"As much as I respect Cardinal (Timothy) Dolan and the bishops on doctrine, this is not doctrine.  This is not doctrine at all.  I totally respect the Pope and I totally respect the Catholic bishops and cardinals on doctrine.  This is not about doctrine.  This is about the sovereignty of a nation." 

These are the words spoken by former Trump administration Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in a 60 Minutes interview from September 2017. 

Bannon continued, adding "And in that regard [concerning immigration]they're [the bishops, cardinals and pope] just another guy with an opinion.    

From his comments, we can gather that Steve Bannon makes a sharp distinction between the authority of the Roman Church-State on matters of doctrine, on the one hand, and its authority when it comes to immigration, on the other hand.  According to Bannon, bishops, cardinals and popes speak with authority on doctrine.  But in political matters, at least as far as immigration is concerned, they are confined to merely giving their opinion, which carries no more weight than that of any other Tom, Dick or Harry. 

This is a fairly common opinion among Americanized Roman Catholics, particularly ones who favor limited government and free markets, but at the same time wish to be seen as remaining loyal to a Church that despises both.

But is it true that the pronouncements of the Roman Church-State on matters of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are merely the opinions of private men?

Better yet, let's put the question another way.  Let us ask, In the eyes of the bishops, cardinals and popes of the Roman Church-State, are their pronouncements on immigration merely their private opinions, as Steve Bannon says, or are they official teachings of the Church which are binding on all? 

So far in this series, we have looked at two enormous lies promulgated by Rome in the 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia.    In Part 5, we looked at how Rome's doctrine of the universal destination of goods - the universal destination of good is Rome's false teaching that God gave the world to men collectively; in other words, Rome teaches that communism, not private property, was the original economic order of creation - and how Rome used that false teaching to justify not only its push for the mass migration of individuals from poor nations into rich nations, but its assertion that the taxpayers of the rich receiving nations have an obligation to absorb the costs associated with this mass migration. 

In Part 6, we looked at another implication of the universal destination of goods, the destruction of national sovereignty.  In Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII claims that although the sovereignty of the state must be respected, "[it] cannot be exaggerated to the point" where migrants are denied access to land within its territory.  Left unstated but implied is the idea that migrants also have a claim on the host nations' social welfare system. 

This means, in effect, that no matter how much the citizens, legal residents and taxpayers of the host nation may complain to their government officials about the financial and social hardships created by mass migration, government officials have an obligation to ignore them and proceed full speed ahead with the migration program.  

Who decides when enough is enough?  Who is it that has the final say in whether a nation is exaggerating its sovereignty or not?  The pope, of course.  After all he's the father of kings, the governor of the world and the vicar of Christ.     

Today, we shall consider a third enormous lie of Exsul Familia, the megalomaniacal claim of the popes to have the right to impose their unscriptural economic and political ideas on the nations of the world. 

Papal Megalomania,  The Pope In His Own Words

It's probably safe to say that very few protestants have ever read through a papal document.  This is unfortunate, for there is no better way for Christians to grasp the breathtaking arrogance of the papacy than to listen to the popes in their own words. 

In the case of Exsul Familia, the closing paragraphs of the apostolic constitution show the little horn of Daniel at his finest, speaking pompous words.  Writes the pope,

We now decree that what we hereby establish shall not be subject to attack for any reason whatsoever, even though it be enacted without the consent of those who have or claim to have the right to express their opinion on this matter, or even if they were not consulted or their opinion was not accepted.  Furthermore, we declare that what we, hereby, have stated shall possess and retain its force, its validity, and its effectiveness until such time as it shall have obtained its full results.  Finally, we publicly state that all those who are expected or will be expected to benefit by it should do so by careful observance.   

With this statement in mind, let us now refer back to the question we asked earlier, In the eyes of the bishops, cardinals and popes of the Roman Church-State, are their pronouncements on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement merely their private opinions, as Steve Bannon says, or are they official teachings of the Church which are binding on all?

The answer is obvious, is it not?  The popes make no distinction between their authority on matters of doctrine, however one defines doctrine, and their authority on matters of politics and economics.  Indeed, it's fair to say that in the eyes of the pope, his pronouncements on politics and economics are as much doctrine as are the Church's pronouncements on the real presence of Christ in the mass, papal infallibility, and the perpetual virginity of Mary.  This is the meaning of the words, "We now decree that what we hereby establish shall not be subject to attack for any reason whatsoever."  When the father of kings, the governor of the world and the vicar of Christ speaks, not only do people listen, they are required to listen. 

Pope Pius XII continues,

We reject as null and void every contrary measure, regardless of who impudently proposes to do so, whether knowingly or through ignorance, and irrespective of what his authority may be.  

Last week we looked at the fulminations of Pope Innocent X as he raged against the Treaty of Westphalia, the articles of which removed entire nations from Rome's domination.  Innocent X wrote in his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei that the treaty was, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time." 

Note well how the language of Innocent X is echoed in what Pope Pius XII wrote in Exsul Familia, where he states, "We reject as null and void every contrary measure."  By implication, this means that if you as a citizen object to having your country overrun by tax eating migrants and appeal to your elected representatives to put a stop to it, the pope and the Roman Church-State reject you actions as "null and void."  Likewise, if your elected representatives take action to end mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, their contrary actions also are rejected by the pope and by the Roman Church-States as "null and void."

