PAUL writes:

The Catholic Church is heading towards what its own Pope wrote against in his Catechism: 

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel. But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.

A universal economy is paganism. To expect everyone to agree to what is economically valuable, and what is not, is to forge another Babel.

                                                                 — Comments —

David C. writes:

I read your posts regarding the recent call by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace for a centralized world bank, and I feel that some clarification is in order to balance the discussion and put the matter in the proper light.

Your reader, Bradley H., asks, “But what to make of the Church’s stance on the New World Order? … [The Vatican] sounds like it wants a New World Order to me!” In a later post, Paul wrote, “The Catholic Church is heading towards what its own Pope wrote against in his Catechism [the tower of Babel].”

Whatever other trends you and your readers are observing within the Catholic Church, which may themselves alarm one about the direction the Church is taking today, it seems to me that any commentary on the troubling document issued by the PCPJ should be constrained by a few realizations. First, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is not the Vatican; nor is it ‘The Catholic Church’. It is one of many dicasteries (or departments) of the Vatican. Jimmy Akin argues in detail here that the PCPJ, as a Pontifical Council, exercises a relatively minor degree of influence within the Vatican; in terms of its influence it comes after the Secretariat of State, the Congregations, and the Tribunals; and among the Pontifical Councils it ranks fourth in significance. It is not the Pope, it is not the Secretariat of State, it is not the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — it does not belong to the same category as these Curial heavyweights. Second, the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice does not possess in itself the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, the document released by this Council can not be said to represent the official view of the entire Church.

George Weigel writes:

“The truth of the matter is that “the Vatican” — whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church’s teaching authority, or the Church’s central structures of governance — called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a “Note” from a rather small office in the Roman Curia. The document’s specific recommendations do not necessarily reflect the settled views of the senior authorities of the Holy See; indeed, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the press spokesman for the Vatican, was noticeably circumspect in his comments on the document and its weight. As indeed he ought to have been. The document doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for “the Vatican,” and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.”

I write not to defend the position taken by the Council, which I do consider alarming, but to put the situation in its proper context. From what I gather, what we have here is something like the youngest son saying something brash in the presence of guests at the family dinner table, with perhaps an older sibling kicking him under the table, and the father gently correcting his son’s mistake by explaining the family’s position to the guests:

“[The Kingdom of God] is universal,” the Holy Father remarked. “The horizon of this poor and meek king is not the territorial horizon of a state, it is the confines of the world.” Those who are united in Christ, he said, comprise “a single kingdom of peace in a divided world.”

To enter into that kingdom, the Pope said, requires a spiritual journey. “It is not with power, force or violence that Christ’s kingdom of peace grows, but with the giving of self, with love carried to its extreme consequences, even towards our enemies.” (emphasis mine)

Your readers seem to believe, by contrast, that the father of the house – indeed, the whole family – is the one advancing a foolish position to the guests. That is not the case.

I agree that the document issued by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is worthy of criticism, but as even Catholics misunderstand the significance of Curial documents, I felt obliged to offer your non-Catholic readers some information that will help them situate this document in the proper context. Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, once said, “Here, we are beyond shock.” He was well-acquainted with the human sinfulness and stupidity that is the perennial affliction of the Roman Catholic Church. That we are thus afflicted should surprise no one. I adhere to the Church because it is the place where I meet Christ, and this is a reality that survives all the idiocy that is the almost comedic legacy of the Bride of Christ.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. I understand that this proposal for a global financial authority did not come from the Pope. It is important to point that out, as I did in the previous entry though perhaps without sufficient emphasis.  However, given that this report came from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and given that Pope Benedict has warmly endorsed the work of the United Nations in the past and has spoken enthusiastically about the global sharing of governance, it is reasonable for the public to worry. Certainly, a document such as this does not have magisterial authority, and in the long run may amount to nothing, but to say that it does not speak at all for the Vatican or the Church is disingenuous. Clearly, it does represent the thinking of some well-placed individuals in the Vatican and this is cause for concern.   

In 2009 in Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict wrote:

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. 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. [emphasis added]

These words do appear to endorse the idea of a global body with more authority than the United Nations. In a visit to the UN in 2008, the Pope said:

The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a greater degree of international ordering, inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family by means of binding international rules and structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples.

He also stated:

My presence in this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family. [emphasis added]

Given how much the United Nations has done to undo the human family, these words are distressing. Would that the Pope stood as a declared foe to the “unrelenting growth of global interdependence.”

Please follow and like us: