A group of migrants from Venezuela planned their next steps at the Downtown El Paso Greyhound station after they were released to the streets as part of an effort by the Border Patrol to control the population at its El Paso Central Processing Center. The men gave their consent to be photographed. (Cindy Ramirez/El Paso Matters)
In his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania: the Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church, John Robbins argued that the Thomistic principle of the universal destination of all goods is so important in Catholic thought that all rights are subject to it. (Robbins, 1999)
This principle, the universal destination of all goods, is the idea that when God created the world, he gave it to man collectively. Robbins calls the universal destination of goods “original communism.”
One of the implications of the doctrine of the universal destination of all goods is that property rights are not absolute but can be overridden by other concerns. In Rome’s social teaching, need is the ultimate factor in determining rightful ownership. John Robbins explains it this way, according to Rome, “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.” (Robbins, 1999)
The Roman Church-State is fine with private property up to a point, but when things get serious, need is all that matters. If your neighbor needs something, and you have a surplus of what he needs, he can take it, and it’s neither a sin nor a crime for him to do so.
Robbins quotes Pope Paul VI writing in his encyclical On the Progress of Peoples:
…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.” All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. (Robbins, 1999)
Cardinal Michael Czerney, SJ blesses a replica of Angels Unawares on Loyola University in Chicago on 9/19/2021. The original is in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican and was commissioned by Pope Francis. The main purpose of the sculpture appears to be that of guilting Western nations into destroying themselves with welfare migrants, in order to advance the Roman Catholic Church-States goal of world government.
The Roman Catholic Church-State (RCCS) has always hated the United States of America and has relentlessly sought to subvert and destroy it.
Americans in the 19th century understood this well as evidenced by the many books published by American authors during that century warning people of the dangers Rome posed to the American republic.
If you go a Google Books, you can find a remarkable number of books, nearly all of them forgotten, written by American authors in the 19th century on the threat that growing Roman Catholic political power posed to the liberties of the American people. Here are a few examples:
And just as these books and their authors have largely been forgotten by 21st century Americans, so too has the threat of “political Romanism” been forgotten by them.
Today, one rarely hears any complaint by American Protestants about the baleful influence of Roman Catholic economic and political thought on our republic. In his masterful book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins wrote about the hesitance of non-Catholic scholars to research and criticize the RCCS.
Perhaps it is the fear of being labeled “anti-Catholic” that has dissuaded non-Catholic scholars from writing about the Church-State – a fear that undermines all scholarship. Scholars, apparently more solicitous of their academic reputations than of learning itself, have shied away from studies such as this. Perhaps there are other, more legitimate, reasons, such as the excessive secrecy of the papacy. But whatever the reason, the Roman institution has not received the attention and scrutiny it deserves from American scholars (10-11).
Rather than opposing the false philosophy and theology of the RCCS, 20th and 21st century Protestants went out of their way to find common ground with the Antichrist papacy and his Babylonian Harlot church. Today, one is more likely to hear putatively Protestant ministers praise the pope as a brother in Christ than to hear them denounce him as Antichrist. Rome hasn’t changed. It’s still a false church, teaching a false gospel of a false Christ who saves no one. But Protestants have changed. And not for the better.
It’s almost as if we have become ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Justification by Belief Alone, which our forefathers preached boldly but which we seem to fear articulating, or not to even understand.
When Protestants should be rebuking, correcting and refuting the errors of Antichrist – and by Antichrist, I mean the office of the papacy; all popes are Antichrist in that they occupy the office of Antichrist; recent examples of papal Antichrists include Pius XII, of whom we will have more to say shortly, John Paul II, Benedict the XVI and the current papal Antichrist, Francis I – instead they are taking their theological cues from him, offering their congregations little more than warmed-over Romanism with a sprinkling of Evangelical fairy dust to fool the people in the pews into thinking their ideas are somehow Biblical.
But lest we get too far afield in this short post. Let me get to the main point for today, which is to talk about Rome’s bogus World Day of Migrants and Refugees (WDMF).
Jesuits Push Mass Migration While America’s Southern Border Burns Down
Can anything good come from Chicago? Although I’m sure there are Christians in Chicago, that city has a remarkable penchant for being ground zero for some of the most anti-American ideas and movements one can find.
