Encyclical wants stronger U.N.?!? Pray it doesn't happen!

  • Thread starter Thread starter nordskoven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nordskoven

Guest
As pro-life attorney (sued Dr. Jack Kevorkian) and New Age researcher Constance Cumbey said a while back about the proposed U.N. World Food Authority, even if it were run by St. Francis Assisi, one of two things would happen: 1. Even a saint would be corrupted with that kind of power and he would become Frank Assisi, food dictator; or
2. All that power concentrated in and administered by a saintly person would quickly lead to a coup and that saint would be displaced by a food dictator.

Point is, the recent encyclical calling for a more effective United Nations administration ignores the anti-life philosophy rampant for long ages in the United Nations. This is the group that watches genocide like grisly spectators. There is, sadly, a force in the world that supports the satanic goals of the Father of Lies and Murder, seeking a “cleansing” of the earth by major reductions in the world’s population by hook or by crook. Prince Charles of England even wished that his dead body would generate deadly microbes that would decimate the world’s population. He’s a buddy of the now-deceased Armand Hammer, New Ager and financier to Communist Russia, the guy that brought Lyme Disease to the USA in diseased furs from Russia.

May Catholics act like it, resorting to the spiritual cure for our spiritual-based evils centering on Russia–provider of nuclear materials to Iran, most recently. May the Bishops, led by Peter, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and invite her to convert that great nation to the Way, Truth and Life, given at Fatima as the “only” way of bringing her promised period of peace. Immaculate Heart of Mary, HELP! Thanks. AMEN
 
Richard Wurmbrand, friend of Bishop Sheen and former political prisoner under the Russians, testified before Congress as to his torture in a Communist prison. They didn’t listen until his second appearance, when he took off his shirt and showed the deep scars. Wurmbrand went on to found the Voice of the Martyrs, still advocating for Christians persecuted throughout the world. In the course of his studies of the religion of the Marxist leaders, he found they were openly Satanists as shown by quotes in his book, MARX AND SATAN, available through the Voice of the Martyrs website. These weren’t economists, they were Satanists.

Why are we to this day naively proposing political solutions to a religious problem? The Bishops under Peter must as the “only” way to a period of peace consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. “Only” the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart can rededicate and redirect that once-holy nation still consecrated to Satan. Russia will only continue to pervert the United Nations and all she touches with her rampant organized crime and obsessive war-mongering.

Russia has, as Our Lady of the Rosary said at Fatima, spread her errors, including instigating World War II by signing a non-aggression pact with bellicose Germany and Japan, hoping to rake in the spoils after the world was left in ruins. And don’t forget that NAZI genocide had it’s philosophical basis in America as propagated by Margaret Sanger and her ilk. Here’s a great link showing the family tree of genocide. lermanet.com/rainbow-swaztika/naF.htm Madame Blavatsky was the Russian point man who led the world away from Christ and into anybody-but-Jesus occultism indulged in by the genocidal “free-love” milieu in which Sanger circulated. May we use our spiritual weapons–prayer, fasting, almsgiving–in this spiritual war, and we pray for the soon-coming consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart as requested at Fatima.
 
I haven’t read the new encyclical completely yet, so I can’t speak directly to it whatever it is saying. It was a bit of a harder read than some of Pope Benedict XVI’s earlier works, more dense, general and vague, like some of Pope John Paul IInd’s work.

This style leaves a lot open to interpretation…

That said, I am concerned at the idea of a stronger U.N.

On that topic generally – The virtue or weakness of a stronger U.N. depends on its overall moral character. And that character, too often, I find lacking. One does not, one supposes want it to become utterly useless like the League of Nations, but the concern over the idea of one world government is a real one. The desire for international police forces and such in the hands of the U.N. – no oversight, no accountability.

One world government would be a very terrible thing. Something so divorced and removed from the local people would inevitably be in evil hands – it is the world after all, that is the traditional enemy. I find governments which give less power to those in authority to be far preferable, the more federal, the more local.

These give people of discernment a place to go when leaders go bad – there is always at least, a better state, a better country. But with one world government… there is nowhere to run in the whole world.

I fear it would be in the hands of wealthy and evil men.

