Thursday, October 27, 2011

Centrality and Subsidiarity

If you haven't heard, some irrelevant non-doctrinal curial document from an equally irrelevant Vatican division states unequivocally that something is wrong.

Actually, The Church is advocating for a global government of unlimited power to control the money and banks of the world. Some activists might be happy to hear this, until they read the footnote. We will be returning to the Renaissance and the world will be ruled by the Pope who will amass as much wealth as he possibly can, spend it on rich vestments and voluptuous churches.

It's happened before.

And now, why my first reaction to hearing about this document was positive: I am, as we all know, a secret monarchist (and by secret, I mean that I always talk about it.) My whole political theorizing is based on a strong central figure who oversees the treasury of the nation as well as inspiring the people to unity. Furthermore, with the point about Centrality comes the point about Subsidiarity. Although there is a call for a central regulatory system, it is practically bereft of power, or rather it is bereft of practical power. The laws of the nations, their traditions, their culture shall remain with a central system making sure the stupid banks don't lend money where they shouldn't etc.

The main problem I have with this document is a) it's not doctrinal and thus is not binding as law to the faithful. I mean how lame is that? b) It doesn't advocate for the reinstitution of the papal states. I may be a monarchist, but I am a papist first. c) It actually doesn't say that the central government will be the Pope. Totally unradical. Since when did we stop trying to shock the world?

Actually, b) is mostly unrelated to this whole thing, but I'm still not over the reunification of Italy.


thisjourneyofmylife said...

I'm pretty sure you're not being sarcastic, but that makes me wonder why you are so skeptical about the European Union.

N.W. Thomas said...

I'm pretty sure I was being sarcastic at least 97% percent of the time and serious about 45% of the time. The reason I am skeptical of the European union is not because it is a union but because it insists on becoming involved in the individual nations to a large extent. As a monetary regulator, fine, but as an overcompassing legislative body that creates laws that work in some countries and not in others, it makes no sense. I am skeptical about the US in the same way. Like I said, Centrality is not the problem but Centrality should not be the focus of the power.

In short, I'm mostly making fun of every single person who has commented on this document (some on the right who HATE them I say MONARCHY FOREVER and some on the left who want someone to take care of their needs them I say RESPONSIBILITY AND SUBSIDIARITY) In other words, I am agreeing with the document but am parodying each of the "sides" of the debate.

And in the middle, I'm giving another plug for the Ideal Political Theory: Distributive, Subsidiarity, Monarchy!!!!!!

thisjourneyofmylife said...

Okay, sorry, clearly my English isn't good enough for me to notice sarcasm. :-)

Ink said...

You're good (excellent, actually) at hiding your e-mail address, and I REALLY want to pick your brain but not in a public forum. There, now you have no excuse. And I swear I'll continue stalking your posts till you do.
~Ink, B.Arch. cand. '16