in this country in particular at the present moment. But it is also, and more importantly, a sad commentary on the prospects both for the goals of the document and for Benedict's larger project of dialogue through faith and reason.

Martin,

I don't think John Z. missed the point about subsidiarity. It's just that for an international body with effective force, observing subsidiarity is at best an oxymoron, at worst, terrifying. What comes to mind is the neighborhood police enforcing in a local way, the internationally dictated norms of economic and social life. John gives a good charitable reading, and I will now go and read the whole document, but this looks like a utopian lapse on the part of BXVI.

As to Martin's comment that we need to manage globalization to prevent the excesses, managerial mistakes, and crimes of people like Madoff, Fannie Mae, etc.: we have laws, we have regulations, both national and international. Having laws and organizations and regulations does not prevent evils: indeed, larger, less answerable bureaucracies will mean wider scale corruptions. As for the current situation, it isn't so bad: Madoff is in jail, and investors and the market have stopped Fannie and Freddie (I think), even if they've been let of the criminal hook.

Speaking of subsidiarity, at my domestic level of authority, the corruption of a nephew (coincidentally named Freddy) examining the foul contents of his diaper needs to be dealt with at this moment. Is there an international agency that can help me here?

Hello Mr Zmirak

Michael Warning

It would be a mistake to read Section 67 in isolation, rather than in the context of the whole Encyclical or, indeed, in the context of all of Pope Benedict's magisterium.

Reading 67 in isolation, as some have and will, it sounds like a call for an attempt to establish the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. And, unfortunately, some will hijack this section as they have hijacked much of the Church's social doctrine for their own political ends. But such a utopian idea is counter to everything that Benedict has said and written. Indeed, in other places he has said that such attempts would and have ended only in tyrrany (e.g. Spe Salvi).

If we read 67 in the context of the whole, including the many criticisms and/or warnings of government (although, again, some will mistakenly use his critiques of an excessive market as some kind of justification for government intervention), and if we read 67 in the context of the many qualifiers contained in 67, then one can see that such a "true world political authority" is not going to ever happen in practice (assuming that that is an accurate translation of the text).

To be sure, the concept of subsidiarity, as described by Benedict in CV, is contradictory to the idea of such an all-wise, all-powerful world authority. And the requirement that it seek the "common good," again, as defined in Christian terms by Benedict, as well as the Christian concept of "charity in truth," guarantees that such a "true world political authority" could never truly exist in this multi-cultural, ever-increasingly secular world.

The only thing that can exist, and has existed, are counterfeit world political authorities -- authorities that would use and exploit the occasion with the effect of subverting human development by tyranny and infringements upon human freedom and dignity, rather than fostering authentic positive human development.

Perhaps the proper reading of Section 67 is not that it is necessarily a call for a world political authority, but that it is firstly a criticism of the United Nations and a description of all the ways that the UN has failed.

The section begins with saying that there is a need for reform of the UN and other institutions. Thus, could it be that the section is really about UN failures, rather than a call for utopianism?

Perhaps it would be helpful to go back and reread Pope Benedict's address to the UN last year.

World Government? Is it time to go back and read Dante's De Monarchia, Book I, iii:2 and v:5-10?

How 'bout Otto von Habsburg as Weltkaiser?

I don't read a one world government out of that at all, especially in the light of the rest of the document.

"Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice" (n. 57).

Ok, so if you carefully read the rest of the encyclical and the Pope's other teachings, it's possible to interpret "there is urgent need of a true world political authority" as not calling for a world government. Maybe so, although I think you have to work at it.

But haven't we learned from Vatican II that if it's possible for documents from Rome to be parsed and misinterpreted to support modernism and the evils of the age, they will be? Maybe someone should have seen that statement and realized, "Hmm, I can see Katie Couric quoting this and convincing millions of Americans that the Pope supports the UN and global governance, and just thinks some reforms are needed. Maybe this needs to be worded more carefully, so it can't be used that way."

There are several ways to view "authority." My simple litmus test is old fashioned Catholic triumphalism. Will it restore the Church to its rightful place? If so, put the Hapsburgs back in charge, or whoever...if not, I oppose it. That may cause modernists to stammer and stutter about my "medievalism"...but I don't care.

Reading the Pope's remarks at the General Audience yesterday, as well as re-reading his remarks at the United Nations, especially when one takes into consideration his undeniable criticisms and denunciations of political authorities in non-economic areas (life, family, science and technology, etc.), as well as his prior denunciations of the progressive idea of the perfectibility of man through human structures (which would include world political authorities),

It is becoming increasingly clear that what the Holy Father is not calling for the creation of a particular political structure per se, but rather, he is stating certain moral principles (i.e. Christian) that such authorities need to abide by in order to properly and justly fulfil their oligation of respecting the inherent and transcendent dignity of the human person, including such things as human rights and freedoms, which necessarily preclude authoritarian political structures, economic or otherwise.

Our own federal government was designed to be limited in scope and authority with most power being reserved to the states in the new federation. It was a model of the principle of subsidiarity. Look at it now. Any world government, no matter how much it bows to subsidiarity in its adolescent stages, will grow to seize all power for itself. Maybe not immediately but future generations will curse ours if we have failed to learn from history.

I have not read the encyclical.

So I don't know which paragraph prompted this statement...

...or what its context is.

However, there is a stark polarity between the individual and the state, and it is a deeply European error not to be mindful of it. (I reiterate: I have not read the encyclical; I don't know if the pope is committing this error.)

The difference between the state and the individual is this: The state is authorized to initiate the use of force to achieve its ends.

No individual has this authority. At the most, an individual can use force, within tight limitations, to repel an unlawful use of force against him. But if he exceeds those limitations, even in the heat of repelling a home intruder, he can be jailed.