Ave Maria. .
 
Is the Encyclical being referred to the one entitled,**ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE **… ?
If so, it would eliminate a lot of guess work if this could be established from the outset… just so everyone knows what they’re discussing. If this is the particular encyclical being referred to, it can be read at this link

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

I’m going to assume this is the encyclical in question. There are no lack of journalists who have been quoting selected passages ( a sentence…a half-sentence) of this encyclical out of context, in order to promote their own agenda. And the image or notion being conveyed by taking snippets of truth out of context and conveniently pasting them to suit one’s desired result can often be prevaricative or equivocal.

Case in point: I received a link from a friend to an article written July 7, 2009 concerning CARITAS IN VERITATE. The title of the article was Pope calls for a “global authority” on economy. Has anyone ever heard Pope Benedict XVI say, "We need a one-world bank ? If anyone has the time, perhaps they could read the encyclical and give their impression of what is being said here. We need to read the whole encyclical.

Have a more objective peek. Here are several paragraphs from CARITAS IN VERITATE:

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. …[12].

…The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.”[29]

…The Church has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society. In and of itself, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak. Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations. Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.

…56. The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian religion[135]. Denying the right to profess one’s religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk being ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent foundation or because personal freedom is not acknowledged. Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.
 
I must say that I am troubled by the language calling for “… the concept of the family of nations…” to “acquire real teeth.” and that “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.” (Section 67)

The only other case I can think of where the Church seems to be endorsing world government is in Gaudium et Spes (82) “It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement. This, of course, requires the establishment of a universally acknowledged public authority…”

I have to say, GS sounds quite like a pipe dream on this point, especially given the words of Chist Himself who said that “there will always be wars and rumor of wars”

I suppose my question is, what is the level of this teaching? It seems hard for me to believe that the call for world government is an unreformable teaching.
 
Paul_J said:
I must say that I am troubled by the language calling for “… the concept of the family of nations…” to “acquire real teeth.” and that “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.” (Section 67)

The only other case I can think of where the Church seems to be endorsing world government is in Gaudium et Spes (82) “It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement. This, of course, requires the establishment of a universally acknowledged public authority…”

I have to say, GS sounds quite like a pipe dream on this point, especially given the words of Chist Himself who said that “there will always be wars and rumor of wars”

I suppose my question is, what is the level of this teaching? It seems hard for me to believe that the call for world government is an unreformable teaching.
Click to expand...
According to a lot of people here on CA the documents of V2 are infallible therefore making GS’s call (and expounded upon in CV) for a universal gov’t infallible dogma. 🤷
 
RosaryCrusader said:
According to a lot of people here on CA the documents of V2 are infallible therefore making GS’s call (and expounded upon in CV) for a universal gov’t infallible dogma. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes that’s what some people say. Other people say it’s entirely a pastoral council and not meant to define anything at all new to Catholic dogma, only to be useful for guidance and perspective.

Which is it I wonder hmm?

Just how fallible is it or infallible is it eh? To the extent that it is fallible… it’s fallible. It can fail. That’s what fallible means. 🙂
 
You know, the local government is better argument is double-edged. I tend to think local government should be given a lot more respect than it often is, but it has it’s downside too. If you follow it to it’s logical conclusion, it can mean tribalism and clannishness, and the family over all else.

The idea of the state is that as human beings, we have interests as a group that sometimes over-ride our interests as individuals - that justice and truth are applicable to all members of the state. (Of course some states have other basic philosophies, but those are fairly general ones in the West.)

In many ways, it’s a very Catholic idea, but of course it applies, really, to all people, not just members of a particular nation.

I wouldn’t advocate, really, for what most people mean when they talk about World Government. There are practical problems, and we know large scale government still requires local government. But the vision of justice and truth for all is a good one. And more than that, there are issus and problems that need to be addressed on a world level.

What also bothers me is that much of the lack of effectiveness and sometimes even evil that I see in the UN does not come, at all, from attempts at world domination. It comes from selfishness of people unable to give up benefits or power for themselves or their own nation, even for the good of all. They see the UN as a tool for nations to use rather than as a tool of peace, order, and good government.

