Chatter abounds around the web about a paragraph calling for a “world political authority” in Pope Benedict’s new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. John Zmirak writes that it is the only paragraph that he finds troubling. George Weigel concludes that this section and a whole variety of other statements he finds unacceptable are the result of intra-Vatican quibbling and the influence of the supposedly ideology-driven Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Weigel suggests that statements influenced by PCJP (as identified by “those with advanced degrees in Vaticanology”) are inconsistent with the rest of the “Benedictine” text. The implication is that we can ignore passages some might find troublesome, such as the “world political authority” section, where the strong language understandably has so many upset.

It should be acknowleged that Weigel, biographer of John Paul II, is certainly one of America’s most qualified scholars on the Vatican. But his interpretation of Caritas in Veritate is a bit like the now infamous signing statements of the Bush years, in which one conveniently ignores passages offensive to one’s own sensibilities while affirming the rest of the document. Alternatively, we could look more carefully at the paragraph that has so many agitated, attempt to put easily vilified phrases like “world political authority” in context, and perhaps find that these sections aren’t as radical and inconsistent as some initially thought. To do an adequate job of this would require more time and space than the blog permits, but let’s make an initial attempt.

Here’s the first part of the section that has many upset:

67. 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. [italics in the original text]

The need for global cooperation is argued for in the context of existing institutions such as the United Nations. Catholics certainly have many reasons to criticize the UN on human life issues, but it is hard to argue with the assertion that—at least as long as it remains the primary institutional means for global cooperation—the UN should be more effective in helping resolve the pressing cross-border issues identified above (food, disarmament, conservation, migration). At present, in what many consider a unipolar world, the only institution approaching a de facto “world political authority” is America, and we’ve seen how effective Uncle Sam has been in what were thought to be quick and easy democracy promotion projects in the Middle East.

Accordingly, what the Church seeks here is an authority that has wider legitimacy, and thus might be more effective in confronting the problems of globalization; since we already have most of the family of nations represented in the UN, Caritas argues that a reasonable solution might be for this organization to acquire more authority in areas of global concern. But doesn’t this pose a problem for sovereignty? Isn’t it preferable for America and other nations simply negotiate these solutions in more ad-hoc arrangements—at G8 meetings, for example? This is where the second part of this controversial section comes into play, explaining that there are too many potential injustices caused by the current asymmetrical influence among the community of nations.

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 forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. [italics in original document, bold added]

Before considering the injustice claim, however, we must address some of the language that many find troubling, particularly the section here about “effective power to ensure security for all” and “to ensure compliance…” These phrases understandably trouble many conservatives, who imagine an Orwellian bureaucracy that eases the world into despotism. But in Caritas and other Church encyclicals, global authorities are always limited by the principle of subsidiarity, which in John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus is defined as the principle that

a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

Subsidiarity, as Caritas notes immediately prior to the controversial section under consideration here, is an “expression of inalienable human freedom” that “respects personal dignity” and thus is “the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.” Thus limited international authorities constrained by subsidiarity should not be feared.

Ultimately, however, the argument for more consistent and just world political authority rests on Caritas’ claim that there is an imbalance of “power among the strongest nations” that unjustly shapes the terms of international cooperation. One need only look at this week’s meeting of the G8—which only represents only the world’s richest countries, but discusses issues that have great impact on all peoples of the world—for evidence that the risk of injustice identified by Caritas is real.

How seriously one takes this claim of injustice is no doubt influenced by one’s perspective. Today a thoughtful friend remarked to me that the inclusion of the “world political authority” paragraph is evidence that the Pope has become a misguided utopian dreamer; he is living in a bubble, my interlocutor remarked, clueless as to the potential dangers of large-scale tyranny (I’m sure his use of bubble wasn’t intended as a joke about the Popemobile). But we must consider that perhaps it is we Americans who are living in a bubble. After all, it’s easy for Americans to dismiss the claim that other peoples of less firepower and economic might should have a seat at the table when America is already the de facto “world political authority.”

Phrases like “effective power to ensure security for all” and “to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties” should give us pause to consider the appropriate scale of international organizations. There is a danger that, taken out of context, this language could be used to support some kind of global tyranny. But a closer reading of Caritas demonstrates that more international solidarity is not necessarily a recipe for global Leviathan, particularly if it is conditioned by the Church’s formulation of subsidiarity.