Vatican Calls for World Bank and “Global Public Authority”

[Jennifer Groves]

“Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority”

 

A conservative summary of the report:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45013499/

 

The Vatican press release:

http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/10/holy-see-calls-for-reform-of...

 

English translation from the Vatican News Agency:

http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-...

 

What follows are the segments of this 18 pg (or so—depends on the translation and formatting) document that most concern me, with commentary. The quotes are taken from the order in which they appear in the original document.

 

For non-Catholics, remember that the RCC teaches that the Pope and Vatican are inerrant and the Pope is believed to be God’s vicar on earth. According to this reasoning, whatever any pope said, at any time, has the authority of God Himself behind it.

 

Disclaimer: I had no part in writing any Vatican documents. I can only share their own words.

 

Please note the general language of the RCC statement.  When I pasted the entire statement into Word, it was 15 pages long (with zero formatting). In that 15 pages, the phrase “common good” appears 22 times. “Universal common good” appears four times. “Universal”, 10 times. And “social” is used 16 times.

 

Why is this important? Because certain political ideologies use certain language. Communism uses “common good” all the time.

 

If history teaches us anything, it’s that whenever we hear leaders speak of the “common good”, it’s generally not “good” for anyone but them.

 

“Communism” was a 4 letter word after WWII, and, as Alinsky himself noted, “Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s” (Rules for Radicals prologue). Those who did (like Alinsky) changed their language. They didn’t speak of communists or communism; they spoke of “community organizing” and “common good”. To that list, people like Obama and Emanuel have added words like “universal” (see Rahm’s The Plan) and “social justice”, “progress”, and “fair”.

 

Ideologues deal in language changes; they believe they control the game if they control the language. The phrase “social justice” is all over the Vatican website and appears twice in this particular Vatican statement.

 

Here are the quotes that speak most directly to the Vatican agenda (I have several pages of them from just this one statement, but I’ll limit this. Best to read the entire document.)

 

“The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation . . . “

 

I find this more than a little disingenuous, coming as it does from the only Christian denomination that is itself a state and has historically claimed—and at times exercised—total civil, religious, and political authority.

 

If the Vatican truly has no interest in being involved in political affairs, then why even issue this statement? Why would the RCC even concoct a plan for a “global public authority” if they don’t see themselves filling that role?

 

“Every individual and every community shares in and is responsible for promoting the common good. . . communities of believers should take the lead in asking whether human family [sic] has adequate means at its disposal to achieve the global common good.”

 

If the Vatican is referring to Christian believers, this is not a biblical stance at all. Christ taught that the earth will deteriorate until His Second Coming (Matt 24, Mk 5, Lk 21, Jn 14-16, and the entire books of Daniel and Revelation). His followers are not supposed to focus on trying to fix the world, but on preaching the gospel (Matt 28.19). The world is not fixable; it will be destroyed and made new.

 

“a spirit of solidarity is called for that transcends personal utility for the good of the community.”

 

You must sacrifice for “the common good”. That is communism—not the gospel.

 

The Vatican calls for “abandoning all forms of petty selfishness and embracing the logic of the global common good which transcends merely contingent, particular interests.”

 

You are unimportant. Your family is unimportant. What is important is that you be forced to give your income to a global public authority. And trust that “authority” to “fix” the world with it.

 

“On the way to building a more fraternal and just human family and, even before that, a new humanism open to transcendence . . . “

 

The Bible does not teach humanism or “transcendence” on earth.

You must regard all of earth’s population as your “family”. Why does this sound suspiciously like the “FEMA family”??? The common thread is government control—but here, instead of the Obama admin, it’s the Vatican.

 

“Blessed John XXIII’s teaching seems especially timely. In the prophetic Encyclical Pacem in Terris of 1963, he observed that the world was heading towards ever greater unification.”

 

Really? I’m not seein’ that. And once again, this teaching runs directly counter to Christ’s descriptions of the final years of earth.

 

But this passage is important, because it reminds us that Pope John XXIII also called for “universal common good”. “He also expressed the hope that one day “a true world political authority” would be created.”

 

Benedict XVI is not the first pope to call for a “global public authority”.

 

“ In the same spirit of Pacem in Terris, Benedict XVI himself expressed the need to create a world political authority.”

 

“ A supranational Authority of this kind should have a realistic structure and be set up gradually. . . in support of sustainable development and social progress of all, and inspired by the values of charity and truth.”

 

This authority will be created gradually and in stages. People would revolt otherwise, so just bit by bit until it can’t be undone.

 

And who better to turn to for a “values based” economy than the RCC? The Vatican cleverly brings in morality and values, because that sells well with Christians in particular. It also lines the RCC up nicely for being the only possible global structure that has a concern for morality—clearly Wall St and the IMF can’t compete from this angle.

 

“The establishment of a world political Authority should be preceded by a preliminary phase of consultation from which a legitimated institution will emerge . . . The exercise of this Authority at the service of the good of each and every one will necessarily be super partes (impartial): that is, above any partial vision or particular good, in view of achieving the common good. Its decisions should not be the result of the more developed countries' excessive power over the weaker countries. Instead, they should be made in the interest of all, not only to the advantage of some groups . . . “

 

In the beginning, it’s voluntary. But in the end, this “Authority” will not make decisions for the good of the U.S. (or any other country); only for whatever it defines as the “common good”.

 

No national boundaries. Gone.

 

“ . . . global civil society and a world public Authority . . . citizens make their decisions with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.”

 

You aren’t allowed to determine what will benefit your family anymore. Your allegiance must be to the nebulous, poorly defined, “global common good”.

