Friday, 6 April 2012
VATICAN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE Published by America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:
The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains
how the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role
in the unfolding plan to establish a world government.
Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why:
The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vatican-
insider and author Malachi Martin described in his book
The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an
emerging world government.
Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics,
endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world
government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in
This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to
“manage the economy,” bring about “timely
disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.”
In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the
power and authority of such global institutions as the
Bank for International Settlements, the International
Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World
Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can
be incorporated into this emerging world system, a
possible or even likely result is global tyranny.
By Carl Teichrib*
“Most of us are not competitors… We are the stakes. For the competition
is about who will establish the first one-world system of government... No
one can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remain
untouched.”i – Malachi Martin.
In 1990, a former Vatican-insider claimed that a titanic struggle was
being waged to bring about a world political system. This contest, the now
deceased Jesuit explained, was primarily between three players: international
Leninism, transnational business elites, and the hand of the Vatican.
Almost twenty years have passed since Malachi Martin drew attention to
this three-way quest. At the time his assertions seemed over-the-top. Granted,
the idea of a world government via communism wasn’t new as decades of Cold
War posturing still played in our minds. And the writing was on the wall in respect
to the growing power of international corporate and financial elites, exemplified
by the likes of David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission.
But the Vatican?
For many, the belief that the Holy See was pursing a vision of world
government was simply too much. After all, this ancient hub of Roman
Catholicism had a reputation – especially among Europe’s agnostic youth – as
an institution of old men, steeped in tradition, procession and ceremony. Never
mind that the history of the Continent, more often than not, revolved around the
Vatican’s political prowess.
In the summer of 2009, the Holy See’s political cards were revealed
in a major papal document. Harkening back to Malachi Martin’s talk of
world government, the most powerful religious office on the planet had
promoted a world political authority to manage the global economy. Food
security, disarmament, and peace would follow suit.
A sound global economy and world peace are noble sounding goals, to be
sure. But the danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil
of good intentions.
* Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher and the editor of Forcing
Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly digest on global affairs from a
On July 7th, Pope Benedict released his new encyclical titled Caritas in
Veritate, or “Charity in Truth.” Two years in the making, this document was
disclosed on the eve of the G8 Summit in Italy and the Pope’s meeting with US
President Barack Obama. Some 30,000 words long, this encyclical outlined the
Pope’s concerns regarding globalization and economics, corporate ethics, and
the role of the Catholic Church in promoting social doctrine.
Commenting on the encyclical, The New York Times noted that,
“sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist…”ii And The
San Francisco Chronicle explained that,
“Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such as
globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative
energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences
guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas
put forward would likely rankle conservatives…”iii
E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post, gushed that Benedict
is “well to Obama’s left on economics.”iv
While Pope Benedict’s perspective on the global economy was a
perplexing blend of free-market and social welfare ideals, what raised
eyebrows were his thoughts on international politics. In section 67 of
Caritas in Veritate, the Pope dropped an ideological bombshell – a world
authority to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,”
and ensure “food security and peace.”
Here is a major part of section 67. The reference to a “world political
authority” is very clear, and Pope Benedict explains that this international agency
should be given the power of enforcement... “real teeth.”
“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. 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: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political
authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years
ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe
consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to
establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing
authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in
truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally
recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for
all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to
have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties,
and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international
Immediate controversy surrounded this paragraph, with some Catholics
quickly attempting to distance the idea that the Holy See would support world
Hierarchy Of Power
John-Henry Westen, writing for LifeSiteNews, stated unequivocally that
the Pope was speaking “directly against a one-world government.”v Westen’s
justification for this position was the Pope’s call for a “dispersed political
authority” in paragraph 41 – a reference to the role of States in the international
system. Westen also brought up the use of the word “subsidiarity” in section 57
as a strike against world government.
This is an important point: Subsidiarity is the Catholic social teaching that
issues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible. In many respects it builds
on the theme of self-determination, and in this sense it would seem antithetical to
a world authority.
Section 57 of Caritas in Veritate says,
“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.”
Mr. Westen, who claims that Benedict’s use of subsidiarity opposes
world government, has misdiagnosed this section. The Pope is not
speaking against one-world government by evoking subsidiarity; instead
he’s offering a hierarchical model upon which to build an international
authority. Essentially, where issues can be dealt with at the local or
national level, let them be handled in this domain. And where issues are
global and cannot be adequately addressed at a lower level, then a world
authority is necessary.
