Vatican Calls for Global Authority on Economy

  • Thread starter Thread starter searching04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow…just wow. Did the Occupy Wallstreet Marxists draft this? unbelievable.
I think we should all pray about this and consider who this would be good for and why the Vatican would support such a move. I think that most people are currently looking at it through a extremist lens that is tinted with our current understanding of what freedom is. There is a certain bias against losing the control we think we have and a fear that what the Vatican is proposing is going to somehow become something filled with power hungry politicians who now have control of the global economy.

One thing we must consider is that we already have the global economy that everyone seems to be afraid of, controlled by the upper end (less than 1%) of the wealthy. We call the controlling body G8 (or pick a number). The current control resides with the extremely wealthy and their only interest is to make themselves more wealthy. The Vatican is proposing taking control away from them for the benefit of those unable to get into these meetings. The Vatican is proposing putting teeth, or power, behind the UN regulations of this global economy we already have. The Vatican is proposing that governments step up and start actually helping those in need through a combined effort.

Make not mistake, what people on this thread are afraid of is already a reality. The Vatican just wants the control to be generalized so that those who are not uber-rich can have a voice.

God Bless.
 
It’s time for republican catholics to take the plank out of their eye before criticizing democrat catholics on life issues. Guess what, your both wrong.
Sorry, but the economy and how it is handled, even if it be through a global economic authority, does not trump the life issue. Making money is of no value if you cannot live.

The reality is that how the economy is handled is up for debate. The pro-life/choice issue is not and cannot be supported, even indirectly, without committing a sin. These two topics are not even on the same playing field.

God Bless.
 
sorry, but the economy and how it is handled, even if it be through a global economic authority, does not trump the life issue. Making money is of no value if you cannot live.

The reality is that how the economy is handled is up for debate. The pro-life/choice issue is not and cannot be supported, even indirectly, without committing a sin. These two topics are not even on the same playing field.

God bless.
agree
 
2 potential reasons:
  1. Higher taxes to pay for a global insurance policy would provide the “necessary” demotivation for the shallow materialism that is so prevalent in our media. “Hope” of more materialism would force people to focus on love (love of others) rather than more money to buy hotness and entertainment (love of self).
  2. A global financial entity would eventually become a global ruling govt which could limit the world population via 2 kids per womb rule, so they can defer to an oppressive regime for the need for birth control.
 
I think we should all pray about this and consider who this would be good for and why the Vatican would support such a move. I think that most people are currently looking at it through a extremist lens that is tinted with our current understanding of what freedom is. There is a certain bias against losing the control we think we have and a fear that what the Vatican is proposing is going to somehow become something filled with power hungry politicians who now have control of the global economy.

Make not mistake, what people on this thread are afraid of is already a reality. The Vatican just wants the control to be generalized so that those who are not uber-rich can have a voice.

God Bless.
I think, as was very well pointed out in a prior post, the “Vatican” and the Pope are two different entities. When I read this headline, I instantly knew it had nothing to do with this Pope. But there are nefarious people inside the Vatican - we all know that is true. And we all know that the people who do want to control the world know they must first control the Vatican.

Does anyone for a moment believe that if a central world bank is set up, as called for by the “Vatican”, that it will include God fearing Christians who only want the good for all mankind? Or will it be the same people in charge of the UN and other “world” bodies who advocate abortion, homosexuality, the oppression and suppression of the Church? Does anyone really doubt in their mind that a central world bank would be the worst evil ever perpetrated on this world? The ones who control the money, control everything. This is most emphatically not the fulfillment of the Christ’s Gospel.
 
The reality is that how the economy is handled is up for debate. The pro-life/choice issue is not and cannot be supported, even indirectly, without committing a sin. These two topics are not even on the same playing field.
Thanks for proving my point. Republican/democrat first, catholic second. The pope has written about a global authority explicitly in his encyclical
  1. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, **for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth… for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. **
If you have a problem with this, maybe you should go to a tea-party church where they teach the health and wealth gospel.
 
