Can a pro-life Catholic swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution?

[KWR_1]

How about me? Am I ruled by U.S. law and not “edicts from one man in a Church”? If so, then do I really have Religious Liberty?

Since I am a U.S. citizen residing in a state in the U.S., must the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court be my highest authority?

If it is my highest authority, then am I still a Catholic? Or a sort of truncated Catholic–Catholic to the extent allowed by U.S. law?

Yes, The Constitution is the highest law in the land. You must obey all laws passed by the government and if you don’t you may be punished civilly, criminally and/or financially.
Lets say the Church says you must not eat twinkies on Friday, but the government says all citizens must consume twinkies on Friday. Now if you disobey the law you may be subject to punishment by the courts.

 

[markomalley]

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The CRS Annotations on the Constitution add this little piece of commentary that is instructive:

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. **But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution.**102 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization.103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing.104 Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

In light of the above, I would submit that a President would be in violation of his oath of office if he knowingly violated what he understood to be a requirement in the Constitution. However, if he believed a law was unconstitutional or that a judicial ruling inaccurately interpreted the Constitution, he is free to apply his own understanding of the Constitution to his actions (remember that our system of government has three co-equal branches). In other words, he would be in violation of his oath if he enforced a law / ruling that was, in his opinion, a violation of the Constitution.

As an individual, I can’t see how we would be held to a higher standard than the President. While we might be compelled to comply with a law or a judicial ruling (or face the consequences if our consciences do not allow us to comply), compliance is different than swearing allegiance.

 

[Elizium23]

With respect to the FACE act, it is really an unjust law. Can anyone imagine if during the course of the peaceful civil rights sit ins and lunch counter sit ins and demonstrations of the 1960’s, that Congress would have passed a “Freedom of Access to Restaurants and Lunchcounters Act” requiring authorities to forcibly prevent sit-ins? Indeed, the JFK justice department took just the opposite tack, sending federal marshals to allow them. I can’t believe that FACE was not met with outrage and protest by Catholics and pro-life groups. We were way too passive in the face of this injustice.

Because abortion mills are “women’s health” and “preventive services” and we all know that “women’s health” must be protected at all costs, and is much more important than mere food…

 

[Armyvet007]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, on a number of occasions, that laws that ban all abortions are “unconstitutional.”

Notice that word “unconstitutional.” It means that the highest court in the land has interpreted the U.S. Constitution and has give a definitive statement of its meaning.

The U.S. President, because he swears an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” must also “preserve, protect and defend” (and enforce) laws that allow abortions to take place.

Here’s the oath, as stated in the Constitution itself:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

True, the Supreme Court can overrule its past decisions. It does this rarely however. Still, it has happened, and could happen again. It happened when Brown vs. Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson.

But, if a Catholic were to be elected U.S. President this year, he or she would be obligated to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That would mean, for the time being, he or she must “preserve, protect and defend” the right to abortion, the right to kill unborn children.

Yet, a Catholic is also obligated to follow the Catholic Faith.

For any faithful Catholic, the “constitution” (collected doctrines) of the Catholic Church is a MUCH HIGHER authority than the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, would not a Catholic president be obliged to follow the Constitution of the Catholic Church anytime it is in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S.?

Otherwise, his or her Religious Liberty would be assaulted and compromised. A Catholic should be FREE to be a FULL AND WHOLE Catholic, whether he is in the White House, the U.S. Marine Corps, or a neighborhood local public school.

Notice how the oath above does not require the President to swear an oath to be true or loyal to God, or to even acknowledge the existence of God. The President oaths of many Latin American countries DO require the president to swear an oath to be true or loyal to God, or to even acknowledge the existence of God.

To me, it seems that swearing an oath to the Constitution means making that Constitution, and the court that the Constitution sets up as its official and definitive interpreter, one’s HIGHEST AUTHORITY. To have an authority higher than God and God’s Church seems like idolatry or blasphemy.

Formerly the U.S. Constitution approved of and permitted Slavery, Racial Segregation, and now it approves of 1 million abortion per year.

Thus, it seems that no faithful Catholic could ever swear an oath to be loyal the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is not my God!

Those who wanted Jesus crucified shouted to the government official, “We have no king but Caesar!” But we Catholics cannot say that! Our King is Jesus Christ! The pope and the bishops are the vicars of Christ. The U.S. Constitution can never be our highest authority.

Catholics take their oaths before God and are therefore not bound to support/defend/hold to that which goes against Him.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Catholics take their oaths before God and are therefore not bound to support/defend/hold to that which goes against Him.

Nice.

 

[Holly3278]

I certainly do not support the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade that abortion is a right. I could never swear an oath to defend that interpretation of the Constitution. But then again, that is only an interpretation. I don’t think the President has to agree with that interpretation.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So if I got a bunch of people together to protest the Catholic church and the huge group of us blocked off the entrances to the church that should be within my rights too? Because, you know, I do have the right to peacefully assemble. Or if Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted to physically prevent people from getting blood transfusions that would be just fine too?

You do have the right to protest and pray outside of clinics. You don’t have the right to.physically infringe on the activities and choices of another. Especially when in doing so you would infringe on what has been determined as someone else’s constitutional right.

We all can and should voice our displeasure. We cannot and should not physically obstruct the lives of others.

Besides, abortion clinics are private property. Blocking the entrances would also be trespassing.

 

[He_Man]

The United States is a Constitutional democratic republic that is ruled by the law. Not by edicts from one man in a Church. The President most follow the law as it is written and interpreted by the courts. Now the President doesn’t implement abortion, but he does implement wars, act of wars and the killing of innocents through the armed forces. He also orders the execution of persons convicted in our criminal courts then sentenced to death. Abortion is left to an individual’s choice which no one can interfere with because the courts have ruled people have a Constitutional right to privacy in all medical concerns and conditions. For example, if you needed or wanted heart surgery the government can’t order you to have or not have heart surgery.
So the President doesn’t allow or perform abortions, but he does kill innocent people through acts of war. So maybe a Catholic shouldn’t take the oath because he or she will be involved directly or indirectly in the killing of innocents, not because a woman in the privacy of a doctor office with no government involvement has an abortion.

If the killing of innocents in US led wars was even close to the magnitude of children killed in the womb, you might have a point.

If the President wasn’t legally authorized to engage in those wars (which seems to be a key to your premise - legal authority), you might have another point.

If you want to discuss illegal wars, go ahead, but simply lambasting innocents killed in wars that were engaged in legally under the president’s authority doesn’t violate any legalities. A tragedy, and something to be avoided, but since you are pointing to his legal authority, these wars are well within his legal power.