“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, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.”

(scroll down for answer)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Venerable Pope Pius XII

Exsul Familia Nazarethana

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
1 Shares

23 Responses

  1. Avatar Anne Lastman says:

    Pedro I rarely ever disagree with a pope but this?.well. I live in a country which has welcome refugees made exceptions for them in housing, social security payments, health cover, education and list goes on. However in return we have received from their youth especially smash and grab businesses, homes, violence in ones own home , breakins, assaults and even verbal assaults which i have had theown at me as i walked in city where i live and have my office
    Several years ago i was able to go out several times a day (break from work-grief) and walk and buy a gelato. This was my daily debrief.
    I cannot do this now. Im afraid. My fried in nct suburb ti me was assaulted in own home at night the result PTSD. A shadow of former self
    The judiciary slaps on wrists because refugee advocates play big role.
    This leads copy-cat crimes because nothing happens. Staff afrsid to go to work. Fear.
    The thing about this. Big tall lanky really black migrants. Mainly Sudanese.
    I have office on seventh floor with security system and we family live on 12th floor where Im not afraid with real fear.
    And worst part neither advocates or their elders makes comment or take control of these hoons/louts/domestic terrorists who hold host countries to ransome.
    So as far as im concerned send the………back to where they came from and let them loose there never to be admitted to Australia again.
    No sympathy for them.living in ivory towers foes not see true situation. I DONT want them in my once peaceful country though do gooders will ensure otherwise

    • Avatar carn says:

      “Pedro I rarely ever disagree with a pope but this?”

      You can fully agree with this Pope:

      “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.”

      =

      For adequate reasons entry can be denied.

      Question:

      If migration for the host country means disproportionately “in return we have received from their youth especially smash and grab businesses, homes, violence in ones own home , breakins, assaults and even verbal assaults” could this be adequate or justified reasons to limit migration to a level with which these problems are avoided (which might be even total limitation, if only this way the problems can be avoided)?

      I think yes.

      Accordingly – if i am not mistaken about that – Pope Pius XII would have fully agreed with you, that for your country some limitation of migration is justified.

      And also accordingly – if i am not mistaken about that – anyone suggesting that your position is in opposition to Church teaching errs.

      Unless of course there is some new development in Church teaching that a host country has to accept “smash and grab businesses, homes, violence in ones own home , breakins, assaults and even verbal assaults” as side effect of migration and/or taking in refugees.

  2. Avatar Marie says:

    Anne- Thankfully when Pope Pius VII spoke, there were priests and nuns and Catholic families throughout Europe who were willing to risk all to protect their fellow man. Hundreds of thousands of jews were saved because the humanity of their brother was what came first. This was not the case for the attitude of the people in general, as European and North American countries turned their backs on the jewish people when they began to flee. Sadly, history continues to repeat itself in our attitude to those who are different from ‘us’. I do not need to read about the problems concerning immigration within Australia to know that the problem is within you, not with the immigrants. Your words ring a familiar sound across the sea, for it is not based in reality, just on perception.

    “The thing about this. Big tall lanky really black migrants” I feel sorry for you Anne, I really do, for you don’t see how it is your attitude that is causing you such grief. This way of thinking is allowing for the continued suffering of our brothers, as their humanity, dignity and worth are challenged by bigotry, selfishness and fear.

    Of course there are challenges with immigration, assimilation and embracing diversity. It is vital that you see the ‘ big tall lanky really black migrant’ as a human being just like you, no different from you at all, because that is exactly how our Lord sees him. He is not less valuable than you, less loving than you, less deserving than you, or less entitled to food, shelter and clothing than you are.

    Gangs were not invented by migrants. They have been around since the beginning of time. Youth who are unemployed and unwelcome often seek comfort and acceptance from those in similar circumstances. Ironically, just like you Anne, these youths become bitter towards those they feel are causing their troubles, and they lash out at them, just as you have done.

