From Google News’ “World” section, about 8:30 AM this morning:
Elsewhere, “Pope calls for ‘New Order with teeth’ before the G-8 summit”
…another confusion of the two kingdoms.
[update:
“There is urgent need of a true world political authority. .. 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… 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.” (source, emphasis original)
Now that ought to make people very, very nervous. With all due respect, such an authority already exists, and it's called the free market. Laissez-faire!]
gmail.com
I know Mr. Ratzinger wasn’t speaking ex cathedra here, but I really wonder how statements like these effect the conscience of a Roman catholic who happens also to be an old-school republican, with free-market or libertarian leanings.
The thing that is perhaps more scary is Obama’s propensity to think like this as well…
But in my socialist days I would have looked on global economic regulation as a good thing.
Exactly. “Who watches the watchers?” Reminds me of an interview with Milton Friedman I saw a while back: Milton Friedman on Planned Economies. Have you ever read Bastiat’s little pamphlet, The Law? It’s a classic.
No, I haven’t. But now I can look it up! Thanks.
Fwiw, and to answer your question – this might help explain things – aside from reading the encyclical, or Catholicism and free market type literature from the likes of M. Stanton Evans, Bob Novak, Cardinal Newman, Orestes Brownson (the very first American intellectual to make the case against Marxism) – to name a few.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718187188120189.html
And encyclical – http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
Hey TC! Thanks for the nod and the further info.
I find it interesting, though, that the next sentence of the quote above reads as follows (only adding fuel to our fire):
What I see here, regardless of what is written elsewhere, is a call for a single global political authority with the charter of managing the global economy and with the “obvious” authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties…” The Pope ought to appeal to individuals to deal charitably, to give generously, etc. But this agenda crosses that line of separation and calls for what would be the largest world political authority ever known to man. I don’t see what Fr. Sirico called a “largely classical liberal” position here. Seriously: a single, global, political entity with authority to “manage the economy”, redistribute wealth, and “ensure compliance” with its decisions…? B-grade rapture flick, anyone?
If only the Church held rapture to be dogma, though I would never rent it – as I’ve had my full of the likes of Megiddo, Kurt “Poof” Cameron and all of the Sunday morning crazies spelling and selling emotive salvation.
To continue, funny you mentioned Bastiat to “Mike”, as he was Catholic and might be a good free market/limited gov. example to look to when trying to understand Fr. Sirico’s editorial, or the encylcical itself – exhorting charity and truth to the modern world.
Scary, no – because with charity and truth you avoid dictatorships and oppresive regimes. You know this, but to apply it to this discussion, this encyclical also goes to why the Catholic Church was on the hit list of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”
Globalization–that is the world market–is precisely how we want redistribution to take place, freely, which it will in a truly free market. I’ll have to read it to see what “forms of redistribution governed by politics” means but, of course, free marketers believe in property laws and these can only be adopted by politics and if redistribution (again) takes place through the market governed by just property laws, is this not just what we desire? – Don Devine on Caritas in Veritae
More in email.
Ethan looks great by the way…
It seems we’re missing each other a bit; I’m all for appealing to individuals to be charitable. But what I read above is a call to establish a political authority to “ensure” charity and “manage the economy.” To me, that sounds like the opposite of a free market – as there can be no hybrids. The economy cannot serve two masters; either one will rule or the other will.
Again, wish we could do this over late night coffee. It’s been too long. (And sorry for the bad rapture joke.)
Did you like my Kurt “Poof” Cameron jab?
I thought that was funny.
I did get a (somewhat embarrassed) chuckle out of that. (“But haven’t you seen Fireproof??”)
There is no/none/zero/nada defense I can give to that section of the encyclical. And I wouldn’t defend it even if you pulled my toenails out.
Pure claptrap.
The Justice & Peace crowd sent B16 their contribution to the letter promoting that text. Three drafts later, B16 got tired of rejecting it, or was simply too nice, and let it stay in the final version. This is according to some stuff I’ve read from George Weigel.
That is not an excuse, and doesn’t show genuine leadership. But, I’m not familiar with all of the politics and pressures surrounding the man, and given what you said about it not being ex-c, I will not let those couple of paragraphs overwhelm the prominent message of the letter – which we must be boring your crowd with, ad nauseum.
(check out Istituto Bruno Leone, a free market think tank in Milan, they are the only free market think tank to have debated/reviewed the letter – if you’re interested on their take. Former Mont Pelerin Society guy founded the place)
Very interesting indeed about the J&P crowd. Thanks for the intel.
Actually, I think we would enthusiasticaly support the call to serving our fellow men in our day-to-day vocations, working for the common good, being charitable in our dealings with all of our neighbors, etc. (think Jer. 29:4-8 [show] [4]"Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: [5]Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. [6]Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. [7]But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. [8]For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, (ESV)
-ish thoughts). As I understand it, it’s just an exhortation to “do all things to the glory of God” as Paul instructed us, and “love our neighbor as ourself” as did Christ. The idea of “vocation” is solidly within the Reformed tradition, so I would say, “hear, hear!” to that exhortation (but, of course, “pish posh” to the idea that there is something of salvific merit therein)!
Just came across this article, which I think adds a bit to the discussion: Caritas in Iustitua Distributiva, over at Mises.org.