Lux Lucet

Thomas Aquinas, official philosopher of the Roman Church-State and conduit for  the unbiblical notion of the universal destination of goods, an idea central, not just to the Social Teaching of the Church, but to Rome’s destructive doctrine of migration.  A doctrine that the Church-State is using to destroy the remnants of the Protestant West.

In Roman Catholic economic thought, there is a hierarchy of principles, and the most important principle, to which all others are subordinate, is the principle of the universal destination of goods.

– John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, p.39

Last week, we began a more detailed look at the Roman Catholic principle of the universal destination of goods. That post, I emphasized the point that Rome’s doctrine of mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is not some isolated teaching, quite apart from other ideas advanced by the Roman Church-State. Rather, it is part of a larger body of teaching by Rome known as the Social Teaching of the Church.

Economics is part of the Roma Catholic Church’s Social Teaching. And, as noted in the quote at the top of this post, the most important principle in Roman Catholic economic thought is the universal destination of goods. The universal destination of goods rests on the false idea – a false idea promulgated by Greek and Roman philosophers, transmitted by the early church fathers, taught by Thomas Aquinas, the official philosopher of the Roman Church-State, and which serves as the foundation of all of Rome’s Social Teaching – that God originally gave the Earth to all men in common. That is to say, Rome believes in original communism.

Remember, Roman Catholicism is not a random collection of ideas. It is a system of thought. As such, it is held together by certain common ideas. The latent original communism found in Roman Catholic economic thought, what the popes call the universal destination of goods, is one of the consistent threads binding together the vast body of Rome’s Social Teaching, of which its teaching on immigration is a part.

To give you a visual representation of the relationship that exists between Roman Catholic Social Teaching, it’s general position on immigration, and the specific application of its teaching on immigration to the United States. a simple outline will suffice.

The Social Teaching of the Church (begins with the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891) >

    General statement of the church on migration (Exsul Familia Nazarathana, 1952) >

        Specific application to the Church’s teaching on migration to the United States (Strangers No Longer, 2003)

Last week, I provided a quote from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church illustrating the fundamental importance of the universal destination of goods in Roman Catholic Social Teaching. In part, the quote read, “The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal destination of goods…The right to the common use of goods is the first principle of the whole ethical and social order’ and ‘the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.’ ”

Lord willing, perhaps as soon as next week, I will make the Biblical case against the universal destination of goods. Since Rome’s Social Teaching is systematic, and since the universal destination of goods is, by Rome’s own admission, central to The Social Teaching of the Church, a Biblical refutation of the universal destination of goods constitutes a refutation, not just of Rome’s doctrine of immigration, but of the entire body of Rome’s Social Teaching. That is to say, the whole structure of Rome’s Social Teaching, including its ungodly doctrine of immigration, collapses like a house of cards.

But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. But before laying the axe to the root of Rome’s Social Teaching, I would like to demonstrate to you just how systematically Rome has worked the universal destination of goods into it teaching on immigration.

Eugenio Pacelli, better known as Pope Pius XII, wrote Rome’s position paper on migration, The apostolic constitution Exsul Familia Nazarathana.  This destructive, globalist document is the source for all of Rome’s  subsequent teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.

Exsul Familia

Exsul Familia Nazaratana (EFN) is clearly the most important papal statement on immigration. Penned by Pope Pius XII (AKA Hitler’s Pope) in 1952, this Apostolic Constitution claims that the example of Joseph fleeing to Egypt with Mary and Jesus to escape the predations of Herod is the “archetype of every refugee family,” while at the same time ignoring the account of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.

In this author’s opinion, at least one reason why Pius XII used the fight to Egypt rather than the Exodus is the latter’s very clear rejection of the sort of open borders immigration socialism the Church seeks to advance. The flight to Egypt, on the other hand, says nothing about how Jesus’ family supported itself while in Egypt, allowing Rome to fill the void by reading into the account its unbiblical Social Teaching, including the universal destination of goods.

Here are a few key quotes showing the concept of the universal destination of goods is the controlling idea behind the teaching on immigration found in EFN.

[A]ccording to the teaching of “Rerum Novarum” [n.b.
EFN‘s reference back to the foundational document of the Social Teaching of the Church; this is further proof that Rome’s teaching on immigration is a systematic offshoot of Rome’s broader 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 [John Robbins noted in Ecclesiastical Megalomania that, according to Thomas Aquinas, the possession of all things in common was part of natural law; here we see Thomas’ doctrine clearly applied to the issue of migration], 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 (EFN, emphasis mine).

Pius XII continues by using the unbiblical concept of original communism as the basis to attack national sovereignty and to call for open borders.

