Vatican Calls for Global Authority on Economy

[TMC]

I beg to differ. Here is a quote from an interview with Joseph Pearce who has written a biography about Alexander Solzhenitsyn - the interview was published on September 21, 2011:

onecatholicnews.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/solzhenitsyns-prophetic-voice/

In the Catholic faith, the individual is of utmost importance, and that can only be true in small government. The bigger the government gets, the less importance of the individual. In both Communism and Socialism, it is the State that is of the utmost importance, and the role of the individual is to serve the state. That goes directly against Catholic belief, which is that the government is there for the individual. Subsidiarity is not a doctrine of the church, but it is most definitely the teaching of the Church.

I disagree with this characterization of the supremacy of the individual in Catholic social teaching; instead I will stand by Pope Benedict’s view of the matter.

 

[A_Catholic]

Given your passion, you seem rather hypercritical of others’ opinions. As if to say, “why can’t you understand and adopt my interpretation as a fact!”

 

[gilliam]

http://ncronline.org/files/sudan.jpg?1319571783

A woman carries bananas to market in Nyei, South Sudan, in this 2009 file photo. (CNS photo/Paul Jeffrey)

Commentary

Whenever the Vatican appears to lurch in a given direction, there’s a tendency in Catholic circles to become obsessed with how much ecclesiastical authority the gesture or text in question carries. For the most part, it’s a legitimate question; when Benedict XVI uses kneelers during Communion, for instance, people have good reasons for wondering if it’s a harbinger of a policy move or simply a matter of personal taste.

Sometimes, however, fussing about the authority behind something misses the bigger picture. Reaction to Monday’s note from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, titled “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Political Authority,” offers a classic case in point. (Read the document.)

To recap, the note expressed a clear rejection of “neo-liberal” economic policies (in American argot, “neo-conservative”) and an equally clear endorsement of a “true world political authority” to regulate a globalized economy, one not dominated by major powers such as the United States. As a preliminary step, the document called for the creation of an institution, or several institutions, that would play the role of a “central world bank.” It also offered a plug for the “Tobin Tax” on financial transactions, public recapitalization of banks and greater regulation of “shadow markets.”

ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-note-economy-first-ripple-southern-wave

From the article:

*Focusing on how much papal muscle the note can flex, however, risks ignoring what is at least an equally revealing question: Whatever you make of it, does the note seem to reflect important currents in Catholic social and political thought anywhere in the world? *

The answer is yes, and it happens to be where two-thirds of the Catholics on the planet today live: the southern hemisphere, also known as the developing world.
It’s fitting that the Vatican official responsible for the document is an African, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, because it articulates key elements of what almost might be called a “southern consensus.” One way of sizing up the note’s significance, therefore, is as an indication that the demographic transition long under way in Catholicism, with the center of gravity shifting from north to south, is being felt in Rome.

*There are almost 750 million Catholics scattered across Africa, Asia and Latin America, and generalizations about such a vast pool of people are always hazardous. Nonetheless, on matters of sexual morality and the “culture wars,” Catholics in the south generally strike Europeans and Americans as remarkably conservative – opposed to gay marriage, anti-abortion, devoted to the traditional family. When the conversation shifts to economic policy and geopolitics, however, Catholic opinion in the developing world often comes off in the West as strikingly progressive. *

 

[A_Catholic]

I disagree with this characterization of the supremacy of the individual in Catholic social teaching; instead I will stand by Pope Benedict’s view of the matter.

With all due respect, what you believe or think, or what I believe or think doesn’t matter. It is what the Church teaches, and the Church teaches subsidiarity. And Pope Benedict XVI also teaches this:

From CARITAS IN VERITAE:

A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. 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.

This is not what I have found in this document. If I have missed it, I would love for you to point it out. But I have read through the document, and I find that it is pushing global authority and except for using the word subsidarity, it does not emphasize it in any way. Nothing that Pope Benedict XVI has ever said or written has in any way promoted the idea of a World Bank or world government.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Then how do you explain this statement extracted from the document.

“In a world on its way to rapid globalization, the reference to** a world Authority becomes the only** horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.”

Notice this document says a World (i.e. Global) Authority is the ONLY horizon. Only means, no other ideas accepted. It also means no other choices. It is the ONLY solution.

I explain it by saying that the people writing see the implementation of global financial groups inevitable and the belief that they should be regulated as undeniable. Honestly I don’t see how anyone can believe that such things aren’t going to emerge in some form. The world’s various economies are becoming more and more intertwined. The advent of new communication technologies has caused our interdependence to increase exponentially. Major corporations are already spreading themselves out as much as possible, and it is well known they use their spread to avoid laws and regulations that they don’t like. This isn’t some crazy out of left field idea. The EU has already shown that a large economic authority is a likely reaction for nations that are closely tied by their individual economies.

Most Americans would agree that rules for trade between individual states is a reasonable thing to regulate, and the economic ties of the US, China, Japan, and the EU are probably closer than that of the original 13 colonies.

 

[TMC]

With all due respect, what you believe or think, or what I believe or think doesn’t matter. It is what the Church teaches, and the Church teaches subsidiarity. And Pope Benedict XVI also teaches this:

From CARITAS IN VERITAE:

This is not what I have found in this document. If I have missed it, I would love for you to point it out. But I have read through the document, and I find that it is pushing global authority and except for using the word subsidarity, it does not emphasize it in any way. Nothing that Pope Benedict XVI has ever said or written has in any way promoted the idea of a World Bank or world government.

Subsidiarity is not the same thing as saying “in the Catholic faith, the individual is of utmost importance.” The Church has always rejected the Randian idea that society is best off when each individual works to maximize his own utility.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Whenever the Vatican appears to lurch in a given direction, there’s a tendency in Catholic circles to become obsessed with how much ecclesiastical authority the gesture or text in question carries. For the most part, it’s a legitimate question; when Benedict XVI uses kneelers during Communion, for instance, people have good reasons for wondering if it’s a harbinger of a policy move or simply a matter of personal taste.

Sometimes, however, fussing about the authority behind something misses the bigger picture.

*There are almost 750 million Catholics scattered across Africa, Asia and Latin America, and generalizations about such a vast pool of people are always hazardous. Nonetheless, on matters of sexual morality and the “culture wars,” Catholics in the south generally strike Europeans and Americans as remarkably conservative – opposed to gay marriage, anti-abortion, devoted to the traditional family. When the conversation shifts to economic policy and geopolitics, however, Catholic opinion in the developing world often comes off in the West as strikingly progressive. *

Hmmm. So never mind papal authority, we should read this document as an expression of southern populism?

I think I would take that claim more seriously if this document had been a product of a conference of southern bishops.

 

[A_Catholic]

Subsidiarity is not the same thing as saying “in the Catholic faith, the individual is of utmost importance.” The Church has always rejected the Randian idea that society is best off when each individual works to maximize his own utility.

I don’t know what “each individual works to maximize his own utility” means. Are you saying that the Church views the State as more important than the individual? I wrote that the individual is more important than the State, contrary to Communism and Socialism, which teaches the supreme importance of the State.

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious.

GAUDIUM ET SPES, #26

 

[stewstew03]

stewstew03;8501053:

…an absolute disaster. Cental banks are the most evil of institutions.

Absolute disaster seems a bit strong. I’m not trying to be arrogant or coy, but are you familiar with certain aspects of the global economy - for example, the World Bank, the IMF, the FSB, G20, etc.? These are not new institutions, and these are not “evil” institutions. Only people can be evil. Banks cannot be evil.

Now you want to have a World

central bank, holding money for the entire world?
This already occurs to some extent - witness the global financial crisis. You can try to withdraw from the global economy, but I imagine it would be very difficult.

And you don’t believe that greedy, powerful men won’t be a part of it and completely corrupt everything?

Yes, this already occurs, which prompted the white paper by Cardinal Toso. The paper recognizes two facts that became evident as a result of the financial crisis: (1) the global economy has tied all of our economies together so that failure by one economy impacts another; and (2) people with money and power (see, Lehman Brothers, UBS, etc.) do not act in the interest of the common good and so there should be in place some international governance to address this problem.