Pope Benedict also suggested that subsidiarity could be a safety value
that checks the power of a universal government against taking on tyrannical
traits. But to propose that subsidiarity is a counter to tyranny is unconvincing – it
can’t even check the expansion of over-government today.
John Laughland, author of The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins
of the European Idea, noted that, “…the German constitution has become
increasingly centralised as a result of its subsidiarity clause.” The European
Union also incorporates this concept, yet that hasn’t stopped the EU from
centralizing political power and amassing a super-bloated bureaucracy.
Subsidiarity, according to Laughland, is a model that assumes a “unitarian,
pyramidal hierarchy of executive functions” with a decidedly corporatist doctrine.vi
Subsidiarity can even be found in the UN system. Professor Robert Araujo
explains that, “the principle of subsidiarity is recognized as a fundamental
principle of the United Nations Organization.”vii Here, the concept is centered on
self-determination under article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. Yet this
doesn’t stop the UN from seeking empowered international jurisdiction under the
banner of “reform.”
It’s important to note that subsidiarity does allow for grassroots decision-
making and self-direction, but it’s within the context of a broader perspective.
Professor Araujo explains that it’s a “a concept synthesizing the interests of the
individual with those of the community.” Hence, it’s not difficult to see how this
principle can align itself with a world authority – you can pursue local political
direction, but where local involvement ends then other levels of government step
up for the “common good.”
To say that Pope Benedict opposes world government because he evoked
subsidiarity misses the point: subsidiarity plays a functioning role in a hierarchy of
increasing political powers. What paragraph 57 demonstrates is not an aversion
to world government, but the order of decision-making Benedict believes it
should be based upon.
Reform And World Authority
Paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate is overtly political in nature. Here’s a
breakdown of some key points.
v “Reform the United Nations” – UN reform centers on more than just
“voting changes” or “transparency.” Rather, reform is connected to world
taxation, a global enforcement component, and the creation of an international
parliament. A small mountain of reports and documents that support this version
of reform already exist, supported by the United Nations, national governments,
and pro-UN groups such as the World Federalist Movement and the Club of
Rome.viii In fact, this platform of international taxation, enforcement, and a world
parliament were major discussion points at the UN Millennium Forum –
particularly during the sessions hosted by the working group on “Strengthening
and Democratizing the United Nations.”ix
Cliff Kincaid, the President of America’s Survival, Inc. and editor of
Accuracy in Media, noted the linkages between reform and global governance in
section 67 of the papal text.
“…the ‘reform’ of the U.N. is designed to strengthen it. Hence, the
U.N. is clearly destined, from the Vatican point of view, to become the
World Political Authority.”x
v “Responsibility to protect” – Known as R2P, this is a world federalist
ideal that would give the UN a mandate to intervene domestically when a nation
commits human rights violations. It sounds good on the surface, but critics – and
even some advocates – realize that such a mandate may open Pandora’s Box.
José E. Alvarez, President of the American Society of International Law,
recognized this situation while addressing a conference on international law at
The Hague in 2007. R2P, he suggested, could be used as a pretext to engage in
all sorts of questionable, interventionist actions.xi
Nobody in their right mind wishes for any people group to experience
genocide or gross injustices. R2P, however, is a seriously flawed concept that
has the potential for grave abuses. From a world management perspective, the
Right to Protect becomes the legal justification for a world political authority to act
militarily. The danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil
of good intentions.xii
“To manage the global economy…” – This is already being discussed
within the international community, and it’s looking like the new world financial
order will be a top-down power structure that will greatly empower existing global
Bank for International Settlements – to become the global banking
regulator. The BIS is fast setting itself up as the international banking manager, a
body that will oversee the world’s banks and financial system, including the
regulation of international capital. An entity of this kind would be equivalent to a
banker’s “king of the hill.” The Los Angeles Times wrote last year that,
“…such a system would force countries to give up a measure of
national sovereignty over banks operating within their borders. It also could
lead to international bureaucrats trying to shape financial policy and
possibly taking punitive action.”xiii
International Monetary Fund – to become the world reserve currency
bank. Under this scheme, the IMF would be charged with regulating a new global
currency to be used in world trade, including the energy sector. Collaborating
with the World Bank, the IMF would likewise use this new currency unit for
international loans and debt obligations. National and regional currencies would
still exist, at least for the interim, but values would react and adjust according to
new global benchmarks.
World Trade Organization – becoming the global trade regulator. The
WTO would establish the rules for the trading of goods and services via a
globally organized set of standard, a process it’s currently working through.