Chicago, (Sept. 20, 2021) – In observance of National Migration Week, Sept. 20 – 26, 2021, Archdiocese of Chicago parishes and its Immigration Ministry will host events celebrating Chicagoland’s diverse Catholic community. This year’s National Migration Week theme is “Towards an Ever Wider ‘We’.”
“The Holy Father’s theme of widening the ‘we’ comes at a time when so many migrants and refugees are seeking humanitarian aid, protections and resettlements from violence, war, repeated natural disasters and climate change-induced droughts and famine during a surging global pandemic,” said Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, archbishop of Chicago. “As he emphasizes in his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti, we should think no longer in terms of ‘them’ and ‘those,’ but only as ‘us’. Our Church’s universality calls us to cultivate and celebrate community and diversity and to be companions for those seeking safe havens.”
This is a jaw-dropping headline. At a time when America is in the throes of perhaps the worst migrant crisis in our history, a crisis deliberately caused by our illegitimate, Roman Catholic president Joe Biden, the Archdiocese of Chicago wants to celebrate the very thing the RCCS is using to burn down America as if the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 were something the Archdiocese sees as a model for the whole country.
Worth noting is that the Angels Unawares statue blessed by the Jesuit Cardinal is a replica of a statue commissioned by Antichrist Pope Francis in 2019. As the story notes, “It’s the first sculpture added to the Vatican’s famed St. Peter’s Square in 400 years.”
Now let’s ask a question, is there a connection between the migrant crisis on America’s southern border, the WDMF, and the in-your-face celebration of the WDMF by the Archdiocese of Chicago. The answer is, I am persuaded, yes.
Earlier in this post, I mentioned Pope Pius XII. This Antichrist, subject of the book Hitler’s Pope – not many people today are aware of this, but the Nazi Party was a principally a Roman Catholic movement; Hitler himself served as an acolyte in the Roman Catholic Church and attended Dominican high school, where he was first introduced to the Swastika – was the author of the 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia (the Emigree Family), which has served ever since as Rome’s template for promoting mass, welfare migration for the purpose of subverting nation-states, strengthening the RCCS, and ushering in Rome’s dream of world government.
That Exsul Familia is a tissue of nonsense doesn’t seem to matter. It gives the appearance of piety, and that’s enough to persuade many people, both inside and outside the RCCS of the document’s righteousness. In short, the argument of Exsul Familia is that since Joseph was warned in a dream to take Jesus and Mary and flee to Egypt to get away from the murderous King Herod, it’s okay for migrants from Haiti to barge into America and demand taxpayers pick up the tab for their room, board and anything else they may happen to want.
There are several obvious objections to this line of reasoning. First, when Joseph took his family to Egypt, he was fleeing to another province of the Roman Empire, not to a foreign country. Second, the Scriptures remain silent as to how the family was supported. There was no welfare state, so either they supported themselves or perhaps were taken in by the Jewish community living in Egypt. Third, the scale of the migration is entirely different. Where in the New Testament we see a family of three fleeing to Egypt, today we’re talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands or more. A more appropriate example of mass migration in the Bible is the Exodus. And in the history of the Exodus, we see that Moses was extremely careful not to impose upon the land and resources of established nations.
In Numbers 20 we read,
Now Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom…We will not pass through fields or vineyards, nor will we drink water from wells; we will go along the King’s Highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.
Unlike the RCCS and its cardinals, bishops, priests, and nuns, Moses respected the property of others and did not see it as or as Israel’s right to barge into another nation’s territory and take their stuff. That would be stealing. And stealing is prohibited in the Ten Commandments.
But Rome constantly and unctuously lectures Americans and the citizens of other Western nations that they have an altruistic moral duty to destroy their countries on behalf of migrants when no such duty exists.
Contrary to the false economics of Rome, need is not only not the sole moral criterion of ownership, but it is not a criterion at all. The American people owe nothing, nada, zip, zilch to Haitians. Now, if Christians wish out to help Haitians by giving their own time and money in the name of Jesus Christ – Christian charity is always done in the name of Jesus Christ, see Matthew 10:42 – that’s one thing. But Rome has contempt, as do socialists of all stripes, for private charity. Rome believes in government welfare, where the civil government, contrary to the Bible and to the Constitution, steals money from the American people and lavishes it on foreign migrants, many if not most of whom are in this country contrary to American law.