This rejection is unqualified, which is the meaning of the words, "regardless of who impudently proposes to do so." The pope does not limit his authority to Catholics only, but believes it applies to all men regardless of who they are or whether they even acknowledge papal authority.  To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, You may not be interested in the pope, but the pope is interested in you.

And not only are all actions by all men who oppose Rome's migration program "null and void," those who take such actions are considered "impudent" in the eyes of the pope. It is against this background that one must understand Pope Francis' interference in the internal affairs of the nations of Europe and the United States concerning their immigration laws.  The pope sees himself as brining to heel "impudent" heads of state who resist his program of mass migration.

Pius XII further states,

This Constitution shall remain valid, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, including any other Apostolic Constitution or dispositions of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, as mentioned above or other Acts, however worthy of special mention or calling for canonical derogation.

While Pope Innocent X described the Treaty of Westphalia - the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' War and is credited with establishing the modern system of nation states know as the Westphalian World Order, what Henry Kissinger described as, "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power;" the Westphalian World Order is biblical geopolitics - as "invalid," Pope Pius XII says that his Apostolic Constitution, "shall remain valid," and do so, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary."  Nothing may overturn the pope's decrees on migration.  No state law, no act of Congress, no Executive Order, no Constitutional Amendment can render invalid the commands of the pope in Exsul Familia.    

Nothing can prevail against the words of the pope in Exsul Familia, not even the words of another pope.  This is what, "including any other Apostolic Constitutions [remember, an Apostolic Constitution is the highest order papal document] or disposition of the Roman Pontiffs," means.  Semper eadem (always the same) is the boast of Rome.  Not only is Rome's  teaching on migration profoundly unbiblical, it is, by Rome's own admission, also irreformable.

Pope Pius concludes Exsul Familia with these words,   

No one, therefore, shall modify this text which expresses what we, hereby, establish, ordain, reject, direct, unite, admonish, forbid, command, and desire, nor shall anyone rashly oppose it.  But if someone presume to do so, he should know that he will incur the wrath of the omnipotent God, and of His apostles Peter and Paul.

In this final paragraph, Antichrist has the temerity to apply the same language to his sinful, error filled teaching as the Scriptures apply to themselves.  Consider the real apostolic warning from a real apostle at the end of Revelation and note the similarity.   "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:  If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"  (Revelation 22:18-19).

By writing as he does, Antichrist is blasphemously equating his words with the Word of God.  In fact, he even claims a higher authority for his words that Scripture claims for itself. After all, Revelation "merely" invokes the wrath of God on those who contradict the words written in the book.  But the pope? He brings in the Apostles Peter and Paul too, who, apparently, stand ready to give a good old fashioned apostolic beat down to anyone presumptuous enough to "modify" or "rashly oppose" the Pontiff's words in Exsul Familia.

The arrogance, the megalomania, the blasphemy of Pope Pius is breathtaking.  And Pius is not alone in using this sort of language.  Quoted above are the words of Pope Innocent X who spoke in similar tones.  These two examples are just the tip of the iceberg.  They are not an isolated instances.  They are typical the way the popes of Rome, not to mention other officials of the Roman Church-State, talk. 

This is the voice of the popes.

This is the voice of the Roman Church-State.

This is the voice of Antichrist.

The popes of Rome do not, as Steve Bannon suggests, make a distinction between their pronouncements on doctrine (theology) and their pronouncements on economics and politics.  The popes don't think of their authority as limited to governing the church. 

If the popes actually had the power the Vatican claims they do - according to the Vatican, the Papal Tiara symbolizes, "the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ" - it would be completely unreasonable for them to limit their authority to the matters of theology only.  When you're governor of the world and the father of kings, no one is in a position to question you on matters of politics and economics.

The popes of Rome - and the bishops and cardinals too - most certainly don't think of themselves as "just another guy with an opinion" on immigration.  In their eyes, they speak for God himself.  And when they say jump, you don't argue.  The only proper response is to ask, "How high?"

John Robbins summarized this idea very well when he wrote,

It might be expected that an institution such as the Roman Church-State...would not favor constitutional capitalism.  But how deep-seated its hostility to freedom and free enterprise is was a surprise even to this author.  The popes have expressed their hatred, not only for Protestantism...but also for the political and economic expression of Christianity:  capitalism.  In the pages that follow, the reader will find scores of such statements from the Magisterium of the Roman Church-State.  They are part of a system of thought that is one of the most impressive systems yet devised by men.  They are not disjointed statements, but the logical conclusions of premises accepted in Roman theology.  They are offered to the world by the Roman Magisterium as part of a package deal, and we are not at liberty, as some American Catholics [e.g. Steve Bannon] would prefer to do, to accept the Church-State's theology and reject its economic and political philosophy.  That flies in the face, not only of the claims of the Church-State itself, but of reason as well (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 24, emphasis added).      

This concludes my examination of Exsul Familia.  It is my prayer, in the first place, that it has helped you to see the philosophical underpinnings of Rome's aggressive push for immigration.  As John Robbins noted above, the thinking of the Roman Church-State is a system.  It's not isolated, random ideas thrown together in a word salad.  Rather, Rome's teaching on immigration is just one facet of a larger set of principles known as the Social Doctrine of the Church.  And the Social Doctrine of the Church is itself part of the larger system of Thomistic, Roman Catholic thought covering all disciplines of theology and philosophy. 

