Vatican Calls for Global Authority on Economy

[Chipper]

What happened to the Kingdom of God? When did we start promoting the Kingdom of Man?

Ya, that’s my question too.

When one espouses Kingdom of man, one ends up with contradictions in logic and reason.

For instance the document talks about “COMMON GOOD”, but then it says “Anguish and Suffering”, on it’s implementation.

Forgive me, but in my ignorance, it seems to me that “Anguish and Suffering” are in diametric opposition to “Common Good”.

 

[Chipper]

What happened to the Kingdom of God? When did we start promoting the Kingdom of Man?

Ya know what, the more I look at this document the more I am convinced that the Pope or someone out there, is going to come out and correct this thing:

For instance:
Take a close look at this statement extracted from the document in topic here.
“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.”

This statement breaks out like this:

1. Document: World Authority is the only, I repeat, the only horizon compatible with humankind:
   Me: Not, no way Jose. The only Horizon compatible with the realities of our time, is the Horizon of Truth (Jesus Christ), not a manmade “World Authority”.
2. Document: A World Authority is the only, I repeat, the only compatibility with the needs of humankind:
   Me: Not, no way Jose. The only authority compatible with the needs of humankind, is again our Lord Jesus Christ, not some man made “World Authority”.

 

[A_Catholic]

Ya know what, the more I look at this document the more I am convinced that the Pope or someone out there, is going to come out and correct this thing:

For instance:
Take a close look at this statement extracted from the document in topic here.
“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.”

This statement breaks out like this:

1. Document: World Authority is the only, I repeat, the only horizon compatible with humankind:
   Me: Not, no way Jose. The only Horizon compatible with the realities of our time, is the Horizon of Truth (Jesus Christ), not a manmade “World Authority”.
2. Document: A World Authority is the only, I repeat, the only compatibility with the needs of humankind:
   Me: Not, no way Jose. The only authority compatible with the needs of humankind, is again our Lord Jesus Christ, not some man made “World Authority”.

I completely agree that this document needs to be “corrected”, and I think the right person to do it would be Our Holy Father. I find it interesting that at the press conference, according to the Acton Institute:

Both the council’s President, Cardinal Peter Turkson, and Vatican Press Secretary, Fr. Federico Lombardi, made it very clear that the statement was “not in any way the opinion of the pope”, but solely that of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace and those that composed it.

blog.acton.org/archives/26862-vatican-releases-note-on-global-financial-reform.html

The one thing we know is that this document has nothing to do with the Pope. So if the Pope had nothing to do with this document, and it in no way reflects his opinion, how and why was it released? If it is just the opinion of a Pontifical Council, why is it being called a “Vatican” document, making it appear to be from the Pope? Why is the Catholic Church calling for a one world government, when she has always opposed that in the past? Why hasn’t the Pope said anything? Intriguing, to say the least.

 

[crazzeto]

Chipper, a few things to keep in mind

1. this document in no way is meant to instruct the faithful
2. it should be taken in light of what a low level Vatican offical believes would help the world
3. It has helped me to keep “Global Authority” in the context first catechised by Pope Benedict XVI him self… I.E. multinational independant cooperation.

This document also caused me great stress at first, believe me it did. I honestly started considering what to do in the event that Holy Mother Church her self took such a scandlous position. I think it best right now to study (as you are), and wait and see the reaction from the Vatican, Holy Father and in general.

God Bless!

 

[stewstew03]

But my example of distributism is a prime example of how it tends to go around church teaching.

Please explain how this document counters distributism.

Again, this document does not deal in spiritual solutions to man’s problems. And that should always be first and foremost in the Church’s approach. This document seems to almost entirely concerned with making our materials lives better, and does not deal with the real root of all problems - sin.

This “Note” reflects Catholic Social Teaching offering guidance for the common good. If you have a fundamental disagreement with Catholic social teaching, then that is a separate issue.

We should be working with the United Nations, which is constantly pushing for “global population control”, another word for abortion, and homosexual rights, and everything else that the Church condemns? Have you really read this document?