    In reality, without even looking at statistics, the vast majority of violent crimes committed in Australia (and Canada, the US and Europe) are committed by native born citizens. That right Anne, most of the youth violent crimes committed in Australia are committed by white Australian boys. Born in Australia, with an Australian mother and father. Where is your outrage for your fellow white Australian elders who have not “taken control of these hoons/louts/domestic terrorists ?”

    • Avatar carn says:

      “I do not need to read about the problems concerning immigration within Australia to know that the problem is within you, not with the immigrants.”

      Writing that means first and foremost that there is a problem within you and not with Anne Lastman. Cause charity would demand to read about the problems concerning immigration within Australia before dismissing Anne’s complaints as an internal problem.

      • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

        I agree that blaming people for bad experiences that may make them struggle with some aspects of doctrine is not helpful

      • Avatar carn says:

        And it is not helpful to suggest that they struggle with doctrine, when they potentially aren’t struggling, but instead are in full accord with doctrine as applied to what they think the facts are.

        If someone thinks that some immigration should be prohibited to adequate and justified reasons arising from what that someone perceives as facts and/or due the public wealth of the host country forbidding it based on what is perceived as facts by that someone,

        then that someone might be 100% on the line of Pope Pius XII, when he advocates for closing borders and/or limiting migration.

        And other people might think that someone is wrong due to having a different perception of the facts.

        The discussion should be then what the facts are and not that someone struggles with doctrine.

      • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

        Maybe. But then again, those “escape clauses” are so frequently abused by people who do not come to this debate with anything but a desire to hammer their ideology into doctrine that it is very easy for people to dismiss these concerns as just another attempt of doing the exact same thing

        The search for loopholes from people more concerned with ideology than doctrine is how we get things like “inadmissible”

        Mind you I’m not necessarily talking about anyone on this thread

      • Avatar Marie says:

        I expressed my charity for Anne, genuinely, when I said “I feel sorry for you Anne, I really do, for you don’t see how it is your attitude that is causing you such grief.” My point in saying “I do not need to read about the problems….” is that the concerns raised by Anne are standard. In other words, the same arguments are made by those who oppose immigration, regardless of where they live or the ethnicity of the immigrants, but statistics do not support this argument. If we are more outraged when the crime is committed by someone ‘different”, we must look inward. I don’t see that as blame, I see that as a need for reflection. We all face such challenges in life from time to time. Peace.

    • Avatar Anne Lastman says:

      Marie you fo not know what you are speaking about. Walking outside my office in city i have been verbally abused by these treasures who my husband’s taxes supports and they accept through social security because its hand out rather than work.
      I have been called “mole” “slut” “dirty” and the colourful skank.
      A friend in another suburb assaulted in own home. Is terrified. Suffers PTSD. Look it up if you dont know what it means. jewlry shops are favourites for smash and grab leaving staff too traumatised to return to work. Next favourite are liquor stores. The list is endless. All Sudanese. Send the b…,,,,,,.s back to where they came from
      My parents were migrants who gave so much to their new land. Dad came as a migrant aftet WWll. He cleared bush for money. There were no handouts. He worked snd schooled 6 children snd psid mortgage.
      So Marie get lost you know nothing what you speak about

      • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

        Anne, you can make your case without that kind of language and tone. I understand this is something you have reasons to feel strongly about, but I hold debate here to a higher standard. Another comment like this will not be approved

        I also note with interest that your have a history of immigration in your family too. Maybe consider that what the Popes are saying helped you too. “Handouts” and the way people abuse the system is really not about immigration, but about other discussions like social security, inspection for policy loopholes and security

      • Avatar Marie says:

