Fred och rättvisa?

Har läst ett dokument från påvens råd för fred och rättvisa som kom ut nu i veckan med den imponerande titeln "Towards Reforming The International Financial And Monetary Systems In The Context Of Global Public Authority".

Bakgrunden är förstås den nuvarande ekonomiska krisen och dokumentet börjar med en slags problembeskrivning: människans girighet, neo-liberalism, teknokratiska lösningar m.m. Och självklart kan det vara så även om jag saknar en definition av t.ex. neo-liberalism.

Men det är när dokumentet ger sitt förslag på lösning som jag blir, öh, fundersam. Och jag citerar från en (ickeofficiell) engelsk översättning:

"On the way to building a more fraternal and just human family and, even before that, a new humanism open to transcendence, 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. He then acknowledged the fact that a correspondence was lacking in the human community between the political organization “on a world level and the objective needs of the universal common good”. He also expressed the hope that one day “a true world political authority” would be created.
---
In the same spirit of Pacem in Terris, Benedict XVI himself expressed the need to create a world political authority. This seems obvious if we consider the fact that the agenda of questions to be dealt with globally is becoming ever longer. Think, for example, of peace and security; disarmament and arms control; promotion and protection of fundamental human rights; management of the economy and development policies; management of the migratory flows and food security, and protection of the environment. In all these areas, the growing interdependence between States and regions of the world becomes more and more obvious as well as the need for answers that are not just sectorial and isolated, but systematic and integrated, rich in solidarity and subsidiarity and geared to the universal common good.
---
The establishment of a world political Authority should be preceded by a preliminary phase of consultation from which a legitimated institution will emerge that is in a position to be an effective guide and, at the same time, can allow each country to express and pursue its own particular good. 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.
---
The spirit of Babel is the antithesis of the Spirit of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-12), of God’s design for the whole of humanity: that is, unity in truth. Only a spirit of concord that rises above divisions and conflicts will allow humanity to be authentically one family and to conceive of a new world with the creation of a world public Authority at the service of the common good."

Jag hoppas att förslaget bara är naivt.

Men jag undrar... Har författarna glömt att all makt korrumperar? Och vem definierar "the common good". För tro mig, någon måste uttolka det gemensamma intresset. Och om uttolkarna menar sig vara "opartiska" så gör det saken än värre. Och hur kan man tro att detta skall ske utan tvång? ("It is a matter of an Authority with a global reach that cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence, but should be the outcome of a free and shared agreement and a reflection of the permanent and historic needs of the world common good.")

I mina öron låter det som särintressen blir allmänintresse. Konsensus blir en våt filt där oliktänkare ska sitta still i båten. More of the same. Demokrati i betydelse fria val och reella alternativ blir underordnat "the common good".

Men framförallt - var är Kung Jesus i allt detta?