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 [such as, for example ownership], denied to needy and decent people from other nations [n.b. here we see the Thomistic principle of need, rather than possession, which apparently is among the “inadequate and unjustified reasons” for rejecting migrants, as the only moral title to property], provided, of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully [Rome attempts to soften its treasonous position on migration by throwing a sop to those who would object to its attack on the nation state and the property of its citizens by saying that the public wealth must be “considered very carefully”; this is nonsense, this author has yet to see a single example of Rome rejecting claims of migrants, or those who wish to be migrants, due to the burden they would place on the citizens of the receiving nation], does not forbid this (EFN, emphasis mine).

Although Pius XII does not use the term “universal destination of goods” in his Apostolic Constitution, the concept very clearly is present – “that surface [of the Earth] which God created and prepared for the use of all…For the creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all…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 need and decent people from other nations.”

Not only does the Antichrist Pope Pius XII use the universal destination of goods to attack individual property owners in his evil document, but he brilliantly notes [Pius XII was evil, but he was by no means stupid] that the doctrine also implies the usurpation of the independent nation state itself. That is to say, the universal destination of goods implies globalism.

Large statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe along the US-Mexico border.

Strangers No Longer

Just as EFN represents the application of the Social Teaching of the Church to the issue of migration, Strangers No Longer (SNL) is the application of the Church’s more general statement on migration to the circumstances specific to the U.S. and Mexico. A 2003 joint publication by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano (the Mexican Conference of Bishops), SNL not only applies the property destroying and nation breaking principles of the universal destination of goods found in EFN, it quotes directly from that document as well, thus further demonstrating the systematic nature of Rome’s destructive thought in the area of immigration.

According to SNL,

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 (SNL, 30).

In the same paragraph, SNL goes on to quote Pope John XXIII and notes that “he stressed the obligation [n.b. taking on migrants is not an option, it is an obligation for nation states (in particular, the United States), that is to say, governments have a moral responsibility to take property from their citizens and give it to non-citizen migrants who “need” it] to promote the universal good where possible, including an obligation to accommodate migration flows. For more powerful nations [i.e. the United States], a stronger obligation exists.

If any American questions the USCCB and their Mexican counterparts, asking just why he should be taxed to support migrants from Mexico or elsewhere, the bishops are ready with an answer: “The church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people” (SNL, 35). This clear enunciation of the universal destination of goods is listed as the second of five principles which SNL says “guide the Church’s view on migration issues” (33).

Pope Francis (AP Photo/File)

Pope Francis

Globalist Pope Francis has had a lot to say about migration during his now nearly six year long papacy, and the Vatican has taken it upon itself to publish his writings on migration in a collection called Light
on the Ways of Hope: Pope Francis Teaching on Migrants, Refugees and Human Trafficking.

Quoting his predecessor, Benedict XVI, Pope Francis writes,

The wisdom of faith fosters a contemplative gaze that recognizes that all of us “belong to one family, migrants and the local populations that welcome them, and all have the same right to enjoy the goods of the earth, whose destination is universal, as the social doctrine of the Church teaches. It is here that solidarity and sharing are founded” (Light on the Ways of Hope, 471).

Here once again we see the universal destination of good rear its ugly head in the writings of Pope Francis.

Worth noting here is that some Roman Catholics who, inconsistently prefer limited government, defend national sovereignty and champion private property, see Pope Francis as some sort of anomaly rather than seeing him for what he is: another in a long line of Antichrists who is philosophically committed to destroying individual liberty in order to advance the interests of Church.

In his book The Political Pope, Roman Catholic writer George Neumayr naively calls Francis the “open borders pope,” as if Francis were the only pontiff to hold views antithetical to national sovereignty. Writes Neumayr,

In 2016, seeking to sanctify illegal immigration, Pope Francis traveled to the border between Mexico and America to hold a Mass. A needlessly provocative gesture, the Mass in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, had the predictable effect of dividing Catholics and galvanizing liberals. The pope used soft and platitudinous language to present illegal immigration in the most benign terms. He called it “forced migration” (121).

By objecting to Francis’ open borders evangelism, Neumayr seems to be more Protestant in his thinking than he realizes. One can have some sympathy for a man who, on the one hand, sees the dangers of Francis’ open borders advocacy, and, on the other hand, wishes to remain a faithful Roman Catholic.

Unfortunately for Neumayr, as has been demonstrated throughout this series on immigration, Francis’ open borders position is hardly unique to him. The papacy, with its claims to triple power – the father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ – is philosophically opposed to the idea of sovereign national governments that do not owe their allegiance to Rome. Add to that the economic thought of Rome, which posits original communism, there is no reason whatsoever to be surprised at Pope Francis’ push for mass, taxpayers subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. Francis is simply advocating the immigration policy that is implied in the Church’s basic assumptions of its economic and political thought.

Rather than complaining about Pope Francis as if he were some sort of outlier among the popes, Mr. Neumayr would do well to read what previous occupants of the office of Antichrist have had to say on immigration. Perhaps Mr. Neumayr would come to realize that, as a Roman Catholic who seems to favor limited government and national sovereignty over globalism, he is in a bind and that he must, as John Robbins noted, “choose to be either a good [Catholic], or a good [Christian].”