So I am suspicious when people suggest we just revert to nation states making decisions, as a solution to this - it’s not a solution to fix the problem, it’s saying there is no way around human selfishness.
 
According to a lot of people here on CA the documents of V2 are infallible therefore making GS’s call (and expounded upon in CV) for a universal gov’t infallible dogma.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that every bit of* any* council or other magisterial document is infallible. Every text has introductory and other non-essential type verbiage. The question is, what infallible* teachings* does a council bring forth? Infallible teachings are set aside with strong, clear, unequivocal language such as “Anyone who denies this makes a shipwreck of his faith”.
 
There is an abundance of “one world government” theories which abound (…some, quite plausible).

We can’t deny certain trends either - the European Union; our own Free Trade Agreement in North America; the dire economic situation worldwide ; the secular world’s apparent growing acceptance of abortion ; moral relativism ; sin in secular society being proposed as something which is good. :sad_yes:🤷

I thought the OP had a fine choice of words for the title - **“Pray **it doesn’t happen.”

My own personal take on what Pope Benedict XVI is saying, is that in practically all circumstances and under any given conditions , the spiritual and corporal well-being of each and all of our brothers and sisters must remain a priority … as long as we live and breathe on this earth with them.

Let’s say, for the sake of arguement, that an evil one world regime did materialize, it would be more the consequence, or collective consequences of, as Bluegoat says ," … selfishness of people unable to give up benefits or power for themselves or their own nation, even for the good of all."

While the concept of obedience and assent is still fresh in our minds, it would be beneficial to point out that any evil (of the aforementioned nature) which may come about won’t happen because of what the pope says. He is simply showing us how to see the potential for and work towards the good of all in any given situations. He’s further reminding us not to divorce morals from business .

**When’s the last time any of the world’s political leaders ever listened to the advice of the pope anyway ? **

The track record suggests that the tendency is for these leaders to head in the direction contrary to course requested by the Holy Father instead.

🙂
 
I’m not surprised that B16 has supported one world government and a New World Order. He is still friends with Hans Kung and appointed him the representative of the Vatican on ecumenical affairs. Why not appoint someone from SSPX? They at least are not heretics like Kung. It makes as much sense.

People forget Ratzinger never even wore a habit to the Vat II sessions. He was a liberal for many years and has never renounced his former liberal views.

After JPII betrayed conservative Catholics by approving altar girls, why hasn’t Ratzinger overturned this act if he is sooo traditional? I don’t trust him.
 
I will pray always for our Holy Father to guide the Church in the world today. I do not think the OP actualy read the document. If he had, how could he miss the undeniably strong anti-abortion sentences in the document? Also, contrary to treba, the document does not support one world government or a “New World Order”, what ever that is supposed to mean. I never ceased to be surprised at all those who decry media biased are the first to swallow hook, line and sinker any news article that they want to believe.

Instead of reading opinions of the encyclical, read the encyclical.
 
how fast are we to judge what we dont understand.
this calls to remind ourselves of the time when Jesus said: “you must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood.” remember how many left Him because they found this to be a hard saying and they didnt want anything with it. but Jesus went on and reafirmed His saying. the only left were the one who trusted and believed Him although did not understand either. and Jesus said: do you also wish to leave too? and they answered: to whom should we go? “you have the Words of eternal Truth.”

St Peter came to the aid of St Paul, apparently people were not happy with what Paul was saying. but St Peter said: " Paul says things hard to understand, but listen to Him, for he is a messenger of God."

forgive me for not using the exactly wording.

what i am saying is that we should be alert to the enemies of the Church that will take this letter and use to their advantage causing Catholics to turn against each other and the holy father. let’s becarefull on what side do we take. the enemies or the holy father.

just like it happened in VII, all the misenterpretation led to disastrous loss of Catholic faith, so this document if we not carefull will bring turmoil in the Church. we dont want this to happen. do we? specially now and days that the Church is trying to recover. it seems very appropriate that this comes right at this time. the holy father needs our support, the world is coming against him but i hope that all Catholics remain faithfull and give Him a vote of confidence that we are with him in all things. there is much wisdom in this letter. probably to much for our modern minds to swallow.

just my two cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top