Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part XI: Strangers No Longer, the USCCB's Subversive Pastoral Letter

The Vatican called on Monday for sweeping reforms of the world economy and the creation of a ethical, global authority to regulate financial markets...The Vatican called for the establishment of a "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions. Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over weaker countries. "Vatican urges economic reforms, condemns collective greed" - Reuters, 10/24/2011

One of the great frustrations this author has with the way news is covered is the abject failure of the press - and by the press, I mean both the mainstream legacy news organizations as well as the alternate, independent journalists who do their work on blogs, YouTube channels and podcasts - to relate the various political activities of the Roman Church-State to its overarching goal of establishing a new version of the Holy Roman Empire, this time one worldwide in scope.

Now when one begins talking about the push for world government, it's not uncommon to be charged with "fear mongering" and "pushing conspiracy theories." But Rome's lust for world government, while certainly a conspiracy, is perhaps the least secret, most openly admitted conspiracy in history. Many people suppose that, if the Vatican really did want world government, you'd have to go looking for proof in some musty, dusty ancient codex buried deep in a monastic library in some exotic location.

The truth is that proving Rome's desire for world government is, as they say, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Take, for example, the passage quoted at the top of this post. It's from a 2011 Reuters article about a new document issued by the Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, the full title of which is Towards Reforming The International Financial And Monetary Systems In The Context Of Global Public Authority (emphasis mine).

Far from hiding its desire for one world government, the Vatican comes right out and says it. In fact, it's actually shocking to this author just how open Rome is about its goal.

Writing in the American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher, a man who apparently is, or at least was, unaware of Rome's power lust, expressed his own shock at the Vatican's comments. He noted,

Lord have mercy. What was once only in the febrile prophetic imagination of Jack Chick and Hal Lindsey is now a press release from the Vatican. A friend (who is not Evangelical) writes:

This is going to FREAK the evangelicals out. But it makes me wonder what the heck is going on in the minds of these Vaticanites! Don't they have a clue how the world will preceive (sic) this? One world authority?? Really?

Count me with the Evangelicals. It freaks me out too, and will freak out many Orthodox Christians (Dreher was raised Methodist, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1993, and in 2006 converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) I bet it has the same effect on not a few Catholics as well. Maybe Malachi Martin wasn't such a conspiracy freak after all...

Dreher got it exactly right. His comments are remarkable, if for no other reason than they are the clearest example this author has seen of a big name columnist actually understanding the plain language of the Vatican and the implied worldwide tyranny of its words. But while Dreher nailed it at first, it appears that someone got to him. For in an apparent addendum to his original article he to some degree walked back his original comments. He wrote,

OK, let me take a second stab at this thing.

First, I don't think there's anything intentionally malicious about this document. It does not have magisterial authority, so it doesn't set out the Church's authoritative teaching on faith and morals. No Catholic is required to believe any of this.

News flash for Rod Dreher, the Pontifical Council's document says nothing new about Rome's lust for world government. It simply represents a reiteration of many, similar calls, both direct and by implication, made by the popes of Rome. As such, Dreher's shock at the Vatican's statement really is a commentary about his ignorance of Rome's long standing powerlust. The Vatican wasn't saying anything new in 2011 that hadn't been said many times before, or since for that matter. It's just how Antichrist rolls.

As proof of this, consider what John Robbins wrote in the chapter titled "World Government" in his 1999 book on the political and economic thought of Rome, titled Ecclesiastical Megalomania, "What the Roman Church-State accomplished on a small scale during the Middle Ages is what it desires to achieve on a global scale in the coming millennium" (187).

To back up his claim, Robbins quotes Gaudium et Spes, one of the major documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council.

It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of a universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights (emphasis mine).

Now ask yourself, is there any significant difference between the 2011 statement from the Pontifical Council calling for a "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" and what was said the Gaudium et Spes in 1965? There's none apparent to this author.

This demolishes Dreher's argument that Catholics are not required to believe the statements from the Pontifical Council calling for world government. Unless, of course, Dreher wants to argue that Catholics are not required to believe Gaudium et Spes when it too calls for a "universal public authority." I doubt he's willing to do this.

By now you may be asking yourself what any of this has to do with the migrant caravan. It may appear that I've gone off on a bit of a tangent and forgotten the purpose of this post.

Far from it. I brought up the world government stuff to set up my main point. You see, Rome takes a multipronged approach to bringing about world government. Just as it attempted to use the public's anger about the 2008 financial crisis to further its goal of establishing a "supranational authority with universal jurisdiction," in like fashion it uses immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement as the means to the same end.

Although Rome's call for world government in Strangers No Longer (SNL) is muted by comparison to what one finds in Gaudium et Spes and the 2011 document from the Pontifical Council, nevertheless the idea is clearly implied. Let's take a look at it.

SNL is a Globalist Document

Several times in SNL, the USCCB and the Mexican bishops attack the idea of the nation state.

Paragraph 30 of SNL directly quotes the explicitly globalist Exsul Familia Nazarethana
(EFN), the 1952 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII which has been called the Church's Magna Carta for Migrants. For my earlier comments on this remarkably evil document, please see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The bishops write,

While recognizing the right of the sovereign state to control its borders, Exsul Familia also establishes that this right is not absolute, stating that the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of the receiving countries:

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, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this...

Pope John XXIII placed limits on immigration, however, when there are "just reasons for it." Nevertheless, he stressed the obligation of sovereign states to promote the universal good where possible, including an obligation to accommodate migration flows. For more powerful nations, a stronger obligation exists (emphasis mine).