San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy addresses the U.S. regional meeting of the World Meeting of Popular Movements Feb. 18, in Modesto, Calif. (NCR photo/Brian Roewe)

Bishop Robert McElroy

On February 19, 2017, the National Catholic Register
reported on a speech by San Diego bishop Robert McElroy. According to the report,

The San Diego bishop said that “the fundamental political question of our age” was whether current U.S. economic structures will receive greater freedom or be directed in a way “to safeguard the dignity of the human person and he common good of our nation” [n.b. the bishop puts economic liberty in opposition to “the dignity of the human person and the common good of our nation” as if somehow God ordained private property is inimical to the well being of individuals or to the nation as a whole].

“in that battle, the tradition of Catholic social teaching is unequivocally on the side of strong governmental and societal protections for the powerless, the worker, the homeless, the hungry, those without decent medical care, the unemployed,” McElroy said to rolling applause.

“This stance of the church’s teaching flows from teaching of the Book of Genesis, that creation is the gift of God to all of humanity. Thus in the most fundamental way, there is a universal destination for all of the material goods that exist in this world. Wealth is a common heritage, not at its core a right of lineage or of acquisition” (emphasis mine).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Roman Church-State erroneously calls God’s prohibition on theft , Thou shalt not steal, the Seventh Commandment. But Rome’s error does not stop here. For when expositing the commandment against theft, Rome ironically advocates the very thing the Commandment is designed to prohibit.

The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It command justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2401).

The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise (Catechism, 2402).

A careful reading of Rome’s Catechism makes it very obvious that Rome has so twisted the meaning of the eighth commandment so as to allow for theft, because of the unbiblical doctrine of the universal destination of goods. Notice the careful wording. Rome says that “The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor” but then goes on to explain that “the sake of the common good” can override respect for private property, in which case one could justly take or keep his neighbor’s goods.

Rome continues,

“In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.” The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family” [the Catechism cites no Scripture to support this assertion] (Catechism, 2404)

Goods of production – material or immaterial – such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number [shades of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ethics]. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor [apparently Rome believes that most of one’s earthly goods are not to be used by oneself but are to given to others] (Catechism, 2405).

All this would be bad enough if Rome simply stuck to imposing its twisted understanding of property on its own people. But of course, Rome is never satisfied with limiting its pronouncements to its own people. The Magisterium wants to impose its tyrannical regime on everyone through the civil government, telling them what they may and may not do with their own things.

Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good (Catechism, 2406).

So if you don’t willingly give of your own property to the Church’s satisfaction, they’ll sic the civil authorities on you and distribute your goods [the Bible calls this stealing] to those they deem deserve them more. The Catechism cites no Scripture to back up this stance. Rather, the Catechism adduces three encyclicals from previous Antichrists, Gaudium et Spes by Pope John XXIII, and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus by the now sainted John Paul II.

The Roman Church-State has done to the Eight Commandment what the Rabbis of Jesus day did, they have made the Law of God of no effect through their traditions.

Closing Thoughts

Acts chapter 5 records an exchange between Peter and a man named Ananias. Prior to their conversation, Ananias and his wife Sapphira had sold some of their property, held back a portion of it and brought the rest before the apostles. Peter condemned Ananias for his actions and, quite dramatically, Ananias fell down dead.

The sin of Ananias was not in his keeping back a portion of his goods, for nowhere does this passage suggest that he did something wrong by not bring the full proceeds of the sale to the apostles. Quite the opposite, Peter very clearly tells Ananias that the property was his to do with what he wished. “While it [the possession] remained, was it not you own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?” Before the sale, the possession was Ananias’ to do with what he wanted, and after the sale the proceeds were likewise his. There is not even a hint of the universal destination of goods from the lips of (supposedly) the first pope.

That Peter did not invoke the universal destination of goods is remarkable. Considering the circumstances – Acts 4 ends with an account of the how the people of the early persecuted church in Jerusalem held “all things in common,” so that no one lacked – this would have been an ideal time to bring up the universal destination of goods if the Bible actually endorsed the concept. But this Peter did not do. Quite the opposite, he affirmed Ananias property rights in the strongest terms.

Or consider another passage, this one from the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. When challenged by the workers who thought they should have received more than the agreed upon wage, the vineyard owner replied, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” Here, Jesus affirms the right of the vineyard owner to set the terms of the contract with those whom he hired. He could pay more or pay less per hour as he wished. The workers who had labored the entire day had no complaint, for the owner had paid them the agreed upon amount.

These two passages by themselves are enough to overturn Rome’s ungodly doctrine of the universal destination of goods, but there is much more ammunition in the Scriptures to bring to bear.

Lord willing, next week I shall expand on the Biblical doctrine of private property and refute Rome’s teaching of the universal destination of goods. For those readers who are admirers of John Robbins’ work, you will be please to know that I shall be quoting extensively from his 1973 doctoral dissertation The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer.

(To be continued…)