A World Political Authority for the Global Financial Crisis

This latest offering from the Vatican claims that, “every individual and every community shares in and is responsible for promoting the common good.” This nebulous phrase leads to a further reflection; the document asks “whether the human family has adequate means at its disposal to achieve the global common good.”

Such a statement begs some questions; who determines the common good, how is it met, and what institution provides guidance and ensures compliance? Would this not be the domain of a world government?

Then once operational, this “supranational institution” would work in a way “consistent with the pre-eminent value of human dignity” within a globalized society.

“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.”

For those unfamiliar with the idea of subsidiarity, it can be boiled down to this: Where issues can be dealt with at the local, state/provincial, or national levels, let them be handled in these domains.

Conversely, where issues are global and cannot be adequately addressed at lower levels, a world authority is needed. Subsidiarity also allows for grassroots decision making and self-direction, but it’s within the context of a broader perspective - it seeks to synthesize “the interests of the individual with those of the community.”1

Subsidiarity sounds nice as a safeguard. But it’s illusionary. Autonomy exists in a system of subsidiarity so long as it works toward the prescribed common good. And who sets that standard?

As already noted, according to the Pontifical Council, a “world political Authority” is needed to order the common good. Essentially, subsidiarity ensures a pyramidical hierarchy of power.

Jurgen Appelo, a Dutch writer and lecturer on management practices, recognizes the structure of subsidiarity. The above diagram provided by Mr. Appelo pulls this power management concept together. Jurgen notes; “We are dealing with a hierarchy of authorities, each one with a different scope, and each one monitoring the lower authorities.”1 [bold in original].

He then comments on the diagram, reminding us that “the actual arrangement of idiots, crooks & monkeys may vary...”

Subsidiarity isn’t necessarily wrong, as Jurgen himself demonstrates in his study of management practices. There are benefits to it as an organizational model; the idea that each level of management operates within a defined role as it relates to a prescribed goal. However, to claim as the Pontifical Council does, that subsidiarity will be a safeguard against the “world political Authority” becoming a bloated, centralized bureaucracy, is laughable. Instead, subsidiarity gives us the structural skeleton upon which multiple levels of bloated bureaucracies can hang. Keep in mind that the United Nations and the European Union are designed around the principle of subsidiarity.3

Nevertheless, as the Pontifical Council wrote regarding “the creation of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction...”

“It would seem logical for the reform process to proceed with the United Nations as its reference because of the worldwide scope of its responsibilities, its ability to bring together the nations of the world, and the diversity of its tasks and those of its specialized Agencies.”

“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’…”

From a “world political authority” – i.e., world government – to a new international monetary system – a “central world bank,” to the implication of regional banking dominance, the proposals emanating from this prestigious Vatican body are ominous in their nature. It reminds one of those famous words from the historian and Catholic, Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”4

World Interfaith Developments

1. Assisi 25th Anniversary
On October 27, 2011, nearly 300 spiritual leaders gathered in Assisi, Italy, by invitation of Pope Benedict XVI. This event marked the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s historic Assisi interfaith meeting, and true to form, Benedict’s gathering pulled together a cross-section of religions. This included 60 Roman Catholics, 60 Orthodox and Protestant leaders, 65 Muslims, 65 Buddhists, 8 Judaic leaders, 7 Hindus, 6 followers of Shinto, 5 Sikh representatives, 4 “nonbelievers,” 3 Confucists, 3 Taoists, 1 Jain, one from the Baha’i faith, and a single follower of Zoroastrianism.5

The theme that emanated was the need for world religions “to come together to wage peace.” To this end a pledge was pronounced,

“We commit ourselves to educating people to mutually respect and honor each other in order to help bring about peaceful and fraternal co-existence between people of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions.”6

2. Saudi Interfaith Center
An agreement was signed on October 13, 2011, by the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez, and Austria’s Vice Chancellor Michael Spindelegger. The purpose: to create and house a new international organization, to be located in Vienna, and dedicated to uniting the world’s religions around cultural understanding. This institution, the brainchild of King Abdullah and Prince Saud al-Faisal, will be chiefly funded through the Saudi government.8

Two representatives of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue attended the signing ceremony, Cardinal Jean-Louis Taura and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata.9

When complete, the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue will house a body of 12 representatives from major faiths; Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. A further consultation group comprised of 100 representatives of differing faiths will support the work of the twelve.10

This development hasn’t come without controversy. The Vienna Review noted that big dollars are attached to this endeavor, and suggests the Saudi government is influence peddling its Wahhabi brand of Islam. It also noted that the signing ceremony happened on Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, “leaving almost no Jewish guests present."11

Gorbachev’s New World Order

“Pope John Paul II, whom I regarded as my friend – we were very close – once said, ‘We need a new world order, one that is more stable, more humane, and more just.’ He said it best; no one has been able to improve on that characterization of a new world order. But we still are facing the problem of building such a world order.

"We have crises: we are facing problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, of food shortages. All of these problems are because we do not have a system of global governance. We are living in a global world. The political prerequisites for a global world do exist, they have been created. But we were not ready and we still have to learn to live in a global world. This is the No. 1 problem, and a lot depends on how countries like the United States will act, how Europe will behave, how Russia will behave.”12

Interestingly, the former Soviet leader framed much of his lecture in an historical Cold War context, reminiscing about Ronald Reagan and their first Summit. He also talked about Soviet perestroika, glasnost, and the results of the 19th Party Conference. Speaking about this All-Union Conference, Gorbachev told the crowd that freedom was its chief goal.

“We proclaimed the movement toward freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of political choice - all freedoms. People must be free... We also decided that, in effect, we would change the entire system and build a system for a free country, a system of political democracy...”14

Having a grasp of the 19th CPSU Conference is helpful in understanding what this “new world order” is about. This, however, requires some examination of the preparatory texts, speeches, and resolutions that comprised the 19th Conference. Yes, market choice was explored - probably the largest factor in the Conference - and “freedom” was discussed, but in a rather closed sense. In preparing for this Conference, the Soviet leader put “freedom” into perspective during a May 11, 1988 speech.

“We need new approaches, new methods, new discoveries in asserting perestroika. Let us recall Lenin’s words: Do not try to resolve new problems by old methods...Hence we must conduct the quest for new methods...

...Therefore I repeat that we should grasp Lenin’s concept of socialist society in orderto apply it creatively, taking into account our present conditions...

...with the economic, intellectual and cultural potential accumulated over seven decades of our history, we should implement a contemporary model of society ensuring for all its members civilized living standards and multiform opportunities to meet spiritual and cultural needs, the freedom of choice and expression of opinions. But all of this should be implemented in the framework of our socialist choice, in the framework of our socialist democracy and morals. This society will inevitably be more multi-layer, but it will remain socialist and it will not forgo the principles of social justice, comradeship and internationalism in the slightest. Why do I mention this? Generally speaking, our entire society is for socialism...”15

The Right To A Democratic World Government

“[the] responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social issues, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally, and that in this regard the central role must be played by the United Nations, as the most universal and representative organization in the world.”

“Resolved to take all measures within its power to secure a democratic and equitable international order… affirms that everyone is entitled to a democratic and equitable international order…”

To those ends, the UN Human Rights Council agreed to establish a three-year working group of international experts. Their job will be to identify “possible obstacles,” “best practices… [toward] a democratic and equitable international order at the local, national, regional and international levels,” to work with national governments in developing “concrete proposals enhancing subregional, regional and international cooperation,” and raise awareness of the right to “a democratic and equitable international order.”

There you have it. You have the right to a democratic, socialistic system of world management. And a group of unelected “international experts” will tell us how to achieve this goal. FC