I think, as was very well pointed out in a prior post, the “Vatican” and the Pope are two different entities.
I think you should read Caritas in Veritate paragraph 67. What is called for by the Vatican and the Pope is clear in the document (previously linked).

God Bless.
 
I think you should read Caritas in Veritate paragraph 67. What is called for by the Vatican and the Pope is clear in the document (previously linked).

God Bless.
And since this is not on faith and morals, it is not something we are assured is correct, politics and financial answers are not what Jesus was to protect from error.
 
2 potential reasons:
  1. Higher taxes to pay for a global insurance policy would provide the “necessary” demotivation for the shallow materialism that is so prevalent in our media. “Hope” of more materialism would force people to focus on love (love of others) rather than more money to buy hotness and entertainment (love of self).
  2. A global financial entity would eventually become a global ruling govt which could limit the world population via 2 kids per womb rule, so they can defer to an oppressive regime for the need for birth control.
Your point number 2 seems to violate what it says in the document:

‘‘It is a matter of an Authority with a global reach that cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence, but should be the outcome of a free and shared agreement and a reflection of the permanent and historic needs of the world common good.’’

It also says

It also says ''principle of subsidiarity should regulate relations between the State and local communities and between public and private institutions, not excluding the monetary and financial institutions"

Full document: news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif
 
Thanks for proving my point.
If by “proving your point” you mean remaining faithful to Church teaching, I am okay with that. I will be happy to prove your point, any day. I am unclear why this would be a problem though.
The pope written about a global authority explicitly in his encyclical If you have a problem with this, maybe you should go to a tea-party church where they teach the health and wealth gospel.
I support what the Pope wrote in the encyclical and have been trying to defend it against those who may not fully understand what is being said in the OP article and in the encyclical.

I could just say, “the Church teaches this is a viable solution so to be against it is questionable,” but I have chosen to try an explain the rationale. Maybe you just haven’t been reading my posts. I am certainly not about health and wealth gospels nor am I for redistribution of wealth, but then again, both of these topics are not applicable to the thread IMHO.

God Bless.
 
And since this is not on faith and morals, it is not something we are assured is correct, politics and financial answers are not what Jesus was to protect from error.
That is absolutely correct. This is not faith and morals, and all the more reason why we need to question this. The Church advocating any kind of global governing body just goes against everything she has ever taught. Our Lord said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” It makes no sense that the Church founded by Jesus Christ, would advocate something that would have absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel, and would without a doubt prove extremely harmful to it.

There is something completely diabolical about this.
 
People will ever confuse the ideals men should pursue voluntarily with the nightmares men create at gun-point.
  • Marty Lund
 
Vatican City, Oct 24, 2011 / 12:30 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is calling for the creation of a new global authority which it hopes can make economic decisions based of the international common good rather than individual national interest.

The document on the economy, which was unveiled Oct. 24 at a Vatican press conference, summarized its thinking with the closing line: “The spirit of Babel is the antithesis of the Spirit of Pentecost.”

“Only a spirit of concord that rises above divisions and conflicts will allow humanity to be authentically one family and to conceive of a new world with the creation of a world public Authority at the service of the common good.”

The 20-page document is entitled “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of a global public authority.”

It aims to “propose a reflection on possible ways forward–in line with the most recent social Magesterium–that are effective and representative at a global level, and which seek the authentic human development of all individuals and peoples,” said Bishop Mario Toso S.D.B., Secretary of the Justice and Peace council, in comments to the media.

The document notes how economic globalization has meant that “between 1900 and 2000 the world population increased almost fourfold and the wealth produced worldwide grew much more rapidly,” while at the same time “the distribution of wealth did not become fairer but in many cases worsened.”

It adds that “today the modern means of communication make these great economic, social and cultural inequalities obvious to everyone, rich and poor alike,” giving rise to international tension and mass migration.

The document then reflects upon the roots of the present global economic crisis, and sets ethical parameters for a sustainable recovery, before concluding with some practical policy considerations.

Historically, it blames three strains of thought for the current crisis: economic liberalism, utilitarianism and technocracy.