If we Protestants are to have any chance of defeating Rome's shrill demands for ever more taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, if we as Protestants don't want to lose our countries, indeed, if we don't want to lose our entire civilization, it is incumbent upon us to take the true political and economic teachings of Scripture at least as seriously as Rome takes its false ideas found in Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Church tradition.   

Coming up next week, a look at another document of the Roman Church-State, Strangers No Longer Together on the Journey of Hope.  This 2003 document issued jointly by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their counterparts in Mexico is a window on how Rome applies the teachings of Exsul Familia to the specific case of migration from Mexico to the United States. 

This week we continue our look at Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII's 1952 apostolic constitution which has been called "The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants." This exposition was inspired by the recent remarks of then Mexican presidential candidate, and now president elect of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who, during his presidential campaign, promised to defend the right of every person in North America, indeed, every person in the world, to migrate to the United States.

Lopez Obrador's comment struck at least one writer as not only a slightly bizarre campaign promise, but an actual invasion threat toward a neighboring sovereign state. 

But as strange as Lopez Obrador's comments were, he didn't arrive at his statements on his own.  Rather, his belief that everyone has a right to migrate to the United States, regardless of the cost to American taxpayers, is one implication of the Roman Church-State's doctrine of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement as set forth most completely in the afore mentioned apostolic constitution Exsul Familia.     

Thus far, we've looked at what an apostolic constitution is - according to a number of Roman Catholic source, apostolic constitutions are the most authoritative of all papal documents, outranking even papal encyclicals in importance - and have begun to examine the erroneous foundational economic doctrine that undergirds all of the Roman Church-State's claims that mass, taxpayer funded immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement are consistent with Christian teaching.  That doctrine is called the universal destination of goods.  The universal destination of goods holds that when God created the world, he gave it to humanity in common, that is to say, collectively.  In other words, Rome believes in original communism. 

But God did not give the Earth the men to men corporately.  As John Robbins notes, "God, holding ultimate ownership of the Earth, gave it to men severally, not collectively.  The argument for this may be found in the words of the seventeenth-century Christian thinker, Robert Filmer" (Ronald Sider - Contra Deum).   Contrary to Rome, the original economic order was not communism, but private property.  To put it another way, the Bible teaches original capitalism.  Lord willing, I shall present a more complete case for this in a future installment.  Readers who admire the work of John Robbins, as does this author, will be interested to know the basis for my argument for original capitalism is Dr. Robbins 1973 doctoral dissertation, The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer. 

But for this week's installment, I would like to show another implication of Rome's evil doctrine of the universal destination of goods, tyrannical world government. 

The Universal Destination of Goods, the Destruction of National Sovereignty, and Institution of World Government

As we noted in Part 4 of this series, the doctrine of the universal destination of goods holds that need, not possession, is the ultimate and only moral title to property.  One of the implications of this teaching is the welfare state, and it should come as no surprise that prelates of the Roman Church-State have been long been among the most ardent proponents of socialism and are largely responsible for the erection of the enormously expensive welfare bureaucracies imposed upon the formerly free nations of the West.     

But Rome isn't satisfied merely with setting up welfare state tyrannies in individual nations.  No, Rome's program of socialism is a scalable tyranny.  Rome's intends to use citizens of the wealthy nations of the West as tax donkeys to pay welfare benefits, not just to the native poor of their own nations, but to foreign migrants as well. 

It is my contention that Rome intends to use these welfare migrants as a means to disrupt the societies into which they come, socially, politically and economically with the ultimate goal of making them ungovernable and thus easily folded into a system of world government headed by the Roman Church-State and her Antichrist popes.     

For proof of this, let's turn to Pope Pius XII's words in Exsul Familia.  He wrote,

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

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 [n.b. this is the universal destination of goods].  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 reasons, denied to needy [n.b. need is explicitly cited as the basis for Rome's migration policy] and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this (emphasis mine).

Note well the implied globalism in this statement.  Rome claims that the sovereignty of the state must be respected, but that it, "cannot be exaggerated to the point," that needy migrants are denied access to the resources of its people.  But who decides whether a nation state is exaggerating its sovereignty or not?  Though not explicitly stated here, in the eyes of Rome the pope is the ultimate decider. 

When one speaks of Rome's desire for world dominion, he runs the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.  But while Rome's thirst to rule the world is a conspiracy, it's an open one, and perhaps the world's worst kept secret.  In fact, it's really not a secret at all.  The pope's have grown so bold in recent decades that they explicitly and very publically call for it.

Guadium et Spes, one of the major documents of Vatican II reads,

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 (quoted in Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 187).

More recently, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace released a document titled Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority. As Reuters reports,

The Vatican called on Monday for sweeping reforms of the world economy and the creation of an 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 the weaker countries"...

One section of the document explained why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary and called for specific reforms such as taxation of financial transactions...

"In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of 'central world bank' that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks"...

"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of part of each nation's powers to a world authority and regional authorities..."

This naturally raises the question, So just who will be in charge of this "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction," not to mention who will run the "central world bank"?

Again, the papal document doesn't come right out and say so, but given that the statements are coming from the Vatican, there can be no doubt but that the Church has in mind the popes of Rome.  Consider, if you will, the symbolism of the papal tiara.