Rome’s WDMR is a bogus attempt to guilt the wealthy nations of the West into surrendering their sovereignty due to an imagined duty to give their wealth to foreigners when no such duty exists. This canard is a lie of Antichrist in an attempt to cover his lust for world power and dominion with a veneer of pseudo-Christion ethics.
Joe Biden, Servant of Antichrist
It is no accident that America’s greatest migrant crisis is happening on Joe Biden’s watch. Joe Biden, America’s second Roman Catholic president appears to be enthusiastically carrying out the destruction of the United States by means of mass migration and doing so at the behest of Antichrist Pope Francis.
But as bad as Joe Biden is, he still isn’t going far enough for the taste of the of Rome’s many American migration madmen.
In a letter signed by 164 Catholic organizations – 164! – many in the RCCS expressed their outrage that Biden was not moving fast enough to destroy America as they think he should. They think it’s a “travesty” that Biden is summarily deporting people from nations who have a high incidence of disease using Title 42 to do so. Apparently, these treasonous organizations of the RCCS have no problem exposing Americans to communicable diseases so long as they can oversee the importation of more Romanists and other non-Christian, illegal migrants into America. It’s almost as if they’re paraphrasing King Jehu of Israel and saying, “Joe Biden serves Antichrist a little, but we shall serve him much!”
Perhaps Joe Biden’s concession to immigration sanity is the political nature of his position. Things have gotten so bad that on the immigration issue that even people who normally don’t pay much attention to politics are starting to wake up to the fact that the southern border is getting out of hand. On the other hand, the immigration nutjobs in the 164 treasonous Roman Catholic organizations have no public to answer to and care not a whit what the public thinks of them.
Joe Biden, the people associated with these 164 organizations, and anyone who supports their efforts, is, in the opinion of this author, committing treason against the United States of America and is become a domestic enemy of our nation of the sort the Constitution speaks of.
19th century American Protestants would in no way be surprised by this turn of events. This is the very thing they warned about, and it is coming to pass in our generation.
Way back in 1884, Dr. Samuel D. Burchard called the Democrats “the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” He was excoriated for saying so, which goes to show that large parts of supposedly Protestant America had already fallen under the sway of the Roman Harlot in his day. And what was true in 1884 is even more true today.
The alarm bells are going off. Our nation is burning down due to the predations of Antichrist and his Mother of Harlots Church. Are there enough Christian men left to put out the fire?
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a non-tax deductible donation to support the work of Lux Lucet.
The U.S. is allowing many Afghan refugees to enter the U.S. without visas, relying on an immigration program known as humanitarian parole. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
“We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.”
Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, Presbyterian Minister and Union Civil War Veteran
“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.”
Those are the words of Roman Catholic priest Giulivo Tessarolo, writing in the introduction of a book he edited titled Exsul Familia: The Church’s Magna Charta for Migrants.
As has been covered in the space before, Exsul Familia Nazarethana(EFN) is the 1952 Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XII in which he formally laid out the Roman Catholic Church State’s (RCCS) position on migration, immigration, and refugee resettlement. In short, the RCCS believes the more migration, the better.
Why does the RCCS take this stance?
Mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement is a powerful way for globalists – the RCCS is the oldest and premier globalist institution in the world – to destabilize individual nations, break down the Christian system of independent nation states established as a result of the Protestant victory over Rome in the Thirty Years’ War, and institute global government.
I chose to feature Tessarolo’s quote to start this post, because, unlike most statements by officials of the RCCS, Tessarolo’s clearly notes the enormous, implied cost to the receiving nations of the pope’s immigration plans.
In short, the popes of Rome want to destroy independent nation states, impose world government with Rome as the head, all while forcing the citizens of those targeted nations to subsidize their own dispossession. If anyone gets wise to the scheme and objects, Rome or one of its proxies simply denounces him as a “xenophobe” or a “racist” and that individual is either quickly brought to heel or is “cancelled” and driven out of polite society.
That’s a great deal for the occupants of the office of Antichrist. For Americans and citizens of other targeted nations, not so much.