It’s not uncommon for the Pope to address the UN General Assembly, so “working with the UN” is nothing new. Also, your tone is a bit out of bounds.

You’re joking, right? Do you know the name of this document: “THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY.” That is what it is all about!!!

The title of the document says nothing of its substance. Moreover, the reference to a “world political authority” is taken from Benedict XVI’s encyclical titled Caritas in Veritate. It is an appeal for “international cooperation”, not a governmental authority like say, the IMF or WTO.

What is it that you think is being discussed here? This is the whole entire problem with the document. It is not proposing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is proposing one world government, pure and simple, and there is no way to deny that.

You may feel very passionate about your position regarding this document, but that doesn’t make it a known fact in the real world. The document is not proposing a “one world government.”

I sincerely wish I was misreading the document. Trust me, I don’t want to see what I am seeing.

Take comfort in the fact that you are misreading the document. It does not propose any kind of world government, nor does it propose any kind of central authority to take over all material goods.

Who touted this document and when? I can only say after reading this document, I do not see any hint of Pope Benedict XVI in it. His writings do not in any way correlate with this document, try as they might to make it seem so, even quoting him.

This note is quite consistent with Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, and is also consistent with the Church’s positions on social justice, subsidiarity, etc.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I believe that there are several concerns being expressed here that have rather simple answers.

I won’t say that you’re off base but I think you are not directly addressing the matter that most concerns myself, and I suspect quite a number of others here (and many writers and guests, e.g. on ETWN).

The first concern is the apparent misreporting of the document as by or from “the Vatican” or “the Church” such that Catholics are expected to get in line behind it or be declared anathema. It’s not dogma but neither is it a random opinion. As far as I can tell it is a contribution to a discussion and ought to be treated as such.

I have no objection to the Church involving itself in “secular” matters. I do object when people hide behind the Church to advance arguments that entail matters of significant prudential effect. Economics is both a moral and a technical subject. I would have more confidence in “vatican” pronouncements on economic issues if the cardinals had some economic training. Failing that, they will have to invite Catholics with some economic expertise into a dialog to arrive at a solution that satisfies both moral and technical concerns. There are way too many people who think that morality trumps prudence. Usually such enterprises end with “well, they meant well.”

I am concerned also with the use of the word “only” as in “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.” That’s not an invitation to dialog. That’s a declaration of a solution and an implicit rejection of all other alternatives, seen and unseen. We should be very suspicious of such declarations particularly on prudential matters.

Of course, the common good is of interest to all Catholics. But what is arousing concern is the notion that pursuing common good requires a central authority of our betters, as if world history had not demonstrated the folly of that approach. If that is what is required, why not make the pope emperor of the world? If the pope is not up to the task, who is? While this is ostensibly only about financial regulation and recapitalization of banks, history has shown also that central authorities are seldom content with limited powers. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” is the saying.

I will add one more concern: throughout the recommendations of the document there is an implied preference for political over economic solutions as if one were morally superior to the other. Both are crude measures of the public good and there is no shortage of examples of very bad politics. In fact, there is a great sense in which the current financial crisis one of the economy correcting politics. The Greeks, for example, have been voting themselves a lavish lifestyle but, it turns out, one that they cannot afford. Should they be bailed out? Or should they be required to face the consequences of their poor choices? In effect, the authors of this document are leaning toward the bailout option. What kind of moral teaching is that?!

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

the spread of Communism and Socialism (both explicitly condemned by the Church),

Those were only condemned insofar as they are set forth as atheistic Communism/Socialism. If you read the New Testament you will see that the early church was what we would today call socialist.

See Acts 2:44 and 4:32, so obviously the system, when practiced in the context of our communities of faith has merit and again, the Church condemns the atheistic aspect of the modern political theory and practice.