This is a nightmare worse than anything I can imagine.

Wow! I say this with all sincerity (and charity) - please pray about where you have placed your faith. The sky is not falling. And if it were, our scriptures have plenty to say about fear, faith, and perseverance. We can continue this dialogue offline if you prefer, just shoot me a message through my profile.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Pope Benedict: Neither Power Hungry Nor Naive:

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=22042

Couple of interesting points from this blog:

hancaquam.blogspot.com/2011/10/vatican-wants-one-world-government.html

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.

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.

Thoughts on the document by Fr. Michael Zimmerman:

frmitchel.blogspot.com/2011/10/take-on-recent-statement-by-vatican.html

* the Church continues to emphasize that the economy will remain unstable as long as technological growth (the growth of how to do things, the growth of information) outpaces ethical growth - the knowledge of what is good for man.  There is a difference between what man can and ought to do, and when this is violated, instability results.
* the principles of subsidiarity (the larger serving the smaller) and solidarity (looking out for an interest larger than our own) are continually violated in the world economy.  Man is too often seen as a means to an economic end, and decisions are taken away from the smaller man by the larger economy, and man too often looks after his own interest and ignores the common good.  These violations can be made by individuals, national economies, and international alliances.
* if the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity can be agreed upon and respected, it would be possible to build an international body that looks after the world economy can be erected, and such a body is needed because economic possibilities in the international economy are growing much more quickly than actual wealth.  Such a body will only be possible however if it is able to convince member nationas that the body itself will live by the principle of subsidiarity, the larger serving the smaller
* true wealth in the end is a spiritual good, not a material good.  the economy is at the service of the spiritual good of man, not vice versa

After reading a few economic experts who disagree with the statement by the Holy See, here are some more thoughts

* because this document is not about faith and morals, and is issued by a Pontifical Council not the Holy Father, it is not morally binding, but is meant to be a discussion peace before the upcoming G20 summit
* economists have faulted national banks and their monetary policies for much of the current crisis, and some have little hope that an international central bank would know what to do to regulate the international economy; furthermore, few developed nations have any cash whatsoever to contribute to such a bank
* many economists say the economic problems come from those with wealth being able to take extraordinary risks, unreasonable ones, without in the end having to suffer the consequences of bad decisions; bad economic decisions fall disproportionately on the poor, and that is one of the reasons the Vatican is issuing this statement

If this is what it is really about, then .

 

[stewstew03]

In the Catholic faith, the individual is of utmost importance

Do you mean that charity and love toward individuals is of the utmost importance? Certainly the interests of the individual is not ALWAYS more important than, say, the “common good.” Abortion is an example.

 

[A_Catholic]

Stewstew wrote:

Absolute disaster seems a bit strong. I’m not trying to be arrogant or coy, but are you familiar with certain aspects of the global economy - for example, the World Bank, the IMF, the FSB, G20, etc.? These are not new institutions, and these are not “evil” institutions. Only people can be evil. Banks cannot be evil.

Actually, I do consider all of these orgaizations to be evil, and banks can most definitely be evil. The largest banks are run by unbelievably wealthy men who thirst for power and control. Have you ever heard of the Rothschilds? Do you know what happened during the Napoleonic wars and how they made their money to become the most powerful, wealthy family in history? If you haven’t, here is the story on Wikipedia. To me, that is the definition of evil.

This already occurs to some extent - witness the global financial crisis. You can try to withdraw from the global economy, but I imagine it would be very difficult.

And why do you think there are financial crises everywhere we look? Is the fact that everything seems to be falling apart all at once just a coincidence?

Yes, this already occurs, which prompted the white paper by Cardinal Toso. The paper recognizes two facts that became evident as a result of the financial crisis: (1) the global economy has tied all of our economies together so that failure by one economy impacts another; and (2) people with money and power (see, Lehman Brothers, UBS, etc.) do not act in the interest of the common good and so there should be in place some international governance to address this problem.

And you believe that if we can just get everyone to agree, that human nature will disappear and we will have a utopian world?