National trade policies would hereafter line up with accepted world practices. All
of this is already happening, but there’s a further link between global free trade
and a new international financial system. Richard Cooper, while advocating a
single global reserve currency, noted the following in a 1984 conference
sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,
“It would be logical if free [world] trade accompanied this single
currency regime. That would also be consistent with the collaborative
political spirit that would be required to establish the single currency regime.
Free trade would insure one market in goods as well as in financial
United Nations – fast becoming the global ethics and governance
agency. The UN would give moral input and political guidance to the newly
managed world economy. In essence, this body would become the “planetary
consciousness,” shaping consumer and political attitudes, values, and behaviors.
This too is already happening. At the end of June, the UN hosted a conference
that outlined an accepted social norm for the global economy: an Earth-centric
worldview, international socialism, and a New Age vision of planetary evolution.
Remember, Benedict’s world political authority is supposed to manage the
global economy. How will the execution of this mandate happen? Will the world
authority operate as an umbrella to the above-mentioned groups? Can the United
Nations reform to the point of being this global economic manager?
Caritas in Veritate gave us a glimpse into the world authority’s directives,
but it didn’t give operational specifics. Has the Holy See actually fleshed out the
details: maybe outlining the process through an internal working document? If so,
it would be a very interesting read! Or, in only offering generalities, does the
Vatican expect other major players – such as the United Nations or World
Federalist Movement – to hammer out the particulars? If so, where does that
place the Vatican in this world government framework? Observer? Advisor?
A lot of perplexing questions arise, and so they should.
“An authority…regulated by law” – Governments the world over are
regulated by internal laws and accountability measures, yet this doesn’t stop
abuses, corruption, or even tyranny from entering the picture. The idea that a
world authority could be kept in check by a system of world law doesn’t hold
“True world political authority” – This isn’t a moral or spiritual ideal
propagated by the Holy See, but the vision of an actual world government. This is
evident in the overall context of section 67 and in the wording itself: a “world
No doubt the papal office desires to see a spiritual standard
incorporated into this political entity, based in large part on the social
teachings of the Catholic Church. However, this in no way guarantees that
a world authority will act in good will. As history bears out, the Vatican
itself is far from immune in this regard, and “holders of power” tend to
Remember the words of Lord Acton, a Catholic historian who penned the
following in response to the Vatican’s unquestioning authority: “Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”xv
Following A Tradition
Pope Benedict’s promotion of world government didn’t happen in a
vacuum. Since the 1950s the Holy See has consistently moved to support an
empowered United Nations and world political authority.
Pope Pius XII: On April 6, 1951, Pope Pius XII had a meeting in the
Vatican with the World Movement for World Federal Government – a precursor to
the World Federalist Movement. During that meeting, Pope Pius encouraged his
“world government” audience to continue in this quest.
“Your movement, Gentlemen, has the task of creating an effective
political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping with
the traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachings
on the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. An
organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…”
The Pope then explained, rightly so, that the “deadly germs of
mechanical totalitarianism” might infect this “world political organization.”
However, in noting this possibility, he reminded the attendees to pursue a morally
firm world federalist approach. Ending his meeting, the Pope encouraged his
audience to pursue this grand idea.
“…you have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We
congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entire
success and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you His
wisdom and help in the performance of your task.”xvi
Pope John XXIII: In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII
called for an international public authority with a “world-wide sphere of activity” to
deal with global problems. This authority would be “equipped with world-wide
power and adequate means for achieving the universal common good,” although
it could not establish itself through force: “it must be set up with the consent of all
In contemplating how this system would work, John XXIII called upon the
principle of subsidiarity, saying that this should be applied “to the relations
between the public authority of the world community and the public authorities of
each political community.”
Subsidiarity here, like Benedict’s use of the term, doesn’t negate a world
authority – it simply imposes a hierarchical structure that recognizes each level,
from the bottom-to-the-top, as a key to the process.xvii
Pope Paul VI: While speaking at the United Nations in 1965, the adulation
coming from the pope was palatable. During his talk he praised the UN system
as “the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.”
“The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be
perfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present.
You mark a stage in the development of mankind, from which retreat must
never be admitted… Advance always! ...Let unanimous trust in this
Institution grow, let its authority increase.”
Alas, Pope Paul VI called for a world government.
“Is there anyone who does not see the necessity of coming thus
progressively to the establishment of a world authority, able to act
efficaciously on the juridical and political levels?xviii
Pope John Paul II: In his 1995 speech to the UN, John Paul reflected on
the historical connections between the Vatican and the world body.