But the state may send armed men to your door, initiating force (or the threat thereof) for various purposes.

For example, the state may send armed men to your door to remove you from your property, on behalf of some other men whose votes they value more. (C.f. Berman v. Parker, Kelo v. City of New London)

Mindful of this, there is in American law and American culture a distinct, laudable, and necessary understanding of the polarity between the state and the individual. It takes the form of circumscribing the power of the state, limiting it to "enumerated powers" in the U.S. Constitution. Outside the delegated of powers therein, the U.S. government has no just proper authority.

This is important because one of the greatest temptations for the voter is to say, "Hey! Doing X is a good thing. It would be a good thing if all my neighbors did X, too. Why not have the government force everyone to do X? Or better yet, just have the government do X for us, with tax money taken from everyone, so that even those who don't like doing X themselves end up contributing whether they like it or not?"

The crucial observation here is the distinction between the individual and the state: Granted that X might be a good thing; granted that in a perfect world everyone would voluntarily be doing X; it does not follow that in this world it is good for the government to do X. For when a person does X, it is voluntary; when a government does it, it is compulsory. There is a difference between X, and X-plus-force.

For the third time, I reiterate: I don't know what the context was in the encyclical. Likely enough the pope is thinking of some other facet of American political culture, if he is categorizing some facet as being a distinctively American "error."

But I hope the pope, raised European, hasn't made the error of seeing politics so colored by that European error which mistakes some of the non-delegatable duties of men for duties they can justly delegate to their employees (which category includes their government.) The American awareness of the individual/state divide is the relief and corrective for that error.

If he has made that error? Well, that would only reaffirm that his charism of infallibility extends to faith and morals, not to political science, and would of course do nothing to discredit the rest of the encyclical. All the same, it would be a winceworthy oversight.

R.C.: The dismal polarity which the pope speaks of, I believe, is a RESULT of the growing welfare state and the centralization of power. People start off dealing with social problems through locally based, voluntary charity. Then someone gets the bright idea of making this "more efficient" by organizing it through the government. Soon enough, many people begin to leave off contributing to charitable causes, thinking "That's what I pay my taxes for." This leads to the mindset I was speaking of.

But from what I hear from European friends, the mindset is even more widespread on that continent, where the tradition of private philanthropy has been almost totally destroyed by massive taxes and a leviathan state. There are many countries in which private colleges, even private schools, are virtually impossible to start--financially, or even legally. It's STILL illegal to home-school in Germany. So your point about the State is well-taken. As a Ron Paul supporter, I don't want to see the pope's words used in the service of a tyrannical, state-sponsored "communitarianism."

The problem with BXVI's comment about Supra-National organizations is that Subsidiarity is hardly understood and almost no where practiced.

In fact, contra R.C.'s comments, the polarity between individual and State is that absent subsidiary institutions, the modern Liberal (capital L) objective is a centralized state that exercises its power directly on the individual.

The "enumerated powers" that "circumscribe" the power of the state have been systematically decimated; quoting Articles of the constitution to the police does nothing without real and powerful institutions (such as local, regional, state authority and, historically, Church authority) to back you up.

Subsidiarity is indeed the answer, but it seems to me imprudent to introduce the principle without adequate grounding. His comments will invariably be mis-interpreted, or at best imperfectly understood.

An encyclical solely on Subsidiarity would have been more useful, frankly.

Marchmaine:

Interestingly, though you position your remark as being "contra" mine, I entirely agree with it...except the part about it being "contra!"

Although I didn't mention subsidiarity in my post, it was only because my post was focused on making a particular point. But I see that point as being part of a larger approach to polity:

(1.) When you give an organization a monopoly on the use of force, you must tightly circumscribe it in other ways;

(2.) Limiting the U.S. Federal Government to its "enumerated powers" means not only preventing it from doing things no government should do, but also preventing it from doing things that some government should do, but not the highest and most centralized government.

(3.) This is reflected in Amendment X, reserving powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states, or to the people.

(4.) There are powers which the people should delegate to the states; and others they should reserve for delegation to their metropolitan governments, or their counties, or their towns/communities. And finally, many powers should be reserved to the people as individuals and households, alone.

(5.) In accordance with this philosophy, I am rather Libertarian/Constitutionalist in how I vote for national office; I am Conservative when I vote for state office; I am moderate when I vote for town council, and I'm a nearly a socialist in my approach to neighborhood covenants and homeowners' dues!

(6.) One of the best things that could happen in the U.S. would be for the State Legislatures to again become responsible for selecting a state's representation in the United States Senate. (Part of the reason for the centralization of power in the Federal government is the loss of national-level relevance of the state governments.) But better than that, would be the educating of every American in the original intent of Amendment X.

You get the general idea. In the end, that which can be done by several levels of government should always be done by the lowest level able to do it.

The Church's teaching on following one's conscience is of course correct, but I almost wince whenever it is mentioned because everyone who needs to understand the true meaning of conscience uses it in a way that is almost opposite to its true meaning.

Then again, the same could be said of the entire social doctrine of the Church -- it has been hijacked and used by those who would give it their own meaning and spin, rather than what the Church actually says.

Any time a person that is a religious leader states that one must accept a "One World Goverment" especially if that goverment fall under the united nations is evil and decietful. The united nation would like no better than to commit mass murder to reduce the world population. Folks, all the trouble started with NAFTA and GATT and The United Nations. We as citizens need to oust the united nations then abolish NAFTA and GATT. After that, let each country produce it's products. If the countries want to export their products to another country, then let them pay a tax. let each and every country become financially independent and take care of their own.