Wow! I say this with all sincerity (and charity) - please pray about where you have placed your faith. The sky is not falling. And if it were, our scriptures have plenty to say about fear, faith, and perseverance. We can continue this dialogue offline if you prefer, just shoot me a message through my profile.

Actually, I think the sky is falling, at least it seems to everywhere we look. We are living in very evil times. Many of the Marian apparitions have warned of the times we seem to entering into. Here is just one from the approved apparition of Our Lady of Akita:

The third message on October 13, 1973, the actual anniversary of the final visions and miracle of Fatima is as follows: "As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day, recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will rage especially against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will no longer be pardon for them.”

This is what I fear may very soon come to pass. This is why I am concerned that this document points only to material resolution of the world’s problems. The solutions are not to be found in any material answers. Our problems are spiritual, and the answers are spiritual. And that is what I would expect from a Catholic document.

I have complete faith the Our Lady will win in the end. But at the cost of how many millions of souls? That is what bothers me.

 

[TMC]

I don’t know what “each individual works to maximize his own utility” means. Are you saying that the Church views the State as more important than the individual? I wrote that the individual is more important than the State, contrary to Communism and Socialism, which teaches the supreme importance of the State.

GAUDIUM ET SPES, #26

No, the Church views the State as the servant of the people. The Church is advocating for states to fulfill that role, instead of allowing economic liberalism to prevail at the expense of the common good. That is the Church’s longstanding teaching, as reflected in the document.

 

[A_Catholic]

Do you mean that charity and love toward individuals is of the utmost importance? Certainly the interests of the individual is not ALWAYS more important than, say, the “common good.” Abortion is an example.

I’m not talking about the self interest of each person. That is not what the church means. The Church is talking of the dignity of each human being, and the fact that the interests of the “State” never take precedence over the interests of the individual. And abortion is actually a prime example of that. Many world leaders are pushing for “population control” because they feel there are too many people in the world and not enough resources (which is a lie, but we won’t go into that now). So in in the interests of the State, they are pushing abortion and birth control. Witness the 35,000 abortions every day in China. That is done in the interests of the “State.” That is what I am talking about.

If it will serve the State for you to die, you must die. Whatever serves the State the most is what you must do. Far too often, what is defined as the “common good” destroys the individual.

 

[stewstew03]

Well-said Patrick Sebast.

As I’ve explained in other posts (though not as succinctly as you have), there are already “international authorities” that supervise banks and dictate policy. The global economy has outpaced these international bodies (the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.) and the question before the G20 is, “what’s the best way to regulate financial institutions so that we do not witness another financial crisis like we’re currently experiencing?”

International economic governance by a central authority (or central authorities) is yesterday’s news; the G20 must now address how far that governance extends to financial institutions operating in a global market.

 

[A_Catholic]

No, the Church views the State as the servant of the people. The Church is advocating for states to fulfill that role, instead of allowing economic liberalism to prevail at the expense of the common good. That is the Church’s longstanding teaching, as reflected in the document.

That may be what they are advocating, but with human nature, it is impossible to do this with a central governing body. It always leads to corruption and oppression. Communism actually sounds pretty good on paper. Doesn’t seem to work out too well in reality. And that is why the Church has always taught subsidiarity. The closer you get to the individual, the better.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have said this before elsewhere, but I’ll say it again here.

First of all, economic recommendations coming from something called the “Justice and Peace” office has to be questioned just a bit. Sure, theoretically, an organization capable of promoting “justice and peace” run by erudite saints, would be a fine thing. But one run by Soros? Or Sarkozy? Or Ayatollah Kameni? Or the Saudi sheiks? This cardinal would do well to think this out again.

But regardless, we have to realize that the Vatican does not always think in terms of the U.S., as surprising as that might be to us. The U.S. is a continental economy. But for incompetent and radical leadership, it can pull itself out, and sometime will when the hard left no longer has the reins of power. But Europe?

Right now, Greece is a mess and Italy is not far behind in its dive into insolvency. Lots of European banks hold their debt instruments and are faced with insolvency themselves, and not just southern European banks, either. We all think the EU is some kind of superpower, but it isn’t. Of itself, it does not have nearly the resources to pull off a TARP program, not even TARP 1b that really did aid in the orderly liquidation of insolvent banks here. The EU does not have a Bernanke who could step in, as Bernanke did (say what you want about him) and guarantee fed funds so the whole banking system wouldn’t freeze up. Nor does the EU as an entity have the power to start the Euro printing presses the way Bernanke did here.

