Lux Lucet

Pope Francis holds mass in Juarez on the U.S.-Mexico border, February 17, 2016.  Shortly afterward, Francis attacked then presidential candidate Donald Trump for his promise to build a border wall to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S.

“We can no longer sustain unacceptable economic inequality, which prevents us from applying the principle of the universal destination of the earth’s goods.”

    – Pope Francis

Of all political issues of our time, immigration has to rank among the most likely to trigger a viscerally emotional response. This is true regardless of which side of the debate one is on. Daniel McAdams – a Libertarian, former Congressional staffer for Ron Paul and current co-host of the Liberty Report – has said that immigration was his least favorite topic to discuss for this very reason.

On the other hand, there are few topics that this author finds more interesting and perhaps none on which he has written more extensively. Although immigration can bring out the emotions as few issues can, ultimately the immigration debate is not one of competing emotions, but of competing ideas. As such, it has been this author’s endeavor to keep the focus of this series on ideas, not on people. My hope in doing so is to make the case that, contrary to the propaganda one hears from the globalists, immigrants, migrants and refugees have no claim on the goods of the citizens of host nations. Further, there exists no concomitant obligation on the part of the citizens of host nations to meet the perceived needs of the migrants.

Anyone who makes such an argument has opened himself up to charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia and selfishness. Such is the underlying assumption in nearly every article that appears in the mainstream press. All such assumptions are rubbish.

Rather than asking why those who oppose the sort of mass migration prompted by the globalists in general, and by the Pope and the Roman Church-State in particular, are such bigots, the proper question is to ask why those who promote mass, taxpayer subsidized, nation breaking immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are such thieves. For the sort of immigration programs supported by the Pope are in reality nothing less than an attempt to justify theft, and theft on a global scale at that.

As John Robbins noted in his lectures on economics, the concept of theft logically depends on the prior concept of property. The context for his remarks was his discussion of the famous maxim of French anarchist Pierre Joseph-Proudhon “Property is theft.” Robbins argued that Proudhon’s statement was nonsense. Theft, said Robbins, depends on the idea of property. If one believes that the idea of property itself is illegitimate, as Proudhon’s statement implies, it is pointless to talk about theft.

It may come as a surprise to many on both sides of the immigration debate – both those promoting Rome’s vision of unrestricted mass immigration, migration and refugee resettlement and those opposed to it – to hear that having a correct, that is to say a Biblical, view of property is the key to settling the issue of immigration. Yet this author is convinced that such is the case.

Lord willing, this discussion about property will look at the issue from two angles. First, I would like to recap some of what has already been written in the series about Rome’s antichristian, collectivist theory of property known as the universal destination of goods. Second, I shall refute Rome’s false doctrine of property with the words of Scripture, using John Robbins’ doctoral dissertation on Sir Robert Filmer to highlight what the Bible says on the subject of the origin and transmission of property.

To summarize what shall follow, it is this author’s contention that the Bible’s teaching on property represents a complete refutation of Rome’s false doctrine of the universal destination of goods. Since the universal destination of goods is the philosophical foundation of all Rome’s teachings on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, by refuting it, one refutes the entire theoretical body of Antichrist’s teachings in these areas and exposes his practices of them as the enormous sins and crimes which they truly are.

Rome as a System of Doctrine

One of the great weaknesses of Protestantism at the beginning of the 21st century is that, by and large, Protestants have abandoned the idea of systematic thought. To the extent that individual Protestants hold to the truth, they often do so in an ad hoc manner without any idea how the truth they do believe fits into the larger system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures.

That ignorance of, and even hostility to, systematic thinking was not always the case among Protestants is testified by the great confessions of the Reformation, most especially the Westminster Standards, which include the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

The declension in Protestant thought can clearly be seen when one compares the majestic systematic thinking of men such as John Calvin and the Westminster Divines to the Five Fundamentals. The problem with fundamentalism is not that the fundamentalists are wrong to believe the things they do. The problem is that fundamentalism is not systematic. That is to say, fundamentalism is content to hold on to a few truths while failing to consistently apply the Scriptures to all of life, especially to secular problems such as immigration.