As the Vatican itself acknowledges, "The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns)" symbolizes "the triple power of the Pope:  father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ."   Apart from any other argument or statement, the arrogant claims of the popes of Rome as symbolized by the tiara ought to be enough to remove all doubt about who Rome sees as controlling the envisioned apparatus of world government. 

Rome's hatred of sovereign nations that do not bow to the pope can be traced at least as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.  This treaty established what has come to be known as the Westphalian World Order, an international system in which national governments were the highest level of civil authority.  "The Westphalian peace...relied on a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power...[E]ach state was assigned the attribute of sovereign power over its territory.  Each would acknowledge the domestic structures and religious vocations of its fellow states as realities and refrain from challenging their existence" (Henry Kissinger, World Order, 3).   One could say that the Westphalian World Order was the application of the Biblical principle of MYOB (Mind Your Own Business) to international politics (see 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 12).

Of course, this is antithetical to the teaching of Rome, which holds that the pope is the "father of kings and governor of the world."  Rome's reaction to the Treaty of Westphalia is instructive on this point.

In his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei, Pope Innocent the X raged against the articles of the Treaty of Westphalia,  calling them, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time." Given Rome's severe and historic case of ecclesiastical megalomania, such a statement should come as no surprise.

That said, it probably does come as a surprise to most 21st century Protestants, who have been taught from their youth up that the pope is a brother in Christ, that he is their friend, and that he is a fellow soldier in the culture war.  All this is an enormous lie. 

In truth, in the pope's raging one hears the voice of Antichrist.  It is the voice of the little horn of Daniel which speaks pompous words and makes war against the saints of God, prevailing against them.    

The popes of Rome are megalomaniacal James Bond villains in clerical garb.  They have never given up their desire to rule the world.  And, as Revelation teaches, they temporarily will succeed in doing so.  One of the ways the popes aim to effect this world wide rule is through mass, taxpayer funded immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement. 

Antichrist has laid out his program for world domination in very clear language in numerous papal documents.  Mass, taxpayer funded migration, immigration, and refugee resettlement is one of Rome's principle tools for effecting this outcome.  The program outlined in the apostolic constitution Exsul Familia has, by admission of the editor of Rome's official commentary on the document, "enormous financial implications."  More to the point, Rome's doctrine of migration, if followed to its full extent, will result in the financial bankruptcy of the host nations.    

But in addition to financial implications, Rome's program also has significant political implications.  When Rome calls for millions upon millions of migrants, refugees and immigrants - people who have no knowledge of the doctrine of Justification by Belief Alone on which those societies are built and thus no knowledge of the economic and political implications of that doctrine, namely, free markets and limited government -  to flood the formerly Protestant nations of the West, the effect is to Romanize those nations and to prepare them to be folded into Rome's planned system of "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction," with the effect that, no one will be able to buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name.    

When popes of Rome speak of respecting national sovereignty, they lie and enormous lie.  The only sovereignty they respect is that of their own pretended authority. 

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).

Robbins continues,

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. 

Have you ever stopped to think about your property?  Specifically, have you ever considered the question, By what right do  I own anything? 

Since this is a blog post, you're probably reading these words on some sort of electronic device.  Maybe you're using a smart phone or a tablet or a desktop or laptop computer.  So let me ask my original question to you in a little different way, By what right do you claim ownership of the electronic device you're using to read this post?

Suppose you're reading this post on your tablet.  Perhaps you'd say to me, "I own this table, because I went to the store and bought it." 

Okay, but let's take that back another step and ask this question, By what right did the store sell you the tablet?  You may say to me, "Well, the store bought it from an electronic wholesaler."

But then that raises a further question, Where did the wholesaler get the right to sell the tablet to the store where you bought it.  "From the manufacturer or course," you may reply. 

Alright, so how did the manufacturer rightfully get the parts to assemble the tablet?  "The manufacturer bought them from a supplier," you may retort.

This is really becoming tiresome, I know.  But still, I can't help asking, Just where did the parts supplier get the materials, the silicon for example, to manufacture the integrated circuits that are essential to making your table work?

"Well, quite obviously, the parts manufacturer bought the silicon from a silicon supplier," you would answer.

"Very well," I'd reply, "but let me ask you this, Since the base materials for silicon metal used to make your device's integrated circuits are gravel and items such as coke, coal and wood chips, where did the supplier of silicon get the right to use these items?" 

"They bought them from gravel and coal miners and from suppliers of wood products," would likely be you answer.

Alright already.  So where did the gravel miners, the coal miners and the suppliers of wood products get the right to use the land from which they took the raw materials? 

"Naturally, they bought the land from Old MacDonald, who figured he could do better by selling his land to the coal miners than spending the rest of his life raising chickens and cows and pigs."

Okay, okay, okay.  Lest this become overly wearisome for the both of us, let me ask just one last question.  Where did Old MacDonald get the title to his farm in the first place?

"Well, I guess he bought it from the previous owner, maybe it was the bank or some other farmer."

But, BUT, BUT!...No, I'm not going to go there.  I promised that would be the last question, and I'll keep my word.

I hope, though, that this somewhat annoying line of questioning has raised your curiosity about the issue of ownership.  Just how is it that we can claim the right to own something?  Is it even possible to rightly claim ownership, that is, the exclusive right to use and dispose of a particular good or service, or should we all be collectivists holding all things in common? 

Now you may be thinking at this point, "Steve that's all very interesting, but just what on earth does any of this have to do with your main point of refuting Exsul Familia, Rome's position paper on immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement? 