        Pedro, If you would allow me to respond as it was not my intention to hurt anyone. I don’t want to drag this out, but as a person who has been at the receiving end of some of this backlash, I do believe it is important to show the other side. As someone who was married to a black (mixed race) immigrant, and someone who has children who are mixed (I hate that word, but), I have witnessed first hand some of the consequences of being judged as a group, rather than as an individual.
        When I went into labor with my last child, I arrived at the hospital alone because I had asked my husband to drop the kids off at my mother’s house, and get them settled in before coming over. The nurse, herself a recent immigrant from Liverpool, was very nice to me, making jokes, etc. All was well. Then my husband arrived. Her whole demeanour changed. It was shocking really. I will spare you all the details of the delivery, other than to say there were complications, and at some point I asked if something was wrong. When I was assured all was well, I said “oh I’m sorry (a very Canadian expression), I guess I’m just a neurotic, haha haha. “ The doctor and my husband laughed, knowing I was just joking around. When I delivered my son, the doctor congratulated us. The nurse had not uttered a word of congratulations and instead told me my son would not look like he does, “he will be ‘coffee’ colored, like the tips of his ears.” I was so shocked at her words and behavior, but I just ignored it. Unbeknownst to me, she made a report to social services saying the “mother admits to being a neurotic.”
        For the next three days I was carefully studied by other nurses who were making reports on my behavior(all reporting back I was completely normal, and bonding normally with my baby). I didn’t know there was something going on in the background, but I was unhappy because of my experience with the nurse and all the questions that followed; I just wanted to go home to be with my children. That’s when things went chaotic, as social services arrived. I thought they were going to take my baby from me. I called a relative who worked in the hospital, and asked for my obstetrician to come (he had not delivered my son, but had delivered my other children) He also knew my father in law, who was a diplomat, and a neighbour of his. The nurse had picked the wrong patient to slander, and the hospital knew it. Damage control took over.
        Despite the letters of apology, the promise to bring in training for staff, the reprimand of the nurse, etc, etc, they could not undo the damage. Social Services was legally obligated to keep this on my file for five years, even though the social worker acknowledged it was pure nonsense. There were consequences. My crime ? I married a man who was not white. The nurse knew nothing about my husband or I, but saw one thing, the color of his skin, and the color of mine. I wonder what the result would have been had my father in law not been a diplomat?
        Of course there are challenges when bringing newcomers over to another country. Not everything is rosy. It is our obligation, however, to look at where improvements can be made, and not simply judge people based on their ethnicity, and ignore the circumstances that may be causing conflict. It is wrong. We have all had bad experiences in life, but we should never paint a group with such a wide brush. Nothing positive comes from that.

      • Avatar carn says:

        “Social Services was legally obligated to keep this on my file for five years, even though the social worker acknowledged it was pure nonsense. There were consequences. My crime ? I married a man who was not white. The nurse knew nothing about my husband or I, but saw one thing, the color of his skin, and the color of mine. I wonder what the result would have been had my father in law not been a diplomat?”

        Sorry for what you suffered due to racism.

        “Pedro, If you would allow me to respond as it was not my intention to hurt anyone.”

        If you do not want to hurt anyone, it is preferable not to use words that the other might understand as implication that he/she is a racist.

        You probably do not note that your first post above “Anne- Thankfully when Pope Pius VII spoke” is of this type and you probably do not note that this post also is of that type.

        It is the usual pattern which makes discussions about immigration explode. One side says something critical about immigration (maybe or maybe not due to racist motives); the other side says something, which condensed could be spelled out “you only say that cause you are a racist” and things turn unfriendly – cause either the first side is actually racists and minds being caught or the first side isn’t racist and is angered by being accused although innocent.

        I do not know any good way to handle that issue.

        in reply to your above post “I expressed my charity for Anne”:

        “My point in saying “I do not need to read about the problems….” is that the concerns raised by Anne are standard. In other words, the same arguments are made by those who oppose immigration, regardless of where they live or the ethnicity of the immigrants, but statistics do not support this argument.”

        “statistics do not support this argument” is misleading.

        Statistics actually supports some of the anti-immigration arguments. Not all, but some.

        For example statistics support that if you want to keep the number of islamistic terror acts on your soil low, not having muslim immigration could be helpful.

