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. 

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...)