Why Do I Fear a World Political Authority?
I share my co-blogger Mark Gordon’s apprehension toward the prospect of a global political and economic authority, but that shouldn’t come as a surprise given my deep-seated anti-authoritarian personality and ever-suspicious eye for consolidated power. Mark reasonably figures that “such a body” would “be put at the service of the multinationals and their retainers in national governments.” If given the right amount of power, this body would sit in dominion over the nations of the world, at least over select national affairs. Who watches the Watchmen wouldn’t be an uncalled for question.
Reflecting upon my concern about the idea of a world authority, I am led to wonder if the prospects expressed above are coupled with an inability on my part to imagine the world otherwise than as a sphere of separate nation-states and different people. My Church, which has been promoting a global political authority for some time now, sees the peoples of the world as a singular body, as one. Of course, it recognizes nation-states and other entities of sovereignty, but it doesn’t see any one of them in particular as essential to the human being. The Church has a global perspective and then some. Do I? Am I able to see humankind as one and apart from divisions of country, race, ethnicity, tribe, corporation, and family? I’m not sure, not as sure as I want to be.
Anyhow, despite my misgivings, I’m not ready to wave the banner of opposition to a world authority. Perhaps for such an experiment to work in favor of the common good, the political structure of the world would have to change. Perhaps we would first have to shed our national skins and molt into a global people. At present, I cannot conceive how a global authority wouldn’t primarily serve the interests of those who already wield too much power, but then cannot I dismiss the prospect as always and everywhere imprudent. Perhaps, at present, the idea best serves as a challenge to humanity to welcome a world politically and economically otherwise than our own, a world in which the common good is pursued in common.
Comments are closed.
As someone being slowly seduced by the distributist siren, I too am nervous about the kind of power that would have to be invested in such a body.
I am not, on the other hand, interested in dismissing views from the Vatican without trying to learn something from them. That casual dismissal, not just the fact that they disagree, strikes me as the fact that makes the “cafeteria” label stick on folks like Peters and Weigel.
Thank you for helping the rest of us faithful Catholics try to learn from this. It’s what all Catholics should be doing. Your post understands, precisely, how the Church teaches . . . and how it learns.
This can’t be emphasized too much. Peters, Weigel, and the rest construct a straw man when they present Catholics who want to think and struggle with the document as claiming that one *has* to agree with the world regulatory body proposal. No one is saying this. What people are saying is that PCJP, working closely from a script provided by Benedict himself in Caritas in Veritate, has several proposals that are well beyond what Serious People in the West–our pundits, media, think-tanks, etc.–have determined is thinkable about the financial crisis. What we are objecting to is the a priori nature of the dismissal–Weigel has already told us that everything written by PCJP should be marked in red, we have so-and-so from Acton already ready to respond, etc. etc. etc. and, by the way, look over there at Nancy Pelosi! This constant belittling of the Church’s *actual* social thinking when it conflicts with the moneyed interests that are bankrolling Peters, Weigel, and the rest is wearing thin, and is becoming harder and harder to hide for what it truly is.
I, for one, see this as prophetic more than prescriptive. A global world authority (followed or preceded by a global financial authority) is the inevitable evolution of globalization. Such a force can be an incredible force for the common good, or it can ensure that no man buys or sells without a mark in his right hand or forehead. Either we follow the Church’s prescription, or the other one will inevitably come to power. Which would you rather have?
Dan
I agree with you very much. Yes, it can be an incredible force for the common good, or it can lead to great evil. However, what many people fail to see, they are following the path of nationalistic division, which we all know has led to great evil, a division which was founded upon a rejection of the universal approach the Church has always posited. The fact that so many Catholics think this notion of a world authority is new has not studied Catholic history. I am not saying one necessarily has to agree with it, but the quick dismissal of it, the ignoring of it, the ignoring of the global interdependent environment we live in, says that what they fear is the loss of their power structure, their control, which allows injustice in the world to continue as long as there is no universal authority capable of denouncing them. One can make reasonable objections while understanding what the Church is promoting and the reasons why the Church promotes it; but the dismissive attitude, one which fails to even try to look through the Church’s claims and why it is making them (the gross injustice found in the world today) shows to me a dangerous form of dissent (the kind they accuse others of, but rarely are right on that).
Henry, I am disappointed that you would so quickly dismiss as ignorant or dissenting those who in good faith raise serious practical questions about a “world political authority.” This has the effect of shutting down the conversation and is a frequent tactic of the Right on other issues.
