Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Caritas in veritate: Manifesto for the New World Order?


Some of the furor over Caritas in veritate may have died down, but I am only now really digging into it. So for the next week or two I will be posting various passages and insights that I found interesting.

The single phrase upon which the media most fixated was "world political authority," something Benedict called for and which any freedom-loving conspiracy theorist can see is a manifesto for One World Government.

That line comes up in section 67 - to which we shall return - but I found it interesting that two key passages near the beginning of the document were apparently overlooked by the same media sensationalists:

In the course of history, it was often maintained that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee the fulfilment of humanity's right to development. Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover, such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development.

Caritas in veritate, 11; emphasis added.

Thus, even if Benedict is calling for some sort of super United Nations, he has already given us several qualifiers. Institutions alone cannot solve our problems and we must not look to them for our salvation. Moreover, only if it is animated by an understanding of man's relationship to God can an institution truly aid mankind. Frankly, I have not seen a lot of transcendence at the UN lately, though there has been plenty of anti-Christian policy. So if the UN is to be the "true world political authority" Benedict is talking about, some serious changes will be in order.

Benedict writes further:

The “types of messianism which give promises but create illusions” always build their case on a denial of the transcendent dimension of development, in the conviction that it lies entirely at their disposal. This false security becomes a weakness, because it involves reducing man to subservience, to a mere means for development, while the humility of those who accept a vocation is transformed into true autonomy, because it sets them free.

Caritas in veritate 17; internal quotation from Populorum progressio, 11.

He denounces false messiahs and illusions and condemns a system which turns man into a cog in the system, a "humanitarianism" which tramples the very people it seeks to help. This is a critique that can be applied to the great totalitarian regimes of history - in particular Communism, which, in the name of helping the downtrodden worker, trod him down further - and many schemes regarding world government of one form or another.

But with those qualifications in mind, let us turn to section 67, home of the infamous line itself. Benedict begins, "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." Notice he says "reform" of the UN, not "empowerment." The thing that should get empowered, should "acquire real teeth" is "the concept of the family of nations." Insofar as the UN or other international organizations genuinely foster such familial relations: great, we should support them. In the mean time, reform is the day's task.

He continues,

One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

All of the issues here listed are international issues; by their very nature sovereign nation states alone cannot address them. In theory a large number of bilateral or regional agreements could address such questions, and I do not think Benedict is condemning those approaches. But some issues may require a larger framework.

He goes on to say:

Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, 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. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.

Again, the vision is not of a vast bureaucracy responsible to no one, nor is it of a cabal of the powerful. It must be governed by law, it must include subsidiarity - the notion that problems are best solved by those closest to them, it must serve the common good, ensure justice and respect rights. This sounds a lot like the Preamble of the Constitution... There is, of course, the somewhat sinister line about having "the authority to ensure compliance," but notice that he says "authority," not "power". Power may be a component of that authority, but without legitimacy that comes from the consent of the governed, such power is tyranny.

Benedict concludes:

The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

Just as he told the members of the General Assembly last year, the UN must return to high ideals upon which it was founded.

Is the Holy Father calling for one world government? I think it would be disingenuous to say he is not. Is he calling for One World Government, the New World Order? Probably not in the way those terms are usually used. How is he proposing we get from here to there? That, it seems to me, is a crucial question. While he indicated the United Nations by name, policy details are few. His frequent calls for UN reform seem to acknowledge that, however much a world authority may be needed today, the situation is not fully ripe. The means of executing Benedict's vision of global solidarity and fraternity have been left to the prudential judgment of the lay faithful, in their various areas of expertise and in the various situations they find themselves.

6 comments:

Caitlin said...

You bring up an important point at the end of your post about the role of the laity in Benedict's writings. If they are supposed to come up with the practical details of this plan where does Benedict's planning stop and their's begin? I suppose this could be an interesting commentary of Church/state relations. I'm sure some could critique the Holy Father for criticizing while coming up with new solutions, but it seems to me that he is fulfilling his role of guiding us to see the purpose of government in our lives and the end for which we, in those governments, should be reaching.

Aaron Linderman said...