As for your other points. The Church has made and continues to set forth its teaching on all the other issues you named. This financial social injustice is just another aspect of our modern culture that needs the Church’s guidance

Unless we are deeply converted and love God first with all that we are and our neighbors as ourselves, then nothing our society does will bear good fruit.

That’s the reality of our world situation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Agree!!

And what is even more strange this document seems to support this theory.

Quote: From “TOWARDS REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY”

“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. However, it should not be forgotten that this development, given wounded human nature, will not come about without anguish and suffering.”

Oaky, this document talks about the “COMMON GOOD” throughout. But then it says the implementation will cause “anguish and suffering”.

My questions is - who gets the anguish and suffering, and who gets the common good? Does America get the anguish and suffering, whilst Europe gets the common good?

Quote from this document"
"On the regional level, this process could begin by strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank. "

It seems to me that this document has a lot of holes that need filling up.

That is a strange comment that you have highlighted in the document. Most of the commentaries on the document seem to say the document has the right diagnosis but a bad cure.

crisismagazine.com/2011/right-diagnosis-deadly-cure

 

[mlund]

If you read the New Testament you will see that the early church was what we would today call socialist.

No. The early Church did not have people with guns and handcuffs that took your property and threw you into prison cells to rot if you didn’t “share.” Socialism is when a Government uses its monopoly of violence to enforce such distributions. So no, they aren’t the same at all.

Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all forms of redistributionist, statist government.

Charity (such as the early Church endorses) is a voluntary act of the will, free from coercion and threat of violence.

The real lesson to learn here is to stop looking to governments as if they are the always the appropriate instruments of Charity. They are remarkably ill-suited for the tasks in practice.

• Marty Lund

 

[A_Catholic]

stewstew03]

Please explain how this document counters distributism.

I gave the definition of distributism in an earlier post, but I’ll give it again:

According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

Distributism means spreading everything out among the people. This document says all banks - and that is everything - should be centralized into the hands of a few people, and money doled as seen fit by these people. It talks about a world tax that would hand money over to these people:

From the document:

On the basis of this sort of ethical approach, it seems advisable to reflect, for example, on:a) **taxation measures on financial transactions **through fair but modulated rates with charges proportionate to the complexity of the operations, especially those made on the “secondary” market. Such taxation would be very useful in promoting global development and sustainability according to the principles of social justice and solidarity. It could also contribute to the creation of a **world reserve fund **to support the economies of the countries hit by crisis as well as the recovery of their monetary and financial system;
b) **forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on “virtuous” behaviours aimed at developing the “real economy”;**c) the definition of the domains of ordinary credit and of Investment Banking.

This document advocates letting a small group of people decide who is deserving of help or not. It takes away both national and individual sovereignty.

This “Note” reflects Catholic Social Teaching offering guidance for the common good. If you have a fundamental disagreement with Catholic social teaching, then that is a separate issue.

??? I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. How does this reflect Catholic Social Teaching? Examples, please.

It’s not uncommon for the Pope to address the UN General Assembly, so “working with the UN” is nothing new. Also, your tone is a bit out of bounds.

Discussing is one thing. Working with and giving power to the corrupt and evil body called the United Nations is quite another.

In what way is my tone “out of bounds”?

The title of the document says nothing of its substance. Moreover, the reference to a “world political authority” is taken from Benedict XVI’s encyclical titled Caritas in Veritate. It is an appeal for “international cooperation”, not a governmental authority like say, the IMF or WTO.

Interesting you say that. You obviously have not read the document, because it very much likes the IMF, it just says that it basically can’t go far enough.

From the document:

Forty years later, in its annual Report of in 2007, the International Monetary Fund recognized the close connection between an inadequately managed process of globalization on the one hand, and the world’s great inequalities on the other.

The first is the gradual decline in efficacy of the Bretton Woods institutions beginning in the early 1970s. In particular, the International Monetary Fund has lost an essential element for stabilizing world finance, that of regulating the overall money supply and vigilance over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system.

Specific attention should be paid to the reform of the international monetary system and, in particular, the commitment to create some form of global monetary management, something that is already implicit in the Statutes of the International Monetary Fund.