Mark
Note, I didn’t say anyone had to agree with such an authority. What I am dismissing, however, is the quick “no.” I am also pointing out that, contrary to what many are saying, this idea is rather normative in Catholic tradition. Again, that gives it value and strength for discussion and not immediate dismissal. I can and do understand why many do not agree with such an idea, and I think, if people did so while engaging the tradition, it would be a valuable discussion. But if it is a quick no and a quick acceptance of the division of nation-states without some sort of unity behind it, I find that problematic. The fact that I am still saying one can disagree points that I am not shutting down dissent. But I do find the way many are rejecting this comes from their cultural background more than Catholic thought here — the cultural background being individualistic thinking in the Americas. I do agree there are _issues_ of concern about abuse and those are worthwhile objections to deal with. But that can also be answered without saying “therefore, a world order must be wrong.” It’s rather, if you look closely, the quick dismissal is found on the side who just reject the notion and don’t examine why the Church proposes it, and ignores its long standing tradition. Again, I say people can dissent here — if they have good cause, and dialogue is helpful here, because it will help prevent abuse, but I still think the response has been played on an individualistic basis and that is dangerous.
To me it looked like Henry was concerned about those who dismiss without thought, not those with “serious practical questions.”
Whoops, cross-posted.
I would just note that it hinges on what one thinks about the word “dissent.” Henry is using it in a very different way than the Right uses it. Henry sees responsible dissent as having an important function in the Church. The Right uses it as a club to whack people with.
Also, it’s probably worth keeping in mind:
Up until the last 50 years so so, the sense in which the Church has often endorsed the idea of a world authority has been in the endorsement of a semi-unified Christendom in either common action (as in the Crusades) or under a confederation/loose imperial leadership (as in the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Holy League, etc.)
None of these ever had full world authority, and the Church certainly dealt positively, at times, with other kingdoms/principalities which were not a member of the current favored world authority. Also, at times when such world authorities turned against the Church, popes were often not hesitant to favor lower level powers and splinter groups instead.
Undeniably, the Church has always been comfortable with large authorities, though all of these examples allowed nation states to function at a lower level as well. There are also fairly good reasons to be concerned about those historical tendencies, whether from the anti-authoritarian impulses that Kyle mentions or the liberal ones that we see in someone like Fr. Murray.
One thing that is very new is for the Church to explicitly favor a world authority which would assumedly act outside the context of Christendom. Whether this is a good thing, in the context of post WW2 and Vatican II Catholic political thought is clearly something that Catholics can debate. While I would agree with Bret that it’s in appropriate for people to dismiss such ideas without even given them thought, I think this is in part the result of those who are (unlike Bret) unreservedly on “the left” using the idea of a secular world authority as a bludgeon against more traditionally minded Catholics.
Citing nationalism is a bit off here, at least in regards to people attached to the US, in that the US is one of the few countries in the modern world which is not based on the ethnic nationalism ideas which have been so poisonous in Europe and the Middle East.
(Sorry for the consistent mis-spelling, Brett. I didn’t mean to steal a t from you.)
Talk about stumbling out of the gate…why do we begin this discussion with gleeful remarks from clergy that this document is to the left of Pelosi followed by the obligatory knee jerking reactionaries. One could almost argue that the document has dignity based upon the vitriol expended before it’s read.
But I did read it and found it to be substantive and engaging. I once wrote in post…“The Church, even if it doesn’t own perfect solutions, nevertheless acts as a ‘sign of contradiction’; opposing dark outcomes and continually casting light into shadowy areas.”. (Almost prophetic!). I really do think the Church does better as that voice of contradiction, yet I give them credit for advancing this framework towards a future solution.
The real deal was touched upon almost in passing in calling for the building of a consensus for action. This ‘Authority’ can take on many subtle forms including agreememts and concords among nation states. Inevitably even the banks and multinationals might seek the ‘relief’ of some type of framework if it becomes apparant that wading through a morass of reactionary regulations and social derision is painful and counterproductive.
Let the puking subside. As Julia S.said a few posts ago, Catholics take the long view.
I think I’m tending towards Kyle and Mark here. It seems a lot of people on both the “right” and the “left” are knee-jerk simplifying the issue to “this paper supports one world government; thankfully we can throw it out as not being authoritative” (a right view) and “this paper supports one world government; that’s a great idea” (a left view). But isn’t that a silly and incorrect reading of the paper?
Caritas in veritate has been cited a few times already by Henry and others. I’m interested in this excerpt (my emphases):
“Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”
I’m more interested in this. We live in a global world with a global economy, which means we need global institutions which can recognize and protect the dignity of the human person. But it seems that these global institutions must be tempered by subsidiarity. How does that work in practice?
We live in a global world with a global economy, which means we need global institutions which can recognize and protect the dignity of the human person. But it seems that these global institutions must be tempered by subsidiarity. How does that work in practice?
And Thales, that is exactly the question I think the Church would like to start a discussion. I also think the Catholic and secular Left would like a discussion, (though I think you are mistaken to say the “left supports one world government.” I don’t think that would get five votes at our next convention!). Further, I would think that even the center-right outside of the USA and the thinking part of the center right domesticly would support such as discussion (and have, at least on the trademarks issue, as I suggested about the Madrid Protocol).