The council writes that economic liberalism “spurns rules and controls” being placed on the free market but runs into trouble when such doctrinaire “laws of capitalistic development” do not reflect or explain economic realities. Such a system “runs the risk of becoming an instrument subordinated to the interests of the countries that effectively enjoy a position of economic and financial advantage,” it says.

Utilitarian thinking believes that “what is useful for the individual leads to the good of the community.” However, the document observes that sometimes “individual utility–even where it is legitimate –does not always favor the common good.”

In a technocracy all the problems that need tackling are seen as “exclusively of a technical nature,” which leads to those issues escaping “the needed discernment and ethical evaluation.”

But global markets require global ethics if they are to function properly, the council emphasized.

The document suggests that the present crisis has uncovered “behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and the hoarding of goods on a great scale.” Such a spectacle should motivate people to action as “no one can be content with seeing man live like ‘a wolf to his fellow man,’ according to the concept expounded by Hobbes,” it says.

Cardinal Peter Turkson, President of the Council for Justice and Peace, reflected on the current global situation in the preface of the publication. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” he said.

The document recalls how Pope John XXIII hoped in his 1963 encyclical “Pacem in Terris” (Peace on Earth) that one day “a true world political authority” would be created.

“A supranational Authority of this kind should have a realistic structure and be set up gradually,” it says.

However, the encyclical also cautions that “an Authority with a global reach that cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence,” but only through “free and shared agreement” on the needs of “the world common good.”

And, the pontifical council said, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, which advocates always dealing with problems at the lowest or more local level of authority possible, the authority should intervene in global matters only when “individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.”

The suggestions issued today by Justice and Peace recognize that “a long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction,” and proposes that the reform or enhancing of present institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund or European Central Bank could be a starting point.

In terms of policy priorities it suggests that the global authority should prioritize “those regarding global social justice,” including crafting “financial and monetary policies that will not damage the weakest countries; and policies aimed at achieving free and stable markets and a fair distribution of world wealth.”

The document then gives three practical ideas for consideration: a financial transaction tax, making state backing of banks conditional on “virtuous” behavior, and a greater separation between retail and investment banking.

It also calls for moral training for those working in financial industries because “the gap between ethical training and technical preparation needs to be filled.”

It concludes by saying that the “time has come to conceive of institutions with universal competence, now that vital goods shared by the entire human family are at stake, goods which the individual States cannot promote and protect by themselves.”

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/88JAgPidAGI

Full article…
 
He claims that the pope has “more in common with the people at occupy wallstreet” than the tea party, even though he has to immediately walk back that claim when it is pointed out to him how violent (and anti-Catholic!) the Occupy Rome demonstrations were (as I blogged about last week).
The deeper problem here is that the document is essentially advocating the very crony capitalism that both the OWS and Tea Party have been complaining about.

Here is a biting criticism:

nationalreview.com/corner/281099/catholics-finance-and-perils-conventional-wisdom-samuel-gregg

Here is the money quote:
Second, this document displays no recognition of the role played by moral hazard in generating the 2008 crisis or the need to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. Moral hazard describes those situations when people are effectively insulated from the possible negative consequences of their choices. This makes them more likely to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take — especially with other people’s money. The higher the extent of the guarantee, the greater is the risk of moral hazard. It creates, as the financial journalist Martin Wolf writes, “an overwhelming incentive to privatize gains and socialize losses.”
If PCJP were cognizant of this fact, it might have hesitated before recommending we consider “forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds, making the support conditional on ‘virtuous’ behaviours aimed at developing the ‘real economy.’” Such a recapitalization would simply reinforce the message that Wall Street can always turn to taxpayers to bail them out when their latest impossible-to-understand financial scheme goes south. In terms of orthodox Catholic theology, it’s worth reminding ourselves that the one who creates an occasion of sin bears some indirect responsibility for the choices of the person tempted by this situation to do something very imprudent or simply wrong.
Third, given this text’s subject matter, it reflects one very strange omission. Nowhere does it contain a detailed discussion of the high levels of public debt and deficits in many developed economies, the clear-and-present danger they represent to the global financial system, and their negative impact upon the prospects for economic growth (i.e., what gets people out of poverty).
 