        Also statistics support that if you are a western european liberal democracy with strongly secularized population and laws, that the integration of muslim immigrants and even their children and grandchildren will with high likelyhood lag behind the integration of most other migrant groups.

        You cannot take the overall statistic, that most immigration usually is ascociated with some problems but in the long term will be a success as evidence, that in all circumstances every single sort of migration will be so.

        Just because statistics show that most swans are white, you cannot claim that statistics do not support the argument that there also some black swans.

  3. Avatar Jude says:

    I am just wondering why we rarely ever hear the second part of the formula, the part about the duty to protect the culture, and welfare of the people of the host country. The pope has made several ‘borders are immoral’ remarks, The USCCB puts out a statement it seems like every week or so, calling anything remotely related to security immoral, There’s no shortage of bishops ready to grab a CNN crew and head down to the border and minister to the peripheries on the evening news, and of course there is the ubiquitous media with there concentration camps and Nazi equivalences…. I can’t recall any of them offering even a passing nod to the idea of looking out for the good of the country. It is not unreasonable or selfish for Italians to want Italy to remain Italian or Germans to want Germany to remain German, but one could be forgiven for not knowing that. It is not unreasonable to want to know who is coming in or where they are, whether they came in legally or not, but one could be forgiven for not knowing that either.

    Perhaps this will be the next change in the Catechism, the removal of the common good section. Everyone who matters doesn’t seem to believe it anymore so it must not be true anymore, the rare mention of it in passing like the fine print on a bill of sales notwithstanding, I have to wonder whether it is charity or globalism that is driving the current push in the church for open borders.

  4. Avatar M. says:

    Please give me Jude, a citation to exactly where the Pope stated “borders are immoral.”

    • Avatar carn says:

      Jude is just a bit imprecise:

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-wall-idUSKBN15N1ZW

      “to not raise walls but bridges, to not respond to evil with evil, to overcome evil with good.”

      Walls are (*) evil.

      As borders only exist, if the respective country has the right to say “you shall not cross, unless the following criteria are fulfilled … [which might include time, place, citizenship and/or asylum criterias, …]” AND also has the ability.

      As walls/barriers are one of the most ancient and one of the most effective means to ensure that the above right is enforced (e.g. walls can funnel people to specific entry points, as a direct way of setting a criteria where entering is allowed, where border guards can check for further criteria), most borders do not exist, if the the option of walls/barriers is waved, as without walls/barriers enforcing the right of the state to regulate entry is not possible for most countries. Also, every single country uses walls/barriers at least as optional means to enforce the above described right, e.g. any airport comprises a lot of barriers/walls to ensure that each passenger exiting an international flight can be checked.

      As walls are (*) evil and are necessary for borders existing, borders cannot exist without being evil.

      Accordingly, it is at least understandable why Jude and others interpret the Pope’s words that way.

      @Jude:

      Be precise; the Pope never said that explicitely. One can only argue that this is how one could understand his words as i tried above. But i expect that many people will not accept the above argument.

      (for simplification “are” is used; more presice in every instance of * above would be “are at least as far as i understand the Pope here (though he speaks a bit ambigious there; and to show either that i misunderstand him or that it is not ambiguous, one would either need a convincing for all sides interpretation of his words and/or an answer by the Pope to a question directed at the issue whether walls are evil)”)

      • Avatar jude says:

        The pope has spoken, and no doubt will continue to speak, many times on the subject. Not always using the same words, but with the same general theme. My intent was to capture the theme, hence the half quotation marks around “borders are immoral”

        Again, i wonder how much of the moral preening being done by the church, and the pope on the subject of migration is based on charity and how much on other reasons… virtue signaling, globalism, filling empty churches, envy or resentment against US and Europe…

      • Avatar carn says:

        @jude

        “Again, i wonder how much of the moral preening being done by the church, and the pope on the subject of migration is based on charity and how much on other reasons… virtue signaling, globalism, filling empty churches, envy or resentment against US and Europe…”

        You should presume due to charity that the “moral preening” is done due to the respective people actually thinking that what they say is sensible in the sense, that it would lead to a good end/outcome.