“The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which
makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has
supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from
the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative
approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations
constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common
concern for the human family.”xix
Although Pope John Paul II butted heads with the United Nations over
family issues, he did place enormous importance on pursuing political systems of
world law. In 1985 he spoke to judges at the International Court of Justice, telling
The Holy See attaches great importance to its collaboration with the
United Nations Organization and the various organisms which are a vital
part of its work. The Church's interest in the International Court of Justice
goes back to the very beginnings of this Tribunal and to the events that
were linked to its establishment….
The Church has consistently supported the development of an
international administration of justice and arbitration as a way of peace
fully resolving conflicts and as part of the evolution of a world legal
Strictly speaking, the present Court is no more – but it is also no
less – than an initial step towards what we hope will one day be a totally
effective judicial authority in a peaceful world.xx [italics in original]
In other speeches and writings, such as his encyclical Sollicitudo rei
Socialis, John Paul called for a strengthening of world law and a “greater degree
of international ordering.”xxi None of this has the same blatancy as Pope
Benedict’s recommendation for a “world political authority,” but it does follow a
common political theme – enlarged and enhanced global governance.
Pope Benedict’s idea of a “world political authority” didn’t spring out of thin
air. Rather, through successive papal offices stretching back to at least Pius
XII,xxii the Holy See has nurtured visions of an international politic.
Influencing Princes and Paupers
The fact that a religious leader has called for a world authority is
interesting in itself, but because this emanates from the papal office, an extra
measure of attention is warranted.
We cannot overlook the influence wielded by the Holy See. The Pope
is vastly different in relation to other religious figures when it comes to
global significance. It’s true that some Protestant and evangelical leaders
are consulted by political elites; and government officials often court the
heads of other religions, such as the Dalai Lama. But all of this pales to the
historical and contemporary powers of the papal office.
For centuries the Holy See has been the centerpiece of European political
affairs. Its history is replete with geo-political intrigues, papal wars, and the rise
and fall of national powers. Royalty from every corner of the Continent have
traveled to Rome seeking an audience with the Pope, hoping for papal favor.
Moreover, the Vatican has been a hub for banking interests, espionage, and
transnational business dealings.xxiii And today, just as in the past, Presidents and
Prime Ministers bow before the Pope, seeking his counsel, and privately
discussing matters of great political, economic, and social importance.
Eric Frattini, the author of The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican
Espionage, gives us a window into this geo-political world.
“The papacy, the supreme authority at the head of the Catholic
Church, is the oldest established institution in the world. It was the only
institution to flourish during the Middle Ages, a leading actor in the
Renaissance, and a protagonist in the battles of the Reformation, the
Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the industrial era, and the
rise and fall of communism. For centuries, making full use of their famous
‘infallibility,’ popes brought their centralized power to bear on the social
outcomes of unfolding historical events…
…throughout history, the papacy has always displayed two faces:
that of the worldwide leadership of the Catholic Church and that of one of
he planet’s best political organizations. While the popes were blessing
their faithful on the one hand, on the other, they were receiving foreign
ambassadors and heads of states and dispatching legates and nuncios on
And standing behind the Pope is a worldwide following of devout
Catholics, who may not agree with world government, but who are
nevertheless committed to the Roman Catholic Church – thus supportive of
Avro Manhattan, a critic of the Holy See, correctly made the correlation
between the Vatican’s power and it’s faithful.
“What gives the Vatican its tremendous power is not its diplomacy
as such, but the fact that behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with all
its manifold world-embracing activities…
…Vatican diplomacy is so influential and can exert such great
power in the diplomatic-political field because it has at its disposal the
tremendous machinery of a spiritual organization with ramifications in
every country of the planet. In other words, the Vatican, as a political
power, employs the Catholic Church as a religious institution to assist the
attainment of its goals. These goals, in turn, are sought mainly to further
the spiritual interests of the Catholic Church.
…the Catholic Hierarchy automatically reacts upon those
innumerable religious, cultural, social, and finally political, organizations
connected with the Catholic Church, which although tied to the Church
primarily on religious grounds, can at given moments be made either
directly or indirectly to serve political ends.”xxv
The point is this: No other religious leader on the planet holds such
political and economic influence within a religious framework. Consider just the
number of adherents that make up the backbone of the Church of Roman: In the
US, Catholics make up approximately 22% of the populace, and of the world’s
total, 17% – or about 1.14 billion people.xxvi That’s why Pope Benedict’s call for a
“world political authority” is so significant; what he says influences leaders and
laymen alike by the hundreds of millions.