The EU is not, in itself, a powerful or even competent entity. It is dependent on its strongest states, which do not have to do things they don’t want to do. So Northern European states are now looking at the huge amount of capital that is going to be needed to recapitalize European banks and governments that are, in truth, insolvent. And they’re not terribly keen on doing it.

Now, this Cardinal Turkson, or however his name is spelled, is in Europe; in Italy, in fact. If he knows anything, he knows the IMF is largely funded by the U.S. He knows the U.S. might become even more reluctant than Germany and Norway to pull the European chestnuts out of the fire. And what about “Europe’s south”; in Africa? A lot of its economy
derives from its economic relations with Europe. But it’s “south” is a mess in a way our own really isn’t. Closer integration with the U.S. economy has caused even Mexico to be, what is it, the 19th most prosperous country in the world, with a lower unemployment rate than our own? Canada is doing very well selling us the oil we won’t drill for ourselves. All things considered, North America isn’t doing too badly. Even South America is largely holding its own and has some prospect of participating in an American recovery whenever it comes. But Africa?

And, of course, Europe’s “south” is politically wild, which also frustrates efforts at cure, in a way that our own (even with Venezuela and Nicaragua) is not. If southern Europe melts down because northern Europe won’t help (at its expense) what happens to those who depend on the markets of Europe, particularly southern Europe? And what if the northern European countries can’t actually manage it anyway? Then what?

In my opinion, his is an utterance that has a desperate sort of sound to it which we, even in the midst of our recession, don’t quite think justified. But from a southern European perspective, particularly one that can see craziness of all sorts likely to come of the european threatened meltdown, I can see how he came to it.

And frankly, given that northern Europe seems to be balking at salvaging even southern Europe, let alone anywhere else, one has to wonder whether they are perhaps more the target of this than we are.

But I’m sure we are in his circle of thought. Unfortunately, we are presently very hampered by a rapacious leftism in our own country from doing a whole lot about the problems he is seeing. The EU’s emergency bank relief fund has $600 billion in it, all told. We spent $800 billion bolstering the teachers’ and public employees’ unions and Obama is wanting to do it again to the tune of $400 billion. Maybe the good Cardinal doesn’t wonder why we are spending that kind of money on what really amounts to internal political “pay to play” when Europe and its economic dependencies are threatening to melt down. But I imagine he does, and how could anybody fail to at least dream of a way to yell “stop!”

And I am far, far, far from being a “one worlder”, and I don’t think a new international authority is the answer to anything. I think the recovery of the U.S. is the answer, and I think it could happen if we weren’t so busy taking money out of one American pocket and putting it into another without regard to whether it does anything at all for the economy even of the U.S., let alone of the world. But frankly, the future isn’t looking too good right now in that regard.

 

[stewstew03]

Far too often, what is defined as the “common good” destroys the individual

I agree with you. But it’s important to distinguish between socialism, which is what you described, and the Church’s teaching regarding the common good. When the Church speaks of common good they don’t mean wealth redistribution; common good refers to principles of social and economic justice (again, not to be confused with socialism). At the same time, one cannot discuss common good without discussing individual sacrifice so it’s rather incomplete to say that “in the Catholic faith the individual is of utmost importance.” The Church values private property and the dignity of individuals, but only in the broader context of love and charity. Private property and human dignity cannot be gained at the expense of social and economic justice.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

If we get the right (pun intended) new president, we will be in good shape within 2 years. Reagan did that after the worst president in my lifetime (you can guess who I consider as #2, although he is giving Jimmy a run for his money) Europe, too, will recover fairly quickly after we do, as we start having more money to spend on their products.

The trick is holding on until Jan 20, 2012. Please God help us.

 

[stmykearchangel]

Amen Ridgerunner…Very thorough and thoughtful analysis:thumbsup: I for one see trouble is on its way to the United States if Europe collapses.