 

“Among the policies, those regarding global social justice seem most urgent: . . . policies aimed at achieving . . . a fair distribution of world wealth . . .”

 

What happens when Obama et al talk about “fair distribution of wealth” on even a national scale? Your taxes and mine go up. The quality of goods and services and health care available to us plummets. That’s communism.

 

What the Vatican is describing here is a communist agenda, under the guise of Christian charity. This is identical to the “liberation theology” (aka Marxism) the RCC pushed in the 1960s and 70s, particularly in the predominantly Catholic Latin American countries. The label has just been changed to “social justice”—a catch phrase found all over the Vatican website—and of course on the lips of most liberals. All about consolidating political power.

 

“ . . . one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges . . . “

 

A role the Vatican sees itself in. The Federal Reserve has worked so well, why not make that idea global?

 

“nationalism has lingered on, according to which the State feels it can achieve the good of its own citizens in a self-sufficient way. . . all the nations, great or small, together with their governments, are called to go beyond the “state of nature” which would keep States in a never-ending struggle with one another. Globalization . . . is unifying peoples more and prompting them to move towards a new “rule of law” on the supranational level . . .”

 

No nations allowed. No national boundaries. Just one global happy family!

 

“ . . . this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority . . .”

 

Again, this is a projected process by the Vatican. It won’t happen all at once, but gradually, over time, each nation will yield its sovereign status to the RCC, if the Vatican has its way.

[Jennifer Groves]

You must have missed  all the quotes where the Vatican specifically says that this as yet "unspecified" authority will do everything for the common good, irrespective of what individual countries want. And all the parts about how it will be enacted in stages. Frogs in a kettle.

 

Words change; it's actions we need to watch. And history we need to know.

 

We won't agree on this so I won't waste more time responding. Believe what you want to. But your opinion--and mine--will not change the Vatican's plans one iota. So no, our opinions don't matter--their plans and actions toward that goal do.

[Janet Blazen]

The frogs in the kettle ? This is the "best" way to discribe what's going on all right !  Not just within the Vatican either.......

I get the idea that you are Adventist ?  I was baptised at Pioneer in 1985..............They are usually not a very political group. Nice to see that you are different..........Actually, I know a few over in that community who are getting involved.........That's a good thing !

[Jennifer Groves]

Janet, yes, I am Adventist. I actually hate politics. I take exception when the government tries to tell me what my values should be and begins messing with basic constitutional rights--our real rights, not those fake ones Obama talks about, like abortion. Not good!

[albaby]

Some of the most bigoted and intolerant people I have ever met are those so steeped in religious beliefs that they are paranoid and fear the future. It must be tough to live like that. Much of the easily disproven hate mail I get comes from people who claim to be disciples of Christ, but show little tolerance for the truth or practice his teachings. That's why I n o longer am a member of an organized religion.

To end my part in this discussion, I would like to quote Thomas Paine:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church,by the Greek church,by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christians or Turkish appear to me to be no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind and monopolize power and profit--------- Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief, and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all. End of quote

Paine's Age of Reason is a good read. He gives good reasons for his disbelief.

[albaby]

Janet, neither you or Jennifer had to declare your religious beliefs.

 

To know a person’s religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.
Eric Hoffer (1902–83), U.S. philosopher. The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 215 (1955).

[Jennifer Groves]

Al--Like other Americans, Janet and I have freedom of religion. We are free to say (or not say, as we choose) what religion we are. I have to wonder why you find that so offensive. In any case, being a Christian is about following Christ. Period.

 

I prefer to quote the Bible:

 

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men . . . God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong . . . so that no man may boast before God.”

1 Cor 1.25, 27, 29

[Janet Blazen]

Al,

Actually I was talking to Jennifer,

None the less it's none of your business..................

Your such a busy body..............

You act like an ol' lady who has nothing better to do but "nose" around in everyone's business !..............

You have something mean to say to "EVERYONE" on this site no matter what they post..................

.

[Janet Blazen]

Jennifer,

This is a quote from Napoleon:

"I am neither an atheist nor a rationalist: I believe in God and am of the religion of my father. I was born a Catholic, and will fulfill all the duties of that church and receive the assistance which she administers."

Thought it was an interesting addition to your post............

 

[albaby]

Is Napoleon running for office?

[albaby]

If it's none of my business, then why are you posting on the TEA party forum board? Why don't you just send her an e-mail?

Janet Blazen said:

Al,

Actually I was talking to Jennifer,

None the less it's none of your business..................

Your such a busy body..............

You act like an ol' lady who has nothing better to do but "nose" around in everyone's business !..............

You have something mean to say to "EVERYONE" on this site no matter what they post..................

.

[Janet Blazen]

Al, read the post I wrote last night and go back to your web......................LOL

I post here to give you somethng to do!..................

 

 

 

[albaby]

Jennifer, I did not say you didn't have the RIGHT to say whjat religion you were. I just siad you didn't NEED to say what religion you were.  Your distrust of other religions and paranoia made that obvious. And I did not find your statement of faith offensive. That's your paranoia woking again. And you are right, being a Christian IS about following Christ, but I know very few that do. They beleive the Ten Commandments are the Ten Suggestions and pick and choose which ones least interfere  with their chosen lifestye at any given time. Kind of like choosing from a menu. But they fold their hands and look up to the sky like good little Christians when others are watching.

Jennifer Groves said:

Al--Like other Americans, Janet and I have freedom of religion. We are free to say (or not say, as we choose) what religion we are. I have to wonder why you find that so offensive. In any case, being a Christian is about following Christ. Period.

 

I prefer to quote the Bible:

 

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men . . . God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong . . . so that no man may boast before God.”

1 Cor 1.25, 27, 29