You may feel very passionate about your position regarding this document, but that doesn’t make it a known fact in the real world. The document is not proposing a “one world government.”

You’re kidding yourself. As stated in an earlier post, that is precisely what this document is about.

It is, as I said, promoting the kingdom of man. Very, very scary.

Take comfort in the fact that you are misreading the document. It does not propose any kind of world government, nor does it propose any kind of central authority to take over all material goods.

See above.

This note is quite consistent with Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, and is also consistent with the Church’s positions on social justice, subsidiarity, etc.

Then why was it explicitly stated that this document does not in any way reflect the opinion of the Pope?

I understand not wanting to accept this document for what it is. I don’t want to, either. But just pretending that there is no problem here is not going to make it go away.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

I believe that there are several concerns being expressed here that have rather simple answers.

Some are concerned that the Church is “meddling” in secular affairs. Observe quotation marks. The simple answer that should help this group is to go back and review world geography and international affairs. Vatican City is the homebase of the Catholic Church; but it is also a sovereign nation. All nations have the right to propose thoughts for consideration on this crisis. Freedom of speech is a right accorded to every nation, including Vatican City. If we help people remember this, it may help them understand that one need not agree with Vatican City on this anymore than one needs to agree with the USA; but we need to allow that particular nation the freedom to speak and not shoot it down, because it says something with which we disagree.

Another concern here is with the words used in the document such as “common good” or “worldwide organization” etc. Again, we need to help people understand that those terms are not unique or the monopoly of any political or economic group. Those terms have been around for centuries. In fact, the term “common good” was coined by St. Benedict 1500 years ago when he founded the first monasteries. Worldwide organization has been used to describe everything from governments to the Boy Scouts. The same for many of these other terms. Just because the curia uses the term does not make the curia part of this or that political movement.

A good point Br Jay!

People are concerned about some theory that they have extrapolated from the Book of Revelation about a one-world government. This is just that, an extrapolation. The Church Fathers nor the Magisterium have ever said that this is the correct interpretation to John’s visions. We need to help those who make such an extrapolation by pointing out that the Catholic Church does not give this meaning to the Book of Revelations.

Yeah, and that ignores the fact that all of us have seen TV shows for years that tell us that the future prosperity of mankind is found in a world government that is part of an interplanetary one. Can you say “Federation of Planets”? (Cue Star Trek theme music here…)

For many Americans, this statement sounds contrary to our economic worldview. Again, we can and should relax with this, because we must remember that the Church has never supported every point and position of any economic worldview, Socialist or Capitalist. She has always pointed to the strengths and moral weaknesses in both systems. The truth is that both systems have strengths and weaknesses. The Church has always called men, of all worldviews, rise above the weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths.

Franciscans, like yourself would be classed as socialists wouldn’t they? And yet your system, with its vow of poverty works and you are fed, clothed, housed, and taken care of as you minister your service to all you encounter, right?

Those who continuously say that the Church should speak only about religious themes, must be reminded that this is not part of our Catholic Tradition. That’s a very Protestant notion that the Church has no voice and should have nothing to say about the secular world affairs. Our tradition, since the time of the Apostles has always been that the Church has been very involved in the world order. Out of that concern came the development of monasteries, which gave birth to the feudal system that saved Europe. This concern for the world’s temporal needs gave rise to our schools, hospitals, science research centers, the arts, music, homes for the elderly, orphanages and worldwide organizations such as Caritas International and other Catholic charities.

When Pope Pius XII silently allowed the clergy, religious and laity break every canon law in the books to save millions of Jews, people condemned him for his silence, because they did not know that his silence was consent to the underground activity going on in the Church.

For example the U.S. and other allies did nothing and in fact would not allow Jews to immigrate to escape Nazi persecutions. Jews couldn’t get visas to leave Europe just before and during the 2nd WW. Whose is the real shame?