The important point to take away from Tessarolo’s statement is that the RCCS views refugee resettlement as a cost to be dutifully born by the citizens of the receiving nations. In other words, your tax dollars are going to support he RCCS’s plans to destroy your nation.
Put still another way, refugee resettlement is a form of international welfare, the bill for which Antichrist plans to send to you.
Put still another way, refugee resettlement as currently practiced in America and around the world is a welfare racket.
In his classic book War is a Racket, retired US Marine General Smedley Butler wrote, “A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to be to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group know what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many” (23).
You gotta fight for your right to migrate. Then Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s remarkable promise to fight for the right of everyone in the whole world to migrate to the US is what first prompted me to write this series beginning in June 2018.
No sooner had I finished reading this remarkable statement than I realized that I’d soon be writing my second extended series on immigration.
It may seem to some that Lux Lucet has become an immigration blog, what with the subject occupying such a large portion of my posts over the past two and a half years. My first series, Immigration, Citizenship and the Bible, took me nearly a year-and-a-half to write and represented my first extended effort on the subject of immigration.
So why, after spending all that time and energy completing on extended immigration series, did I start another one less than six months later? There are several reasons.
First, immigration is a fascinating topic, one that incorporates a number of my favorite fields of study. It’s part politics, part economics, part philosophy and part theology. What’s not to like?
Second, it’s a critically important topic. Parents, at least wise one’s, naturally want to pass their heritage to their children and to see them prosper in the way. In Deuteronomy, we see this expressed in the saying that the Lord keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love him. Likewise, we’re told in Proverbs that a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children. Fathers are encouraged to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and children to obey their father and mother. But if current trends continue in the US and in Western Europe, it may well be that in a few decades not a few of these nations will cease to exist in anything like their historic form. There may be a France and a Germany and a United States, but these could well be just legacy place names only, with the actual peoples that historically occupied those places and their cultures being largely or entirely wiped out. The destruction of one’s heritage is not a blessing, but a sign of God’s curse. If the public policies pursued by the leaders of a nation and its people result, not in prosperity for their posterity, but in their destruction, it is reasonable to conclude that those policies are contrary to the law of God and must be repented of.
Third, immigration is one of the most poorly understood topics. If one is to prevent the destruction of one’s society, one first must understand why his society is being destroyed. But discussions of immigration policy, being prone as they are to emotional outbursts, are, for that reason, not always fruitful. I’ve heard Daniel McAdams, a former Congressional staffer for Ron Paul and Dr. Paul’s current co-host on the Liberty Report, say that immigration was his least favorite topic because of the extreme positions taken by various sides on the issue. For this reason, it’s important to find a way to talk about immigration in a way that focuses on ideas and not on people.
Fourth, immigration is a major weapon on the Roman Church-State’s arsenal for imposing an updated version of the Holy Roman Empire, not on Europe only, but on the whole world. Call it scalable tyranny if you will. It is imperative to understand the danger of Rome’s immigration gambit, yet most Americans are clueless about this. Former White House Chief Political Strategist Steve Bannon, himself a Roman Catholic, understands, at least in part, why Rome pushes immigration so hard. According to him, “unable to really come to grips with the problems in the Church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches. It’s obvious on the face of it…They have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.
Fifth, Protestants, who should be at the forefront of the immigration debate, generally are missing in action. Either they avoid the subject out of fear or ignorance, or, when they do discuss it, they show themselves the intellectual thralls of Antichrist. Instead of going to the Scriptures to understand the mind of God on immigration, they instead are satisfied with repeating the tired and unbiblical arguments of the Roman Church-State, tricking it out in Evangelical garb to sell Rome’s nonsense to the unsuspecting sheep.
Sixth, immigration is a topic tailor made for Scripturalists. Scripturalism, the Christian system of thought developed by Gordon Clark and John Robbins, holds that the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth. If Americans are to solve the knotty problem of immigration, they will not do so by turning to secular economists or political theorists. They must turn to the Word of God and seek his mind on the matter. It has been the goal of this author to begin the process of applying Scripturalist thought to the critical issue of immigration policy.
The Israelite army defeats the armies of Sihon and Og.