Rome, on the other hand, is relentlessly systematic in applying its Thomistic philosophy to all of life. John Robbins called the doctrine of the Roman Church-State one of the most impressive systems of thought devised by man. He said this, not because he agreed with Roman Catholic thought, but because of how Catholic scholars consistently applied the Thomism – the official philosophy of Rome – across all intellectual disciplines.

In light of this, it should come as no surprise that Rome’s teaching on immigration – in essence, Rome holds that migrants have a claim on the goods of citizens of receiving nations, and that the citizens of receiving nations have a concomitant obligation to provide migrants with their goods, the basis for the migrants’ claim and the citizens’ obligation being the migrants’ need – is really a part of a larger body of Roman Catholic thought known as Catholic Social Teaching, which is itself derived from the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

John Robbins explains Thomas’ view of private property this way,

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 possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belong 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…that communism…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 goods. While men cannot change the natural law…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 good expedient, but one makes the community of goods morally imperative: need. Thomas wrote:

Things which are of human right cannot derogate [stray from] natural right or divine right…. The division and appropriation of thing which are based on human law do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means 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…. Not only is such taking of another’s property not a sin, it is not even a crime, according 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” (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 31, 32, 38).

Admittedly, the above quote from John Robbins may appear to some as so much ivory tower philosophy. “Who cares about Thomas Aquinas and his pie-in-the-sky philosophy about private property,” they’ll say. “I just want to put an end to the caravans from Honduras and see Trump build that wall!”

As pragmatic Americans, it’s very tempting to think this way. But that would be a mistake.

What it Will Take to Win the Immigration War Against Rome

As John Robbins noted elsewhere, there is real danger in rejecting the study of doctrine in favor of pragmatic activity. “Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual. Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they scorn ivory towers.” But, as Robbins goes on to write, “The ivory tower is the control tower of civilization.”

If Christians are going to win the immigration war against the papal Antichrist and the Roman Church-State, they first must win the intellectual war by refuting Rome’s false Social Teaching, in particular its teaching on the universal destination of goods.

Since I’m writing this post on Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps a football analogy is in order. Most football fans pay relatively little attention to what happens on the line of scrimmage. On one side you have huge men on the offensive line, who are in what appears to be an extended wrestling match with huge men on the other side of the ball who make up the defensive line.

Most people concentrate on the so-called skill positions: the quarterback, the running back and the wide receiver. Everyone loves to see the running back tear through the line of scrimmage for a big gain. Likewise fifty yard passes and quarterback sacks always are good for bringing the fans to their feet, at least if it’s the home team making the plays.

Now big plays are fun to watch. But what many casual fans forget is that they happen only because of the work done by the largely unsung men on offensive and defensive lines. For skill players to succeed, a team must first “win the war in the trenches.” That is to say, a team’s offensive and defensive lines must dominate the opposing team’s lines.

And just as the offensive line must do its job before the quarterback can make the big touchdown pass to win the game, in like fashion Christians first must win the intellectual war against Rome by destroying its foundational teaching on the universal destination of goods. Only then will the way be cleared for Christians to deal a decisive political blow to Rome’s destructive immigration policies.

To put it another way, the intellectual victory over Rome’s false philosophy must precede the practical victory over Rome’s ungodly immigration policies which have caused so much harm the world over.

The Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth, and it’s high time Christians started to act as though they believed it. This means applying the Word of God, not just to refute Rome’s false teaching on immigration, but to establish a Christian policy for immigration in place of the current confused mess.

Lord willing, next week I shall demonstrate the extent to which Rome relies on the universal destination of goods to advance its ungodly, destructive immigration policies. Following that, I plan to refute Rome’s false teaching from the Scriptures using John Robbins’ doctoral dissertation as my guide.

(To be continued…)