        So for example if some Church person laments that Germany is less open to migrants now than in 2015 and is rather restrictive about migrants in Germany also getting their family to Germany from abroad,

        and thereby implies that Germany should be ready to receive 800000 migrants with the majority being male, young and muslim, per year for as long as that many people are willing to come,

        and that each such migrant’s family should later be free to enter Germany as well – meaning parents, wifes, brothers, sisters, potentially meaning as average 4 additional arrivals for every one of the 800000 arriving per year, meaning a de facto migration of 4 million per year for however long people are willing to some,

        you should due to charity not think that there are some questionable motives,

        but you should charitably presume that the Church person is actually of the opinion that if Germany would act as he suggests, that then things would end up being mostly fine for Germany.

        I know, it can be hard to think that, but this is what charity demands.

        It demands even more, namely that we do not hold it against such persons, if they failed to think what their implicite proposals means in numbers as outlined above.

        And even more, namely that when we try to politely explain to such people what their proposal would mean in numbers in the vain hope that they understand how utterly ridiculous it would be to expect a migration of 800000 mostly male and young muslims with a right to family unification having a positive effect on Germany, that when they call us cold-hearted, racist, islamophobe, dissenters or whatever in return without ever even adressing our arguments,

        that then we forgive them, cause they really do not know what they are talking about. That is what charity demands.

      • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

        “… how utterly ridiculous it would be…”

        “… they do not know what they are talking about”

        Thank you for the charity. If some pro-immigration person would’ve worded their comment in an even less aggressive way than that, you would be all irritated at how arrogant and judgmental they are.

        Yes it is uncharitable to assume the Pope’s reasons and the reasons from people who are faithful to the appeals of the Vicar of Christ. It is indeed wrong to say that these people are not moved by their Christian values or, for that rather, by their basic humanity and to try to pin on them ulterior motives that are projections from ideologized views. Full stop.

        I am profoundly disappointed with the way people with critical views conducted themselves on this thread, in spite of the liberty of discussion that I granted them as I usually do. This discussion is therefore over. Thank you for your contributions

      • Avatar carn says:

        @Pedro Gabriel:

        a) The comment is “@jude”; i choose my words with the intent that jude understands what i am trying to say; even rereading it, i do not see a way of wording it much differently based on what i estimate jude’s position to be, so that he understands what i ask him to consider. My apologies to you and others for any offence.

        b) In case you did not notice, i asked jude to presume good intent; usually the presumption of good intent when pro-immigration people talk about or even to anti-immigration people or vice versa is absent.

        c) I was talking about a hypothetical person holding certain very specific positions; i should have said explicitely that it is hypothetical and exaggeration to make it both easier to understand for jude and allow him to understand that if he even has to charitably presume good intent with a person holding such positions, he should presume good intent with nearly every “pro-immigration” voice.

        d) I do not presume that anyone is actually of the opinion that immigration as described in my post above would be good for Germany; i presume that maybe jude understands some “pro-immigration” voices that way or at least pointing that way, so i try to pick him up where i think he is.

      • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

        I do understand that you were trying to be balanced and, in your own way, defending those who hold a pro-immigration stance. My paragraph relating to not judging people’s intentions was directed at jude

        However, my reaction was mostly to your wording of the pro-immigration person’s position which, besides being a strawman, has expressions that strike me as very uncharitable (“they know not what they’re saying”, “it’s ridiculous”)

        This after I deleted a comment where you said Marie was arrogant in a reply that was worded way less uncharitably than your last comment

        I’m glad you clarified you were setting up an hypothetical situation. It was not clear. Hope this will show that sometimes, no matter how carefully we write, there will always be ways to misinterpret and misconstrue.

        Either way, I’m still closing this thread from now on. Thank you for the contribution