If the local Baptist pastor or Mennonite preacher, with a flock of a few
dozen or a few hundred, appealed for a UN-styled “world political authority” it
wouldn’t mean much beyond the pews of that particular church. The congregants
would either cheer the minister or, hopefully, challenge his assumptions. But
generally speaking it wouldn’t cause a ripple beyond the local community.
However, when the “Holy Father” – a Catholic title that denotes more than just a
“leader” – makes such a recommendation, and has the backing of earlier papal
appeals, the waves of influence travel worldwide.
- That the Holy See has, for at least six decades, supported the quest for a
global political structure.
- That Pope Benedict has, through his recent encyclical, explicitly
supported the idea of a world political authority; and that this world government
should be designed to incorporate the principle of subsidiarity. Further point: That
subsidiarity in a universal political structure would be akin to the slogan, “think
global, act local.”
- That the influence of the Holy See upon the international community is
substantial, and that the Papacy has the backing and general support of
hundreds of millions around the world, adding “local-to-global” support for the
Vatican’s geo-political visions.
- That advocates for world government – such as the World Federalist
Movement – will pick up on Pope Benedict’s recommendations and use it to
parade the idea of world management.
- That many Roman Catholics and Catholic organizations will
subsequently endorse the proposal for a world political authority, and hence
support various movements for global governance.
- That individuals and organizations within and outside the Catholic
Church will defend the Pope’s encyclical by seeking to spiritualize or moralize the
text, thereby attempting to soften the controversy. Yet, the Pope’s intent for a
world political authority remains.
- That a minority of Catholics will vocally oppose the Vatican’s call for UN
empowerment and international government (many more will be indifferent).
Ridicule may occur for those who publically speak against Benedict’s political
ideals. Expect rifts between those who oppose and those who advocate global
- That non-Catholic faith groups will support Pope Benedict’s encyclical.
Already an evangelical response document has been issued by a group of
professors and national evangelical leaders. Titled, Doing the Truth in Love, this
text agrees that new forms of global authority are necessary, but that it “must
secure increased participation, transparency and accountability, and help
strengthen the nation state relative to the power of global finance.”xxvii Such a
view is more utopian than practical, as few real incentives would compel a world
government to operate this openly.
- That new alliances and networks will be formed to increase political and
social pressure in support of world management, and that these networks will
incorporate Catholic/Vatican groups, non-governmental organizations, and
elements from the United Nations.
When the Holy See raises the specter of world government it
should jolt Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even if a world political
authority doesn’t come to fruition, such advocacy is stunning. Here we
have the planet’s most influential religious office – itself politically
structured as a top-down authority – promoting a top-down system of
international management. The perception alone is deeply troubling.
And if a world political authority does come into play, what will keep it
from morphing into an autocratic regime? Even in this we are assuming that the
global authority will be introduced as a limited government. The ultimate
contradiction, of course, is a toothless world authority. Without enforcement
capabilities it would be little more than an advisory board. To be effective,
therefore, it must be a centralist power with clout: Anything less would be
But is this what the world needs to ensure global order?
Consider for a moment the last one hundred years, a century rife with
examples of “well-meaning” centralist governments – they were always well
meaning to somebody. In the name of “peace and security” these regimes
crushed domestic opponents, often liquidating their own supporters in the
process. From Chile to China the unofficial motto, “peace is the destruction of all
opposition,” was translated into action. And in the case of Nazi Germany, the
government rose to power through the democratic process. Sadly, in some cases
the Vatican itself held the hands of those who perpetrated such crimes, as in
Croatia during the 1940s.xxviii
Does all of this mean that the Holy See supports a dictatorial world
regime? Not according to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, as he openly
recognized the dangerous possibility of a “universal power of a tyrannical
nature.” His hope, as outlined in Caritas in Veritate, is a world political
authority checked by legal boundaries so as not to “infringe upon
freedom.” Government overstep would be offset by accountability
A fine concept in theory, but it rests on a shaky assumption: That the
world political authority will remain content to live within prescribed limitations;
satisfied to operate within tight social, economic, and political constraints. Here’s
the snag: our advanced, democratic nations – and even the Vatican – haven’t
and can’t live up to this basic standard.
While Pope Benedict tries to soft-sell Catholics and national leaders on
the idea of world government,