Creating a world central bank and single world currency doesn’t remedy the pitfalls of the current systems of national central banks, it just moves them up another level. While it’s fun to poke a stick at the hubris of the “neo-liberals” (What we call “neo-cons” in the US), the track record of central-planning in the 20th century is nothing to boast about - I can’t suppose the bureaucrats at First Supra-National Bank would be any more competent than the ones running national banks. In regards to the US real estate market (that kicked off much of the current troubles) it is simply incorrect to say that that market lacked govt. oversight. The distortions are chiefly the un-foreseen consequences of political meddling (Fannie, Freddie) - and I would add greed is not the sole property of market-capitalists, but often occurs among politicians and the “little people” as well.
 
Your point number 2 seems to violate what it says in the document:

‘‘It is a matter of an Authority with a global reach that cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence, but should be the outcome of a free and shared agreement and a reflection of the permanent and historic needs of the world common good.’’

It also says

It also says ''principle of subsidiarity should regulate relations between the State and local communities and between public and private institutions, not excluding the monetary and financial institutions"

Full document: news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif
“World common good” could be interpreted as the need to limit the global population so as not to “pollute” the earth with more people. My college philosophy department was all over this 20 years ago. Surely the Vatican is not so naive as to believe that a one world govt. could never fall into the hands of someone of this mindset.
 
That document starts out very well pointing out what I have been trying to say, but he does a much better job of clarifying it.
Doctrinally speaking, there’s nothing new to be found in this text. As PCJP officials will themselves tell you, it’s not within this curial body’s competence to make doctrinal statements that bind Catholic consciences. Moreover, the notion that an increasingly integrated world economy requires some type of authority able to make decisions about what the Church calls “the universal common good” has long been a staple of Catholic social teaching. Such references to a global world authority have always been accompanied by an emphasis on the idea of subsidiarity, and the present document is no exception to that rule. This principle maintains that any higher level of government should assist lower forms of political authority and civil-society associations “only when” (as this PCJP text states) “individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.”
The point is that while you may or may not be in favor of the argument, it is acceptable for Catholics to agree with the concept given the above mentioned caveats. This global economic authority concept is not against Catholic moral teaching.

Personally, the I agree with many of the people here that organizing this authority would eventually lead to something we do not want in the form of a global government (not limited to the economy) but that is the skeptic in me.

God Bless.
 
According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them. Thanks to the principle of solidarity, a lasting and fruitful relation is built up between global civil society and a world public Authority as States, intermediate bodies, various institutions – including economic and financial ones – and citizens make their decisions with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.As we read in Caritas in Veritate, “The governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together.” Only in this way can the danger of a central Authority’s bureaucratic isolation be avoided, which would otherwise risk being delegitimized by an excessive distance from the realities on which it is based and easily fall prey to paternalistic, technocratic or hegemonic temptations.
This isn’t anything new. This is basically saying we need to replace the dysfunctional IMF with something more even-handed and reliable, rather than just a first-world bailout slot-machine the Eurozone is using it for.
  • Marty Lund
 
Creating a world central bank and single world currency doesn’t remedy the pitfalls of the current systems of national central banks, it just moves them up another level. While it’s fun to poke a stick at the hubris of the “neo-liberals” (What we call “neo-cons” in the US), the track record of central-planning in the 20th century is nothing to boast about - I can’t suppose the bureaucrats at First Supra-National Bank would be any more competent than the ones running national banks. In regards to the US real estate market (that kicked off much of the current troubles) it is simply incorrect to say that that market lacked govt. oversight. The distortions are chiefly the un-foreseen consequences of political meddling (Fannie, Freddie) - and I would add greed is not the sole property of market-capitalists, but often occurs among politicians and the “little people” as well.
I don’t see where in the document it proposed a ''single world currency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top