When Pope Benedict XVI wrote Truth in Charity, everyone condemned him for his outspokenness. Now, a Vatican congregation, which is authorized to speak for the pope, as head of state, speaks, people want it to be quiet. Maybe we have to help people remember that the world does not have the right to dictate to the Church, the popes and to his departments when to speak and not to speak. We have a moral duty to listen. This is charity and respect. From there, we can then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, without denying the speaker’s right to speak and without being antagonistic. We don’t have to agree with the proposal, but we may not be antagonistic. We don’t get a free pass from God for going on the attack, be it an attack on Vatican City or an attack on Japan, etc. It does please God that we listen and that we dialogue. Dialogue, even when there is disagreement, is a form of unity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree. And the last thing we should do is rely on the abridged versions of information set forth by the secular media instead of reading the documents carefully for ourselves.

Only then can we make any kind of informed contribution. And we should.

As the old saying goes… "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!"

 

[Catholic_Press]

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

 

[stewstew03]

A Catholic:

Distributism means spreading everything out among the people…This document advocates letting a small group of people decide who is deserving of help or not. It takes away both national and individual sovereignty.

Repeating it does not make it true. I accept Wikipedia’s definition of distributism; however, I reject your interpretation of the document. That is, the document in no way rejects the principle of subsidiarity.

How does this reflect Catholic Social Teaching? Examples, please.

Please review principles of Catholic Social Teaching, and then let me know if you still need examples from the document. I believe it’s self-evident, but if I need to expound I can do so.

In what way is my tone “out of bounds”?

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!”

Interesting you say that. You obviously have not read the document, because it very much likes the IMF, it just says that it basically can’t go far enough.

That is precisely why I brought up the IMF. It is obvious that the IMF has failed in some areas. As you rightly quote the passage that explains the IMF “has lost an essential element for stabilizing world finance, that of regulating the overall money supply and vigilance over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system.” Surely you don’t dispute this fact. The question isn’t *whether *reforms in international finance will occur, it’s a matter of when and how. The IMF actually goes too far in the opinion of some financial institutions because they advocate a bank levy (aka, Finaical Stability Contribution) and a Financial Activity Tax, which taxes profits and employee salaries. The white paper issued by the PCJP seems to favor a more “conservative” Financial Transaction Tax that would impose a levy (something like 0.005%) on all international financial transactions (e.g., currency transactions). As you know, the purpose of taxes is to raise money. This money would help meet already-promised funding obligations to developing nations. Some argue that it could also be used to establish a fund to prevent future “taxpayer bailouts” by providing a mechanism whereby the financial institutions become responsible for their transgressions. That is, financial institutions set aside x% of a financial transaction into a into a bucket; and if the financial institutions need to be bailed out again in the future, money is withdrawn from that bucket. As it stands now, developing nations are not receiving as much foreign aid due to the strain on the budgets of developed nations; as a result, they are suffering the most. Another way to put it - financial institutions raked in money using legal but shady methods. Then, due to failure in regulation, corporate governance, excessive borrowing by individuals (and banks more than happy to contribute), and widespread unethical activity at all levels, the financial world collapsed. Banks were bailed out by taxpayers. The position of the Church seems to be that financial institutions should be more responsible and work toward the common good rather than achieve financial success at all cost.

There are many levies, regulations, tariffs, and “international taxes” being considered by the G20. Are you familiar with the Financial Stability Board? It is essentially a type of “international authority” that works with the World Bank and the IMF to monitor the largest financial firms - including their operations, their funding, etc. The FSB “dictates” that financial institutions maintain contingency plans in case of insolvency (as opposed to just letting taxpayers bail them out). The FSB also “dictates” that financial institutions maintain provisions against credit losses - and might even impose constraints on how much they can borrow. There is also a “central authority” or “clearing house” that monitors credit derivatives (remember credit default swaps?).