The short answer is, quite a lot.  Let's take a look at it.

Secular/Philosophic Theories of Property

As you may already suspect, there are a number of competing theories that attempt to explain the institution of private property.  This is an important question.  John Robbins called private property, "the central economic institution of civilized societies," (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 30) and the present author agrees with this assessment. 

Although it's beyond the scope of the series of posts to analyze all the various non-Christian theories of property out there, it may be helpful to review a few of them, paying special attention to Rome's unbiblical theory of property and showing how it manifests itself in Exsul Familia and undergirds Rome's onerous and false assertion that Western nations not only have a duty to accept all immigrants migrants and refugees who wish to come to them regardless of their reason for coming, but also that Western citizens have an obligation to pay the expenses of said immigrants, migrants and refugees through social services, the money for which comes from taxes levied upon the citizens.

In his journal article "Theories of Property," George B. Newcomb asserted that the Romans had a very individualistic view of property, but that this view was, "due, in part at least, to the influence of the time when the claim to private property was especially founded in the personal prowess of the warrior."  Apparently in Rome the right of ownership rested, to some degree, on the ability to beat someone up and take his stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, took a more peaceful approach to acquisition of private property.  In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke wrote, "God gave the World to Adam and his Posterity in common" (Laslett ed., 286).  In other words, Locke believed in original communism. 

But how did it come about that individual men claimed to own land, which was given in common to all by God?  Lock explained, "Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.  The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.  Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property" (Laslett ed., 287, 288). 

In short, if you, for example, clear a field which is not, as far as you know, claimed by anyone in particular and begin farming, you've mixed your labor with the field and it rightfully belongs to you. 

But, one could ask Locke, by what right does someone mix his labor with the commons?  That's a good question.

Perhaps a more recent writer can help us understand and defend the institution of private property.  Ludwig Von Mises, widely considered the greatest of the Austrian economists, seems like a promising place to turn.  What says Von Mises?

Writing in Chapter 24 of Human Action, he explains private property this way,

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again, proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts that were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoliation of their predecessor.

To Von Mises way of thinking, private property, "originated out of acts that were certainly not legal."  In essence, he argues that all of us are guilty of receiving stolen property. 

This doesn't seem like a very promising defense of private property.      

Rome's Theory of Property

Rome derives its theory of property from the work of Thomas Aquinas, which theory is masterfully explained by John Robbins in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania.  Rome rejects the Bible's view of private property, substituting in its place a doctrine called the Universal Destination of Goods.  To understand Rome's doctrine of the Universal Destination of Goods, Robbins tells us we first must first understand Thomas' view of the law.

According to Thomas, there are four kinds of law.  First, there is eternal law, which is God's plan for the universe and all its inhabitants.  Thus it is part of the eternal law that rocks, for example, fall to the ground when dropped; and plants, for example, grow toward the light.  Second, there is natural law, which is the participant of rational creatures in the eternal law.  Thus man is by nature a social animal.  When men speak to each other and live in societies, they are doing what is natural to them, just as rocks and plants do.  Third, there is positive law, which is customs, laws, and regulations made by rulers attempting to apply the natural law to individuals and societies.  Finally, there is divine law, such as the Ten Commandments. 

Private property, according to Thomas, is neither part of the natural law nor an absolute right, but an invention of human reason.  It is a creation of and regulated by positive law.  Rather than private property being part of the natural law, the possession of all things in common is the natural law [note that John Locke, supposedly a defender of limited government and private property, also believed in original communism as can be seen from the quote above].  Thomas wrote: "... 'the possession of all things in common and universal freedom' are said to be of the natural law because, to wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life." The institution of private property, like slavery, is a positive, not a natural, institution, and  therefore rightfully subject to human regulation.  The "community of goods," wrote Thomas,

is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own, but because the division of the possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belongs to positive law...Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

It is important to keep in mind that according to Roman Catholic economic thought, here represented by its greatest and only official philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, that communism (with a small "c") - what Thomas called the community of goods - is part of the natural law; and that private property is part of the positive law.  Private property is an "addition to" the natural law.  Though private property is not contrary to the natural law, it is not itself natural, and it does not enjoy the same metaphysical or ethical status as the community of good.  While men cannot change the natural law - rather, they are required to conform to it, according to Roman Church-State thought - they can change positive law,  and they may do so in whatever manner is expedient and moral.

Now several things might make such a community of goods expedient, but one makes the community of goods morally imperative:  need.  Thomas wrote:

Things which are of human right cannot derogate [stray from] natural rights or divine right...The division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude t he fact that man's needs have to be remedied by mans of these very things.  Hence, whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.

Because the goods of some are due to others by the natural law, there is no sin if the poor take the goods of their neighbors...[A]ccording to Thomas:

...it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery.... It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.... In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

In Thomas' philosophy, 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...

The Thomistic notion of original communism - the denial that private property is part of the natural law, but that common property is both natural and divine - is foundational to all the Roman Catholic arguments for various forms of collectivism, from medieval feudalism and guild socialism to twentieth century fascism and liberation theology.  The popes refer to this original communism as the "universal destination of all goods" (Robbins, 30-32, 38).