The only issue is that currently we can’t have a civil discussion because certain elements would use it, like they use the “threat” of Sharia law, to stir up their base politically.
Kurt,
Ah, the limitations of labels! When I was using the labels “right” and “left”, I was meaning the extreme positions taken by some on those sides. I don’t think it’s truly a conservative position to disregard a Vatican paper because you don’t like it, and I don’t think it’s truly a liberal position to want one world government.
Thank you Thales. And I appreciate your efforts to be balanced and even-handed.
I know the liberal world fairly well and certainly a desire for one world government enjoys little if any meaningful support. Even my old friends from the World Federalist Association and the Association to Unite the Democracies were mostly internationalist Republicans like the late Walter Judd (a good man and very devout Presbyterian)
I don’t know the conservative world as well. Henry and MM have documented very well certain voices that do disregard this Vatican paper because they don’t like it. I guess the question is, are young Peters, Fr. Z, and the others true conservatives or something else? And, if something else, what are they?
I’d say they are people on one side of the spectrum acting in a knee-jerk manner, in reaction to people on the other side of the spectrum acting in a knee-jerk manner. I think everyone on this issue could have benefited from a little more prudence.
Any rudimentary knowledge of history provides a thinking person with the reasons to disapprove of a world political authority. Power really does corrupt.
Any rudimentary knowledge of history provides a thinking person with reasons for the need of a world political authority, because a lack of order corrupts.
I’m very much in favor of a world authority, however, I think in its establishment many safeguards need to be put in place. The Church has a long history of favoring such authorities, and it generally has been the traditional left/nationalistic groups which have fought tooth and nail against it.
The concern of many is that this means so much power will be centralized. However, this is not necessarily the case. The question is what that authority will be authorized to do. The principle being followed is the same principle which posits the Pope as the head of the Church. There is the need for a “final say” in the world instead of the rule of might when there is conflict and injustice going on. The world authority is meant to help decentralize growing powers — ie, to act like Teddy in the breakup of monopolies — more than it is to centralize power in itself. It is to act as a servant to the world, not as a power unto itself.
The thing is, freedom requires structure for it to be free. That’s what I wrote about in my text on free markets; it’s what I wrote about on my piece about God. This is a way to help create freedom in the world; the lack of that structure and authority is already eliminating much freedom as we speak.
It’s difficult, is it not, to give up on the idea of living in “one of the world’s two remaining super-powers?” What would really be lost by giving up the illusion of American self-sovereignty? Do we really believe that we aren’t thoroughly oppressed by powers both foreign and domestic, here and now? Are we really gulled by propaganda touting “American Exceptionalism?”
What values have we got to lose? America is not exceptionally Good. In fact, by the standard of those values established in the Beatitudes, America is exceptionally evil. Wake up and deal with a little Truth for a change.
To put it succinctly this comes down to one of two visions, cleaned up for the innocent:
1) Stuff happens and even if we know it is diabolical, there will just be other diabolical stuff that will happen if we try to stop it, so we shouldn’t create the space for thoughtful and considered diabolical action.
2) Diabolical interests are able to exploit existing power structures creating misery around the world for which they should be rightfully accountable but for which they are not and dismiss the concerns as outside their parochial interest. Since the Vatican has spoken out about it before, ethanol subsidies would be one such example. They are at least partially responsible for the global food crisis, yet politicians in the US do not feel they owe anything to the starving in Africa other than meager charity; they do not see themselves as having committed an injustice against the African poor.
I can’t help be struck by the issue the Pontifical Comission’s document raises – that the development of the national state as a counter to the disorders of waring fiefdoms (the book of Judges repeated comment that “in those days there was no king so everyone did what he thought best”) was, in general, a positive development.
That doesn’t mean that the monarchy did not have it’s own problems, which scripture amply recognizes.
I think it’s a bit of a BOTH/AND here. Global problems require a global authority with power to regulate but such authority needs to be subject to democratic accountability (and not just be a tool of the SuperPowers) with proper layers of checks and balances.
The above quote from Caritas in Veritate which Thales posted is very helpful in this regard.
God Bless
Doesn’t this put you into the mouth-foaming camp (see MM’s post of this date)? : )
But I totally agree with you. I would love a global authority if I thought it would make things fair and just for everyone. I’m just extremely skeptical that it would.
I also note that the document itself has this to say:
“Only a spirit of concord that rises above divisions and conflicts will allow humanity to be authentically one family and to conceive of a new world with the creation of a world public Authority at the service of the common good.”
To me, this seems to mean that the world authority is not feasible until all the countries of the world have already risen above divisions and conflicts. You can’t force it on people. It will only work after we have attained a “spirit of concord” worldwide.
Yeah. Dream on. : )
Dante explained the “why” for world government in his De Monarchia centuries ago:
http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/02/flaw.html