Basically, the bishops and the Roman Church-State are saying that, the United States and other independent nations have the right to control their borders, until we say they can't. Then they have to listen to the voice of the Holy Mother Kirk and acknowledge their obligation to provide sustenance - i.e. rob their citizens - for as many migrants as we say they have to.

To put this another way, the nation state is no longer the highest civil authority. Rather, the Church is. Or to put this still another way, the Woman Who Rides the Beast is calling for world government with itself in the driver's seat and able to order mere national governments around, the expressed will of the electorates of those nations notwithstanding.

In the 2013 book On "Strangers No Longer", a collection of essays celebrating the 10th anniversary of SNL, Mark Ensalaco whined about the fact that politicians actually were listening to the voice of their constituents rather than to the bishops. He complained, "The bishops appealed for a civil debate about this urgent matter to no avail. It was as if their words fell mainly on flinty ground or among thorns where they withered in the white heat of politics or were strangled by politicians' worldly concerns about their electoral prospects (251).

What offends Ensalaco so much that he denigrates it as "politicians' worldly concerns about their electoral prospects" (187) would better be called elected officials simply doing the job they were put in office to do. But then, it's not surprising that a representative of the tyrannical Roman Church-State would be offended at the idea of elected representatives who actually represent the wishes of their constituents. Quite obviously, he prefers the Roman system where when the Pope says "jump," the only proper response is to ask, "How high, your Holiness?"

It is difficult to communicate to the reader the full extent of Rome's visceral hatred for independent nation states that refuse to confirm to its will, but perhaps the following quote may give him some sense. Writing in his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei in reaction to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, a treaty that permanently curtailed Rome's ability to meddle in the internal affairs of the allied nations and established the modern world order, Pope Innocent X raged, calling the provisions of the treaty, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time" (Larry Jay Diamond; Marc F. Plattner, Philip J. Costopoulo (2005). World religions and democracy, 103).

Now why didn't Innocent X tell us how he really felt about Westphalia?

Innocent X's epic rant on the Treaty of Westphalia must be understood in light of how the popes of Rome view themselves and their Church. According to Rome's teaching, the papacy has a triple power, being "the father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ." To such an exalted being, one simply does not say "no." And when he says you have an obligation to take in migrants and pay their freight, well, it's not yours to question why.

Diamond, Plattner and Costopoulo continue,

The Church tended its enmity well into the nineteenth century, when it condemned international law as a "Protestant science" [for once, the Church is actually right about somthing; the creation of  a humane system of international law that respects the territory and the property of the citizens of nation states is one of the great political achievements of the Reformation] and censured the works of the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius, often considered the intellectual godfather of international law.

Westphalia drew the Church's scorn because it inflicted a mortal wound on the Respublica Christiania, the vision of society that the Church carried forward from medieval Christendom (103).

When the bishops demand in SNL that the United States - the US is the special object of scorn in SNL - accede to their arrogant demands to accept as many migrants as the bishops think right, they are not doing something novel, rather, they are simply bringing to bear Rome's megalomanical, medieval mindset on the modern problem of Mexican migrants coming to the United States.

Rome continues its assault on the Westphalian World Order it began in SNL paragraph 30 (cited above), repeatedly stating there are limits to the authority of national governments to control their borders. And this while Rome never mentions any such limit on its own power.

The church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth [Question: How does the Church determine when this is the case?]. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows [First, nations don't feed their residents, the citizens feed themselves by the product of their own labor; Second how is Rome's declaration that wealthy nations have "a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows" different from the Marxist doctrine of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?] (36).

The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good [What about the state's obligation to, as Paul put it, "punish evildoers and praise the good?" While this is the Biblical purpose of government, Rome's collectivist notion of "the common good" is put forth as the civil magistrate's reason for being.]. It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights. These teachings complement each other. While the sovereign state may impose reasonable limits on immigration, the common good is not served when the basic human rights of the individual are violated [Obviously, Rome does not consider the right to property as a "basic human right," since it advocates national governments taking property from their own citizens and bestowing it upon its favored migrants] (39).

By now, I hope the reader has a sense of just how contemptuous Rome is of the concept of independent - specifically independent of Rome's control - national governments. Rome pays lip service to the authority of national governments, but, in the end, their authority extends only so far as the bishops, cardinals and popes of Rome say it does.

Closing Thoughts

While nowhere in Scripture are church officers given control over national governments, the Bible does speak about a false church that assumes such prerogatives. That false church in Revelation 17 is called Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth. In contrast to the true church of Jesus Christ, the Bride of Christ, this false church delights in fornication and is drunk with the blood of the saints.

In the opinion of the reformers and of this author, Mystery, Babylon the Great is none other than the Church of Rome. As Rome reigned over the kings of the earth in the first century, so she wishes to do so in the 21st.

In the view of this author, SNL lays  the intellectual groundwork for Rome's attempt to break the United States both financially and, by flooding the historically Protestant US with migrants loyal to Rome, culturally as well.  This is the same playbook Rome is using to break the historic nations of Europe, the only difference being the European migrants are largely Muslim.

Once Rome has destablized the US and the nations of Europe by making them financially insolvent and politically ungovernable, it will take little effort to absorb them into a new, globe spanning Holy Roman Empire. In the opinion of this author, this is precisely Rome's end game for the migrant crisis.

(To be continued...)