To sum up, Rome supports private property up to a point.   When things are going well, it's all well and good for you to own your house or your farm or your car.  But when push comes to shove, when things get serious, need overrides your title to your property.  It, therefore, is right, proper and moral for those in need to take what is yours.  The assertion that need is the ultimate and only moral title to property is based on Rome's mistaken assertion of original communism, the idea that God gave the world to all men in common.  This original communism, what Thomas called the community of goods, is referred to by the popes as the Universal Destination of Goods.      

Earlier I quoted Robbins saying that private property is the central economic institution of civilized societies.  But that's not all Robbins had to say.  The quote continues, "and it is the Roman Church-State's rejection of private property that contributed to the establishment of several varieties of destructive anti-capitalism throughout the world.

One of the manifestations of Rome's anti-capitalism is its teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.  The next section will demonstrate this from the text of Exsul Familia. 

(To be continued...)

Writing in his essay The Trinity Manifesto - A Program for our Time, John Robbins made the important point that, "The trouble with the professing church is not primarily in its practice, but in its theory.  Christians do not know, and many do not even care to know, the doctrines of Scripture.  Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual.  Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they score ivory towers.  The ivory tower, however, is the control tower of a civilization.  It is a fundamental, theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can be merely practical, for practice is always the practice of some theory.  The relationship between theory and practice is the relationship between cause and effect.  If a person believes correct theory, his practice will tend to be correct.  The practice of contemporary Christians is immoral because it is the practice of erroneous theory.  It is a major theoretical mistake of the practice men to think they can ignore the ivory towers of the philosophers and theologians as irrelevant to their lives.  Every action that the practical men take is governed by the thinking that has occurred in some ivory tower - whether that tower be the British Museum, the Academy, a home in Basel, Switzerland, or a tent in Israel."

In last week's post I began my critique of Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII's 1952 apostolic constitution on migration.  This week is a continuation of that post, so you may be wondering why I've elected to preface this week's post with an extended quotation from John Robbins about the relationship between theory and practice.  After all, Robbins said nothing about immigration this quote.  Why, then, is it relevant? 

It is relevant for this reson, as Robbins points out in his essay, practice is always the practice of some prior theory.  Theory comes first, then practice.  Always.  If we begin with correct theory, our practice will tend to be correct.  But if our theory is wrong, so too will be our practice.

In the first post in this series I quoted then Mexican presidential candidate, and now president elect, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) as saying he would defend the right of migrants from all the world to settle in the United States.  This is an extraordinary statement and seems obviously wrong on the surface.  By what possible right does the presidential candidate of a foreign country dare to claim that he will defend the rights of migrants to settle in a foreign country?  What business is this of his?  The short answers are, he doesn't (have the right), and it isn't (his business).

Nevertheless, AMLO thinks otherwise.  So what is the intellectual theory behind his promise to defend the right of migrant in the world, regardless of the wishes of the American people, to move to America and to make material demands the citizens of that nation?  It is my contention that, knowingly or not, AMLO is simply echoing the immigration, migration, and refugee theory of the Roman Church-State, which theory is set forth most clearly in Pope Pius XII's apostolic constitution Exsul Familia. 

As I mentioned last week, Exsul Familia is a tissue of enormous lies.  Refuting the pope's arguments in Exsul Familia necessarily means that all claims built on that document, including those of AMLO, also are refuted.

With this in mind, let us begin the task of exposing the many, enormous lies of Exsul Familia.     

Rome's Misuse of Matthew Chapter 2

Pius XII begins his apostolic constitution with these words, "The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt is the archetype of every refugee family.  Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil."

These are not idle words, but the words of a pope of Rome speaking in an apostolic constitution.  As was mentioned last week, many Roman Catholic sources consider apostolic constitutions to be the most authoritative of all papal documents, ranking them above even encyclical letters in importance. To give you a sense of the importance Rome places on Exsul Familia, consider  that Rome's official commentary on it refers to the constitution as "The Church's Magna Charta on Migrants." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Service subtly references Exsul Familia in it's logo, which depicts the flight to Egypt of Joseph and his family.  You can see the logo here on the organization's homepage. In short, Exsul Familia is a big deal among the movers and shakers of the Roman Church-State. 

It's also a big lie.

Today, we shall examine the opening statement of Exsul Familia to show how the pope, as does his father the devil, uses Scripture to lie. 

So in what ways is the opening statement of Exsul Familia a lie?  It seems to me that there are at least three ways the pope deceives his readers.  First, Rome's claims for this passage go well what it actually says, second, second, Pope Pius omits other passages in Scripture relevant to the issues of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, and third, Pope Pius makes no attempt to integrate this claim with Rome's social teaching or political theory so prominent later on in the constitution

Regarding the first item, that Rome's claims go beyond the scope of the passage, it's worth pointing out that there is some truth in Pius' argument.  It's important to say this, because Rome is very subtle.  The problem with Rome is not that it is wrong in every single statement put forth by the Vatican, but that it mixes truth with error.  When it comes to the popes of Rome, they always mix spiritual cyanide in their Kool-Aid. 

So what is right about Rome's claim?  This passage does say something about refugees.  The US Citizenship and Immigration Services webpage gives a definition of a refugee.  That definition says in part that a refugee is someone who, "Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group." Did Jesus family fit that definition?  Certainly they did.  Joseph was warned by an angel in a dream that Herod would seek the child to kill him.  Further the angel told Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape the persecution. 

