Pope Benedict wants a “World Political Authority” with “teeth”
Glenn Beck recently said that he was inundated with messages from people concerned about an Obama executive order giving special rights to the international police organization known as Interpol. But what about the global campaign by the Vatican to establish a “World Political Authority” with “teeth.” Don’t look for Beck, O’Reilly or anybody else in the media to take on Pope Benedict XVI. It is just too controversial. Commentators who question the Vatican run the risk of being labeled anti-Catholic bigots.
Many Catholics, especially of a conservative persuasion, are embarrassed and troubled by what is happening inside their church. But they are mostly reluctant to say anything publicly. The facts, however, speak for themselves, and they are available on the Vatican’s own website in the actual words and statements being uttered by the Pope.
Consider, for example, Pope Benedict’s passionate embrace of the radical environmental movement. The Washington Times on Tuesday ran a front-page photo of the Pope greeting ambassadors to the Vatican during his new year’s address to the diplomatic corps. “The Pope denounced the failure of world leaders to agree on a climate change treaty last month,” the caption said. It’s true. Despite the Climategate scandal that has thrown the man-made global warming theory into disrepute, the Pope is still a believer in the discredited claims being made about the role of man in creating a hotter planet and he is trying to force world leaders to embrace and act on them.
Acting more like a politician than a religious leader, the pope complained about the failure at the Copenhagen conference to come up with a new treaty to punish Western nations, led by the United States, that have used fossil fuels for industrial development. Referring to “the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment,” he said, “This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City, it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”
The Pope, therefore, is going to use his influence to get a treaty written, passed, and imposed on the world.
The Pope went on to embrace other aspects of the global “progressive” agenda, endorsing the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York in May, so that “concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms.” This is Obama’s goal as well.
Zero nuclear weapons sounds good in theory, but what does it mean, practically speaking, when the world is confronted by a fanatical regime in Iran determined to acquire them? All that the Pope said about this was, “Concerning Iran, I express my hope that through dialogue and cooperation joint solutions will be found on the national as well as the international level.” Not even President Obama treats the Iranian problem with such platitudes. Obama at least talks about sanctions against Iran.
In reality, the Pope’s recipe for a nuclear-free world means appeasement of Iran, its acquisition of nuclear weapons, and a more dangerous world with more nuclear weapons.
Strangely, the Pope called for a new global warming treaty but admitted that centralized planning to “save” the environment hasn’t worked on the national level. He said, “Twenty years ago, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the materialistic and atheistic regimes which had for several decades dominated a part of this continent, was it not easy to assess the great harm which an economic system lacking any reference to the truth about man had done not only to the dignity and freedom of individuals and peoples, but to nature itself, by polluting soil, water and air?”
The Pope was admitting that a communist-style economic system was not only a threat to man but the environment. Yet, he now wants the United Nations to play a central role in policing a new global agreement on the environment and disarming the nations of the world. As dangerous as this may sound, this objective is consistent with his endorsement of a “World Political Authority,” a key recommendation from his Caritas in Veritate encyclical.
In that controversial document, the Pope explained that a “World Political Authority” was necessary in order 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…”
These shocking statements in favor of what is clearly a world government immediately followed the Pope’s recommendation that, in the face of the “unrelenting growth of global interdependence,” the United Nations must be reformed so that “the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”
So the Pope wants a strengthened United Nations to constitute a “World Political Authority” that will have the “teeth” to enforce its will on the nations of the world? Will somebody in the media explain why this is not global tyranny? This makes the controversy over Interpol look like peanuts.
Of course, few in the media want to bring up this sensitive subject. After all, the Pope is a religious leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, with 63 million of them here in the U.S. But it’s precisely because the Catholic Church is the largest religious body in America that the statements of its leader deserve media scrutiny.
Before he spoke to the diplomats, on the occasion of the World Day of Peace, the Pope issued a January 1, 2010 statement based on the theme, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.” Again, sounding like Al Gore or Barack Obama, the Pope said that “the threats arising from the neglect―if not downright misuse―of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us” were as troubling as “wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights.”
The Pope reiterated that the campaign to pass a new global warming treaty should be part of a broader campaign to remake the global economy. “It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation,” he said. “Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.” (emphasis in the original)
Is all of this flowery rhetoric designed to usher in a new socialist international order? Is this what he means by changing the “model of development?”
One problem is that the Pope gives fewer news conferences than Obama. In fact, he gives none. So who in the media has the courage to hold the Vatican accountable for its campaign to help Obama usher us into a New World Order on the basis of nonsense about the environment and nuclear weapons?
why does the pope favour global governance over individual states?
why is he pushing the global warming agenda when we know the data is suspect?