Mexico, Mass Migration and the Example of Moses Part V: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
Last week we looked at the Roman Church-State's theory of property and found that Rome does not look at private property the same way most Americans, even Americanized Roman Catholics, do.
If you were to ask a typical American, regardless of his religion, the basis for his claim to own an item, he'd probably say something like, "Because I paid for it." That is to say, he believes he has rightful title to a piece of property - a bottle of water, a car or a house - because he lawfully purchased it from the previous owner. This is the correct answer, but probably not for the reason many people think.
If you were to press someone on this point, asking him why the fact that he purchased an item means he rightfully has title to it and enjoys the rights of ownership - to hold, to use, and to dispose of it - at some point you'll probably be told it's just common sense. But this is incorrect.
The historic American, and Western, view of private property is not the product of common sense, but of a Biblical view of economics and politics that was re-discovered at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century. In short, the Biblical theory of property is that when God created the world, he gave it to men severally, that is to say, individually. All private property can be traced back to Adam, to whom God gave the entire world as a possession. Adam passed title to this property on to his sons and so forth. This process of selling or ceding one's property to another has continued down to today. In Scripture, private property, not collective ownership, is original. And just as the whole human race is descended from Adam, so too are all property rights. Lord willing, we'll take a closer look at the Biblical theory of property in a future installment.
Rome, on the other hand, has a theory of property derived not from Scripture, but from the mistaken belief that when God created the world, he gave it to mankind collectively. In place of the Bibles teaching that private property is original, Rome posits an original communism. This original communism is referred to at times as the "community of goods," or, as the popes of Rome like to call it, the Universal Destination of Goods.
Roman Catholic Social Teaching is willing to accommodate private property up to a point. For Rome, private property is a convention of what they call positive (man made) law. But when things get serious, natural law trumps positive law. And natural law means the Universal Destination of Goods.
What the Roman Church-State argues is that since the original condition of the world was the possession of all things in common, the ultimate an only moral title to property is, not that one paid for a good or service, but need.
If you have a large house, a full refrigerator, and a nice savings account, and I have none of these things but need them, then Rome argues that because all things originally belonged to all men in common, I have the right to take what I need from you. If necessary, the civil authorities can be called on to do the taking on my behalf. This is the purpose of the modern welfare state, which itself is largely the creation of the Roman Church-State, in a nutshell: To take property from those who have a surplus (at least in the eyes of the Church) and give it to those who need it.
This is not stealing, argues the Church, because, "need is the moral criterion for the rightful and lawful possession of property: Whoever needs property ought to possess it. Need makes another's goods one's own. Need is the ultimate and only moral title to property. Neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor inheritance, nor divine commandment (with the exception of Roman Church-State property) grants title to property that is immune to the prior claim of need" (Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 32).
As we shall see below, the Church's unbiblical notion of original communism is central to its program of promoting mass, taxpayers subsidized immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement.
The Universal Destination of Goods in Exsul Familia
It is impossible to understand the pronouncements of the various popes and prelates of the Roman Church-State on immigration apart from understanding its view on private property. In fact, it would be fair to say that Rome's doctrine of the Universal Destination of Goods is central to its stated program of promoting mass, taxpayer supported immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.
Writing in Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII asserted,
Then, - according to the teaching of "Rerum Novarum," [Rerum Novarum is an 1891 papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII; it is generally considered to be the basis for all modern Roman Catholic social teaching] - the right of the family to a living space is recognized. When this happens, migration attains its natural scope as experience often shows. We mean, the more favorable distribution of men on the earth's surface suitable to colonies of agricultural workers; that surface which God created and prepared for the use of all...
The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations...(emphasis mine).
So there you have it. Rome's Universal Destination of Goods is brought forth by Pope Pius as the basis for requiring nations to receive welfare migrants. The Pope claims that national sovereignty is to be respected, but only so far as it's not exaggerated, "to the point that access is this land is...denied to needy...people."
And although the Pope doesn't spell it out explicitly here, land is not the only thing owed to these, "needy and decent people from other nations." What is implied by not explicitly stated is that the needy migrants also have a claim on the full panoply of the welfare state, which itself is the product of the ungodly Social Teaching of the Roman Church-State as outlined in Rerum Novarum.