And the children of Israel said to him, “We will go by the Highway, and if I or my livestock drink any of your water, then I will pay for it; let me only pass through on foot, nothing more” (Numbers 21:19).
“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.”
Thus began Pope Pius XII in his 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana (hereafter EFN), the most important statement to date by the Roman Catholic Church-State on the subjects of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.
Having gone over EFN is some detail in earlier posts in this series, I shall not repeat myself here. But I wanted to mention EFN in connection with this week’s post, because my topic today ties back to the prior discussion on EFN.
In this respect, the words of John Robbins on philosophic systems is worth calling to mind. I don’t have the reference immediately handy, but I do recall hearing or reading Robbins state that when philosophic systems go wrong, they tend to go wrong right from the beginning. That is to say, you don’t have to plow through a thousand tedious pages of argumentation before you realize someone’s talking nonsense. If you know what to look for, you can spot the foolishness quickly.
Such is the case with EFN. Infallible Pope Pius XII drops the ball right away when he makes the rather shocking blunder of saying that the Biblical account of Joseph’s taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod, “is the archetype of every refugee family.” Now an archetype is defined by Merriam Webster as, “the original pattern of model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies.” But it seems to this author that the Pope is manifestly wrong in his assertion.
In the first place, the scale doesn’t quite fit the sort of mass migration that was occurring at the time Pope Pius XII wrote his Apostolic Constitution, or, for that matter, the sort of mass migration the current occupant of the office of Antichrist is encouraging. One family versus millions is not really a great comparison.
Second, the Bible is silent about how the Joseph and his family were supported. While Rome boldly asserts that the governments of receiving nations have an obligation to take property from citizens (i.e. Rome claims governments must steal from their own people) and transfer it to migrants, immigrants and refugees, the account of Joseph and his family in Egypt supports no such theft.
Third, unlike many of today’s migrants, Joseph took his family and returned home once the danger was past. But unlike Joseph, the representatives of the Babylonian Harlot fight tooth and nail to make sure all migrants remain in the receiving countries, even when they entered the receiving country on explicitly temporary terms. For example, in January 2018 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a press release lamenting how disappointed they were to hear that the Trump administration had cancelled the Temporary protected Status (TPS) of Salvadorans who had been allowed to stay in the US as a result of the devastation wrought on El Salvador by Hurricane Mitch. What the bishops failed to mention in their release is that Hurricane Mitch had hit El Salvador in, wait for it, 1999. In other words, the Salvadorans “temporary” status in the US was in its nineteenth year. Still, nearly nineteen years of American generosity wasn’t enough to satisfy the moral conscience of USCCB as they proceeded to lecture Americans on their need to “love the resident alien” as if they hadn’t already gone far any above any reasonable efforts. What part of “temporary” do the bishops not understand?
Clearly, even a brief consideration of the flight to Egypt reveals that it does not support the case for unlimited, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement that Antichrist and his representatives in the USCCB want you to think it does. This, however, does not mean the Bible is silent on these topics. Actually, it has quite a lot to say about migration, but you have to look in the right place. And where would that be? Is there an example of a mass exodus to be found anywhere in Scripture? Why yes, there most certainly is. And the account of that mass exodus is found, oddly enough, in the Book of Exodus and the following books of Moses.
“The Prime duties of the second table [of the ten commandments] are conversant about the right of property. But if property be brought in by a human law (as Grotius teacheth), then the moral law depends upon the will of man. There could be no adultery or theft, if women and all things were common.”
– Sir Robert Filmer, Patriarcha
Rome’s teaching on migration, which is the theoretical basis for the ongoing migration crisis in both Europe and the United States, rests on the doctrine of the universal destination of goods.
The universal destination of all goods is the idea, repeated time and again in the official documents of the Roman Church-State, that in the original state of nature, before the fall of man, that God gave the world to mankind collectively. This idea, dating back to the pagan stoics, was picked up by the church fathers, repeated by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, and used by popes and other thinkers in the Roman Church-State as the foundational idea for socialist economic and political thought which characterizes the Social Teaching of the Church.
Since Rome’s teaching on migrants is one facet of the Church’s Social Teaching, it should come as no surprise to find that the universal destination of goods is foundational to the Church’s teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement as well.