So, you see, the white paper is part of an ongoing dialogue regarding matters that have been discussed since at least 2008. There are already several “central authorities” with regard to international financial matters… The global economy has been around for some time now, and the regulatory bodies are trying to catch up.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Someone explain to me why the Catholic church is effectively calling for a new world order. This is insane. Are church leaders really that naive to believe that this would not lead to the control of billions of peoples’ lives? That this would actually lead to some economic parity? This is truly one more way to drive people away from the church. I’m all for helping the poor; I am not for redistributing wealth via the UN, which is already corrupt and worthless. We can be charitable without the government - a one world government especially - controlling how that is done. The government is why we are in the economic mess, not Wall Street or the banks.

People should be provided the opportunity to succeed, not the same ends as everyone else. If it is food and water and clothes and all else that is needed to live a dignified and humane life, than fine. But a world economic body to be sure that happens to control economic parity? No way.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/vatican-economic-authority-pope/2011/10/24/id/415466

I thought that the Church favored a small, local government over a big, federal (or in this case, world) government. You know, subsidiarity? This is more like communism.

Someone help me out.

 

[BartBurk]

I thought that the Church favored a small, local government over a big, federal (or in this case, world) government. You know, subsidiarity? This is more like communism.

Someone help me out.

I think the only way to help out is to suggest we ignore the Peace and Justice Department’s idiocy. As I’ve read everything about this it is clear they are unqualified to comment on the economy in any realistic way. And it is highly unlikely their scheme would ever be adopted --I don’t really believe the U.S. would even be willing to participate in it once we get rid of the current administration.

 

[stewstew03]

I think the only way to help out is to suggest we ignore the Peace and Justice Department’s idiocy. As I’ve read everything about this it is clear they are unqualified to comment on the economy in any realistic way. And it is highly unlikely their scheme would ever be adopted --I don’t really believe the U.S. would even be willing to participate in it once we get rid of the current administration.

BB - what part of the document is “idiocy?”

Also, do you think they’re making a technical argument? Or are they making an appeal to social justice in the broader international community?

Regarding US policy, we already participate in global economic governance (e.g., G20).

 

[TMC]

I thought that the Church favored a small, local government over a big, federal (or in this case, world) government. You know, subsidiarity? This is more like communism.

Someone help me out.

The Church favors effective government that serves the needs of all, especially the poor. The Church does not mandate that government be either small nor large, local nor global, but rather that government serve the needs of the people, with a preferential option for the poor. Subsidiarity is only one principle in the Church’s teaching, it must be weighed against both the goals of government and against the equally important principle of solidarity. This document is offering some ideas towards meeting those goals, and it addresses both the need for solidarity and subsidiarity. Americans of late have adopted subsidiarty as if it were 1) an end to itself and 2) an express blessing of certain American political ideals. Neither have ever been part of Catholic teaching.

 

[Chipper]

The Church does not mandate that government be either small nor large, local nor global,… .

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.

 

[TMC]

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.

The document is not calling for a global government, as has been pointed out ad nauseum.

 

[A_Catholic]

The Church favors effective government that serves the needs of all, especially the poor. The Church does not mandate that government be either small nor large, local nor global, but rather that government serve the needs of the people, with a preferential option for the poor. Subsidiarity is only one principle in the Church’s teaching, it must be weighed against both the goals of government and against the equally important principle of solidarity. This document is offering some ideas towards meeting those goals, and it addresses both the need for solidarity and subsidiarity. Americans of late have adopted subsidiarty as if it were 1) an end to itself and 2) an express blessing of certain American political ideals. Neither have ever been part of Catholic teaching.

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:

Solzhenitsyn’s vision is essentially the same as that espoused by John Paul II, and by John Paul’s illustrious predecessors Leo XIII and Pius XI in “Rerum Novarum” and “Quadrogesimo Anno”, respectively.

Each of these popes advocated the principle of subsidiarity, which places the family at the heart and foundation of political and economic life, and favors small business over big business, and small government over big government. In his own belief that subsidiarity must form the keystone upon which any healthy society is based, Solzhenitsyn’s political creed is essentially the same as that of the Catholic Church.

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.