So how does Rome go beyond what the passage says?  For one, it's hard to see how this passage speaks about, "every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind."   There are numerous reasons why people leave their homeland to go to a foreign country.  But this passage is about refugees undergoing persecution, not those seeking to find a better job, to attend school, to find a more comfortable place to retire, or to find more generous welfare benefits.

A second way Pius goes beyond the scope of  the passage is that he fails to mention that Joseph and his family eventually went home.  They stayed in Egypt for a season.  But once the threat of Herod had passed, they left Egypt and settled in Galilee.  When one reads through Exsul Familia, he quickly gets the impression that the pope isn't talking about temporary emergency situations at all, but permanent resettlement.   

A third way Exsul Familia goes beyond the scope of Matthew Chapter 2 is that, while the passage makes no mention about how Joseph and his family were supported while in Egypt, Pope Pius implies that taxpayers have an obligation to foot the bill for, "migrant[s], alien[s] and refugee[s] of whatever sort," but the Bible rejects the welfare state.  The Bible encourages Christians to take care of those of their own household and to be generous in particular toward fellow believers.  But there is no suggestion that Christians are obligated to adopt the principle of altruism, the notion that giving itself is good.  And there is certainly no suggestion that governments have the right to take money from their citizens and give it to others, including migrants.  That is to say, the Bible does not support the welfare state.  Socialists of whatever stripe will find no comfort in the words of Scripture.  The Bible everywhere defends private property and limited government.  The distributivist socialism of the pope's of Rome - whether the beneficiaries of that socialism are actual citizens or foreigners, it matters not - is an enormous lie.

Not only is Pope Pius guilty of reading more into Matthew Chapter 2 than is there, he also commits a lie of omission by not mentioning other relevant passages in Scripture that would help clarify the Bible's teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.  One of the chief tenants of systematic theology is that you don't build a doctrine on a single passage, but seek to see what all of Scripture has to say about a particular topic.  But this the pope does not do.  Instead, he rests his case solely on the flight of Joseph and his family to Egypt.  

As was mentioned earlier, Exsul Familia was written in 1952, in the years immediately following World War II.  Due to the destruction of the war and to the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe, millions of people found themselves uprooted from their homes.  Rather than rest one's case on one refugee family as does the pope, would it not make sense to see if one could find an example in Scripture of a mass exodus, something on a scale similar to what occurred in the years following World War II?  It seems to me that the answer is obviously, yes.  And surprisingly enough, there is quite a good example of a mass exodus in Scripture, which is found, oddly enough, in the Book of Exodus. 

I'll save the exegesis of this passage until later, but for now let's just say that the account of Exodus and Israel's subsequent wanderings in the wilderness quite clearly amounts to a defense of private property and a rejection of the pope's assertion that one's subjectively felt need gives one rightful claim to another's property.      

The final lie I wanted to discuss about Exsul Familia is the Pope's failure to integrate Matthew Chapter 2 with the rest of his teaching in the document.  Pope Pius is quick to tell us that the flight to Egypt is archetypical of all migrants of whatever sort, but quickly drops the reference.  Pius never once even tries to show how this passage of Scripture supports his later application of Rome's collectivist economics and globalist politics to the issues of migration, immigration and refugee resettlement.  Given the lack of any mention of Matthew Chapter 2 in Exsul Familia beyond the introduction, it is hard for this writer to escape the conclusion that the Pope's citing of the flight to Egypt is anything other than an intellectual fig leaf, which the he cynically uses to advance the evil, globalist agenda of Rome under the aegis of the Bible.   

(To be continued...)    

Over the past several weeks, Americans have born witness, whether they know it or not, to the practical outworking of the Roman Church-State's doctrine of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. 

In the popular press, Americans daily have been treated to anguished wailings from the just and righteous about how the Trump administration's immoral border policies have caused children to be separated from the parents.  The blame for this, we are told in no uncertain terms, lies solely with the hard-hearted president and his deplorable supporters.  No fault whatsoever attaches to parents who deliberately put their children in harm's way while they knowingly violated US immigration laws. 

The condemnation has been especially sharp from Roman Catholic sources.  Here are just a few eexamples. 

·         The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized President Donald Trump's administration over immigration policy on Wednesday, declaring that separating mothers and children at the US border is "immoral"  ("Catholic leader calls separating mothers and children at border 'immoral,' " CNN, June 13,2018).

·         Leading U.S. Catholic bishops on Wednesday escalated their criticism of the Trump administration's immigration policies, calling new asylum-limiting rules "immoral" and rhetorically comparing the crackdown to abortion by saying it is a "right-to-life" issue.  One bishop from the U.S. - Mexico border region reportedly suggested "canonical penalties" - which cold refer to withholding the sacrament of Communion - for Catholics involved in implementing the Trump policies [please note the boldness some prelates of Rome have when it comes to interfering with the legitimate duties of the civil magistrate; it was for this very reason that many Protestants expressed concern about electing Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy president in 1960, their concerns were largely ignored] ("Trump's asylum rules 'immoral,' with one suggesting 'canonical penalties' for those involved," Washington Post, June 13,2018).

·         "I am on the side of the bishops' conference," Pope Francis commenting on the statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops condemning the Trump administration's border policies ("Pope Francis criticizes separating families at border", America The Jesuit Review, June 20, 2018). 