A second key point to this series is that the universal destination of goods is unbiblical. Rather than positing the idea that God gave the Earth to man collectively, the Bible teaches that private property was the original economic order of things.
The third key point is that, if it can be demonstrated from the Scriptures that Rome’s doctrine of the universal destination of goods is false, not only is Rome’s socialist migration doctrine likewise refuted, but the entirety of its Social Teaching is overthrown as well.
In this week’s post, we shall continue to examine the arguments against the universal destination of goods and for original capitalism made by 17th century English political philosopher Sir Robert Filmer as discussed in John Robbins’ doctoral dissertation, The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer.
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.
We seek to measure the interests of all parties in the migration phenomenon against the guidelines of Catholic social teaching and to offer a moral framework for embracing, not rejecting, the reality of migration between our two nations.
– USCCB and the Catholic Bishops of Mexico in Strangers No Longer
Over the past three weeks (please see here, here and here), this author has examined in some detail the document Strangers No Longer (SNL), authored jointly by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their counterparts in Mexico. The main purpose of SNL, as the quote at the top of the page indicates, is to bring to bear the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of migration between Mexico and the United States.
The three preceding posts on SNL represent my attempt to demonstrate some of the serious, antichristian ideas in the document. To that end, I have analyzed the errors in three broad categories, noting that SNL is 1) a Marian document, 2) a socialist document, and 3) a globalist document.
After considering the express and implied propositions found in SNL, it is this author’s conclusion that the ideas put forth by the bishops in SNL are not only harmful to the people of the United States, but destructive to the point that they imply the end of the United States as an independent nation. Further, it is this author’s contention that the implied collapse of the US is not some accidental by-product of the ideas found in SNL, but actually one of the bishops’ intended effects.
That said, today I would like to turn my attention to a few additional issues in SNL. These are issues that may not fit neatly into one of the three categories listed above – Marian, socialist, and globalist – but which nevertheless are worthy of commentary.
While a candidate, Mexican president elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) promised to defend the right of everyone in the world to migrate to the United States. The migrant caravan making its way through Mexico appears to be a down payment on that promise…and AMLO hasn’t even taken office!
The pope, more than anybody else, has driven the migrant crisis in Europe…The Catholic Church is one of the worst instigators of this open borders policy.
– Steve Bannon, Former White House Strategist, June 2018
We interrupt this program…
When thinking about what to write for this week’s post, it was my intention to continue with my series on the 2008 financial crisis. But with the embarrassment of riches in the news just begging for a Scripturalist commentary, sometimes I find myself, as did the dog in the movie Up, saying “Squirrel!”
The squirrel, in this case, is the news of the Honduran migrant caravan slowly wending its way through Central America with the goal of arriving in El Norte. the United States.
Many commentators have speculated about the origins of the caravan. While it appears to have mysteriously sprung up almost overnight, given its size and the apparent organization, not to mention its timing near the November mid-term elections, it is difficult to believe that the caravan is a spontaneous uprising.
Among conservatives, it is fairly common to blame the United Nations and George Soros for instigating this latest attack on the United State’s southern border.
Donald Trump has tweeted that the fault lies with the Democrats and their lax approach to border security.
One financial commentator I follow has suggested, if I understand him correctly, that the migrant caravan was organized by financial interests in the federal government to give the Trump administration the excuse to borrow more money to fund the construction of the proposed southern border wall with Mexico. In the opinion of this financial commentator, the federal government must borrow cash into existence in order to pay the interest on the existing government debt. Deficit spending on the wall is one way of doing this.
While this suggestion is not as off the wall (pun intended) as it may seem, it is not my intention to explore it here today.
In fact, it’s not my intention to do a deep dive consideration of any of the popular theories about the source of the caravan’s organization and funding. It may well be that some, or even all, of the above suggestions are correct. It is not my purpose here to rule out any of them. But what I will say is that, even if they are true, none of them are adequate, for they fail to identify what is almost certainly the single most important sponsor of the caravan: The Roman Church-State.
It is the studied opinion of this author that the principal cause of the migrant crisis in Europe and in the United States, what Pope Francis has called a ‘sign of the times,’ is the Social Teaching and political activism of the Roman Church-State under the direction of its Antichrist popes.
Lux Lucet 