A follow-up thought that was not quite large enough to merit its own post:

Europe has been integrating under the auspices of the ECSC, EC and EU for more than half a century now. A great many functions have moved from the member states to the EU; however, in moments of great importance, the member states often pull back on the reigns, as we've seen in the recent financial crisis, where talk of what was good for "Europe" quickly gave way to talk of what was good for Germany, France or Britain.

Has the EU become a new super-state? It is on the way, but has not arrived there yet. Building on the foundations of the last 50 years, another 25 are probably needed before we see a unified Europe, if ever.

If, then, that is the time scale for Europe, a region with a relatively homogeneous culture, common political systems, shared values, etc, how long would global unity, under the auspices of a "true global political authority" take? If Europe needs 75 years, I think a century for the globe as a whole is probably generously short.

Thus, even if we agree that Benedict's call for a "global political authority" is what it appears to be, and is a worthy effort to which we ought to dedicate ourselves, let's not delusional and think that this can - or should - happen any time soon. Even with ardent and good-faith efforts, this is probably not something that could happen in our lifetimes.

I bring this up because it then begs the question: what do we do in the meantime? It's not a question I've worked through yet, either with regards to my own opinions or with regards to the encyclical's positions, but I think it is another consideration which should temper the knee-jerk reactions.

Stephen said...

Aaron, I have a question about your comment:

"Thus, even if we agree that Benedict's call for a "global political authority" is what it appears to be, and is a worthy effort to which we ought to dedicate ourselves, let's not delusional and think that this can - or should - happen any time soon."

I find the phrase "can or should" curious. If Benedict's proposed project is a worthy effort, why do you say that we shouldn't think that this should happen any time soon?

Your comment makes me think that you perhaps share my criticism of some of the social encyclicals. My criticism is that the Pope says something nice-sounding about "world political authority," and he does not mean some new world order, as you point out. However, there are so many conditions that must be satisfied, before this world political authority could come into existence: If the UN ever gets its act together, if nations stop hating each other, if nations stop killing each other, if humans stop being selfish, etc. These are all laudable goals we should strive for, but we're never going to accomplish them. As a result, the Pope's recommendations sound tremendously impractical--not utopian, but I understand where people get the impression.

Aaron Linderman said...

Steve,

Sorry for the ambiguous language. I may share your concern - I'm still trying to work through that - but the point I wanted to make was this:

Americans are not being asked to deny their US citizenship and become "citizens" of the UN tomorrow. That's pie in the sky. The process of building a world political authority will be a long and gradual one, even at a relatively quick pace.

Another post about culture is in the works. The short version: Benedict says real cultural dialogue shouldn't be relativistic, but should recognize the transcendent. Working towards global unity may involve UN reform, but it also involves speaking truth about culture, something most UN globalists probably aren't interested in.

Anonymous said...

Aaron,

If they would of told you about Israel before the second world war. How long you would of thought it would take to put it in place? Sometimes, things happen really fast. Especially when the people doesn't know what's happening_

when you say *reform, not empowerment*, may be we should go get the definition of those words to see that they are pretty familiar to each other_

Aaron Linderman said...

True, sometimes things can happen far faster than we expect. Most of the Soviet "experts" thought the USSR had plenty of years left when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet regime dissolved a few years later.

That having been said, my money is against a world government happening in our lifetimes. My money is even against a North American Union in our lifetimes. I just can't say I see it happening (though I could be wrong).

But let us assume, for a moment, that a super-empowered UN came along some time, with the endorsement of the papacy. And let us assume that the United States opposed this organization, and wanted to opt out. Would I be duty-bound to support such an uber-UN? No. Such a decision would be a matter of prudence, not faith and morals.

Moreover, I find it highly doubtful that any such scheme coming out of the UN would actually live up to the various criteria outlined by Benedict elsewhere in the encyclical. So on Benedict's own criteria I would probably reject this hypothetical world government scheme.

Does this mean we should abandon the UN (or other international organizations) all together? Well, not quite. But we should insist that they actually work for justice, peace and development of the whole person (include his spiritual dimension). In practice, I think that means opposing the UN more often than not.