So, how do we deal with these charges as Protestants?  When you combine what these high church officials say, the amplification their words get in the mainstream media, the daily denunciations of US immigration policy by celebrities, the physical intimidation of Trump administration officials by radical leftists, mass demonstrations funded by anti-American activists such as George Soros, and calls form the leading Mexican presidential candidate for what amounts to a migrant invasion of the US, it's easy to be intimidated and feel as if there's no chance to stand up to these people.  On the other hand, it may be tempting to lash out in frustration and to revile those who call for what amounts to a migrant invasion of the US in the same way they revile us. 

But as Christians, we are neither to give in to despair nor lash out in anger.  Rather, as the old saying goes, we are to pray and work.  The good news is that despite all the pompous words of the prelates of the Antichrist Roman Church-State, Rome's pro-migrant, anti-American policies amount to a shaky house built on intellectual sand.  My purpose in this and in subsequent posts is to equip Protestants with the intellectual ammunition to knock down that house.

Exsul Familia Nazarethana - The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants

In 1952, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana (The Émigré Family of Nazareth, henceforth Exsul Familia).  Written in the post-WWII years at a time when there were many displaced persons in Europe, the document was intended as a position paper, setting forth the Catholic Church's teaching about immigrants, migrants and refugees. 

In 1962, a commentary on Exsul Familia was published titled The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants, edited by Roman Catholic priest Giulivo Tessarolo. 

As we shall see, many of the basic assumptions about immigration in the mainstream media, as well as much of immigration rhetoric we hear on a daily basis, including AMLO's call for a migrant invasion of the US, can be traced to this document.  Further, it is this author's contention that Exsul Familia is a deeply flawed document.  This is not surprising given that its conclusions about immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are based on Rome's unbiblical and antichristian ideas about economics and politics, which John Robbins brilliantly exposed in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania.  

In summary, Exsul Familia is a toxic mixture of communism and aggressive globalism, thus representing an attack on both the Biblical doctrine of private property and the Westphalian World Order, the Christian system of geopolitics resulting from the Protestant victory in the Thirty Years' War.   Further, Exsul Familia is a classic case of selective Biblical exegesis, one in which Rome has erected a gigantic superstructure of migration dogma upon a single and, in important respects, unclear passage of Scripture, while at the same time it ignores clearer and more relevant passages.

So Just What is an Apostolic Constitution anyway?

For non-Roman Catholics it's easy to get lost in the forest of the many types of papal pronouncements that seem daily to issue from the Vatican.  One suspects this is true for many Roman Catholics as well.  For example, in 1932 when Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic to run for president, was asked about papal encyclicals, he supposedly responded, "Will somebody please tell me what the hell a papal encyclical is?" If Roman Catholics struggle with papal pronouncements, perhaps Protestants can be forgiven their puzzlement on the matter.  But while Protestants don't need to become experts on cannon law, it is very much in their interest to know something about papal documents.  For in them one finds the intellectual foundation for the destructive politics and economics advanced by the papal Antichrist and various prelates of the Roman Church-State. 

Regarding apostolic constitutions, various Roman Catholic sources refer to these as the most authoritative of all papal documents.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops defines an apostolic constitution as, "a most solemn form by which popes promulgate official Church documents."  An article in Our Sunday Visitor by Stephanie A. Mann give the following definition, "The apostolic constitution represents the highest level of all the papal documents."

Another Roman Catholic writer, Helen Hull Hitchcock, says of apostolic constitutions that they are, "solemn, formal documents on matters of the highest consequence concerning doctrinal or disciplinary matters, issued by the pope in his own name." 

A paper on church documents from The Catholic University of America gives the following, "Apostolic Constitution (Constitutio apostolic) - Apostolic constitutions are considered the most solemn kind of document issued by a pope in his own name.  Constitutions can define dogmas but also alter canon law or erect new ecclesiastical structures.  An example is John Paul II's apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, defining the role and responsibility of Catholic institutions of higher education."       

Finally, let's look at what Giulivo Tessarolo, editor of the commentary on Exsul Familia, has to say about apostolic constitutions.  Tessarolo quotes a German theologian by the name of Dr. Theodor Grentrup who wrote, "The papal documents on the spiritual care of of migrants bears as its official title - Apostolic Constitution.  Even though the word - Constitution - has a rather broad meaning, it is true, however, t hat when used by the Holy See, it carries an exact significance; namely, it indicates 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...Constitution differs from encyclical.  Even though an encyclical can be binding, it aims directly at explaining truths and dogmas, not at formally issuing new laws. A Constitution, however, contains clearly formulated laws" (The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants, 14).  

From these Roman Catholic sources, it is clear that apostolic constitutions are considered the most authoritative of all papal decrees. Constitutions do not merely explain existing canon law.  They are used to issue new laws.  As an apostolic constitution, Exsul Familia is not just one of many co-equal pronouncements by Rome on the subjects of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, but the most authoritative pronouncement by the Vatican on these topics.  As such, it bears careful scrutiny. 

It is this author's opinion that Exsul Familia's dogmatic assertions on migration, which amount to little more than a Roman Catholic variation on Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is a tissue of enormous lies which are themselves rooted in Rome's unbiblical, unchristian, pagan assumptions about economics and politics.  If it can be demonstrated that Rome's basic economic and political premises are wrong, which it can, then Rome's argument for unlimited tax-payer funded immigration as set forth in Exsul Familia also collapses, as does its pretentious claim to the moral high ground in the immigration debate. 

 (To be continued...)