Writing in 1931 on the 50th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI exclaimed, "In fact, the Encyclical Rerum Novarum completely overthrew those tottering tenets of Liberalism [n.b. Liberalism in this context means free market economics and limited government] which had long hampered effective interference by the government."
Robbins provides corroboration of Pius' statement by citing a 1996 article by Joe Klein in Newsweek, in which the columnist stated that presidential candidate Pat Buchannan had gotten religion, and,
The religion is Roman Catholicism, the most significant in American politics, the ultimate swing vote. Catholics were the heart of the New Deal coalition. They were the Daley machine in Chicago, the Curley machine in Boston, Tammany Hall in New York. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to win a Catholic majority. Clinton got 43 percent of their support in 1992 (Perot had 20) (Robbins, 46, 47).
Much of the interference by federal, state, and local governments in the affairs of citizens, both Joe Klein and the papacy have told us, is due to Roman Catholic influence in American politics. Corrupt municipal political machines were constructed and operated by Roman Catholics, following the Church-State's support for a policy of effective interference: Tammany Hall, the Daley machine, the Curley machine, and so on. Klein could have mentioned much more. Following Vatican directives, Roman Catholic politicians, legislators, and intellectuals brought us the Progressive movement, the labor union movement, the graduated income tax, the New Deal, and the growth of government in the United States (Robbins, 47).
Since much of the welfare state in the US can be directly traced to the baleful influence of the Roman Church-State, it should come as no surprise that Rome is very much interested in ensuring that migrants get what, at least in the eyes of Rome, is due them.
Rome is rather coy about this. When reading pronouncements of the Roman Church-State on immigration, one will hear exhortations that this or that provision must be made for migrants, but no mention is made of where the money is to come from. But even though it is not explicitly stated, the implication is clear, taxpayers are expected to fork it over. After all, if migrants need food, clothing and shelter, and if need is the ultimate and only moral basis for property, citizens of rich Western nations have a moral obligation to hand their "surplus" property over to migrants. If they won't do it willingly, then the state must step in and take their "surplus" property from them and distribute to those who need it.
But despite its reluctance to say so openly, every now and the Roman Church-State lets the cat out of the bag. In a statement on its website, Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and The Movement of Peoples, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops makes clear that its stance on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement involves public subsidies,
A country's regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A Sincerely commitment to the needs of all must prevail.
In our modern world where communication and travel are much easier, the burden of emergencies cannot be placed solely on nations immediately adjacent to the crisis. Justice dictates that the world community contribute resources toward shelter, food, medical services, and basic welfare (emphasis mine).
Note that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn't say nations "should not decide to prove for its own people and no others," rather, it says, nations, "may not decide to provide for their its own people and no others." In other words, what the people and the government of a nation want is unimportant. It's what the Roman Church-State wants that matters.
Just in case anyone is wondering, Christian doctrine forbids the welfare state, even for a nation's own citizens. And if it's not the job of the civil magistrate to provide welfare benefits to its own citizens, it certainly has no place doing so for citizens of other nations.
Giulivo Tessarolo, the editor or Rome's commentary on Exsul Familia titled Exsul Familia, The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants, made the following remark about the implied cost of Rome's program for migrants,
In undertaking this work, I took cognizance of a significant social fact of our time; that, due to enormous financial implications, the phenomenon of emigration will find some relief only in the English-speaking countries. The vast influx of immigrants into Canada and Australia confirms that fact (Tessarolo, 13-14, emphasis mine).
Tessarolo goes on to urge the dissemination of Exsul Familia "throughout the English-speaking world" and is careful to point out to any reader who may balk at the "enormous financial implications" of the pope's demands just what an Apostolic Constitution (Exsul Familia is an Apostolic Constitution) really is, "a document which is a solemn enactment carrying juridical binding force, an ordinance coming directly from the Holy Father (sic). Hence, it is an ordinance of the church deriving from the highest source, in the clearest form. Consequently, only the most important laws are issued through a Constitution" (Tessarolo, 14).
In other words, when the Pope says "jump," especially when he says "jump" in an Apostolic Constitution, the only appropriate response is to say "How high, your holiness?," even if it means the financial ruination of your country.