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

[Bartolome_Casas]

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.

 

[JimG]

The U.S. Constitution actually says nothing about abortion. The SCOTUS in 1973 purported to find a right to abortion somewhere in the penumbras, but it is quite invisible to the naked eye, and still invisible even upon great magnification.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The U.S. Constitution actually says nothing about abortion. The SCOTUS in 1973 purported to find a right to abortion somewhere in the penumbras, but it is quite invisible to the naked eye, and still invisible even upon great magnification.

Yes, well said. Like your magnification analogy.

BUT, the POTUS must swear an oath to support and enforce WHATEVER the SCOTUS says. Doesn’t that DESTROY the RELIGIOUS LIBERTY of any Catholic who would be president?

 

[JimG]

Yes, put the POTUS must swear an oath to support and enforce WHATEVER the SCOTUS says.

Hmmm, does Samuel Alito swear an oath to support Elena Kagan?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Hmmm, does Samuel Alito swear an oath to support Elena Kagan?

The U.S. Supreme Court justices and the members of the U.S. Congress are federal official who get to DISSENT in their official capacity.

But the U.S. President and every other federal official in the Executive Branch, including all the officers in the military, CANNOT dissent from the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Their oaths require them to set up the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court as their HIGHEST authority, higher than God and the Pope.

Isn’t THAT a problem for a faithful, devout Catholic?

Doesn’t that destroy the Religious Liberty of the U.S. President and others in the Executive Branch and in the Armed Services? Isn’t that a kind of idolatry?

This all isn’t some abstract, dilettantish debate. One million of our fellow human beings are slaughtered every year in the U.S. via abortions!

Who or what is your highest authority?

Would you swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court and to not obey God whenever the commandments of God are in conflict with the rulings of the Supreme Court or the written text of the U.S. Constituition?

 

[JimG]

Sure I’d swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln did, and he not only dissented from Chief Justice Taney, he flat out refused to obey a judicial order.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Sure I’d swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln did, and he not only dissented from Chief Justice Taney, he flat out refused to obey a judicial order.

Good point. So if elected president, would you allow states to shut down all their abortion clinics, even though doing that would be a breach of your oath of office as president?

Apparently it is hard to tell if Lincoln would do that.

Lincoln was not a Catholic or even any sort of Christian.

Lincoln in his term of office seemed to have “Saving the Union” as his highest cause.

President Jackson also ignored an order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and yet he ended up on the $20 bill.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee People could not be forcibly removed from their lands in Georgia. President Jackson, per his oath of office, was obliged to enforce that court order. But he refused to do so. The state of Georgia moved the Cherokees. Many of them died in the forced walk to Oklahoma.

Jackson wasn’t a Catholic either.

 

[aragonjohn1]

there is a reason abortion was outlawed for a long time

shalom

God Bless

 

[KWR_1]

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.

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.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The United States is a Constitutional democratic republic that is ruled by the law. Not by edicts from one man in a Church.

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?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I don’t know if Mr. Casas just wants to argue or if he is deficient in his knowledge of the constitution or his religion.
To begin with, there is no federal law authorizing abortion except the Obama care nonsense…which, hopefully will be history after the next election. In fact, there is current Federal legislation in effect that prohibits the spending of Federal tax dollars on abortion.
Secondly, as stated before, the abortion ruling of the Supreme Court is something that was pulled “out of the shadows” by a court that chose to assume certain “rights” were in effect that are not written in the Constitution. So, considering abortion laws are the provenance of each State and its Governor, the President has nothing to do with that.
Lastly, the Church does not require the President or any other person do do anything contrary to the law or his/her conscience.
I find the tone of your question rather disturbing, in that I cannot discern whether or not you are merely a rebellious youth, or are just unpatriotic. I will not go further because I do not wish to be uncharitable and be banned from this site.

 

[RedDuke50]

Well, the Bill of Rights says we have religious freedom so I would say that if your religion goes against abortion then you are not obligated to support or perform abortions. So, making an oath to follow the Constitution gives you the right to follow your religion. Now, I am not too knowledgable of the laws in the Constitution but I would guess that it prohibits killing of people so really abortion is against the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution doesn’t go against/supports abortion then you still have your religious freedom which the Constitution ensures to you.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I don’t know if Mr. Casas just wants to argue or if he is deficient in his knowledge of the constitution or his religion.
To begin with, there is no federal law authorizing abortion except the Obama care nonsense…which, hopefully will be history after the next election. In fact, there is current Federal legislation in effect that prohibits the spending of Federal tax dollars on abortion.
Secondly, as stated before, the abortion ruling of the Supreme Court is something that was pulled “out of the shadows” by a court that chose to assume certain “rights” were in effect that are not written in the Constitution. So, considering abortion laws are the provenance of each State and its Governor, the President has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Casas is no doubt deficient in his knowledge, but perhaps not on this matter.

A federal law requires the president to call out federal law enforcement officials to keep open any abortion clinic that is being blockaded by protesters. This federal law is called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_Entrances_Act

This law basically ended the nonviolent Martin Luther King type of protests that were saving the lives of unborn children by blocking access to clinics. It is the U.S. President who must use federal law enforcement officers to arrest protesters who get too close to abortion clinics or who block their sidewalks. Thus, the U.S. president is obliged to use the executive powers of his office to defend the right to get an abortion.

I find the tone of your question rather disturbing, in that I cannot discern whether or not you are merely a rebellious youth, or are just unpatriotic. I will not go further because I do not wish to be uncharitable and be banned from this site.

The early Christians refused to worship the Roman Emperor, and that too created a “rather disturbing” situation. They too were deemed “unpatriotic.”

Jesus our Lord, Savior and King said: “My kingdom * is not of this world.”* John 18:36.

The writer of the Book of Hebrew in the New Testament Scriptures says: “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” Heb. 13:14.

Blessed Franz Jägerstätter was deemed unpatriotic when he refused to fight in Hitler’s army. The laws of his nation did require him to serve in the Germany armed forces. Virtually all other Germans and Austrians obeyed this law. But those “patriots” have not been beatified by the pope, as has Blessed Franz Jägerstätter. He also got beheaded by the German government for refusing to be a “patriot” in time of war. Bear in mind that Blessed Franz Jägerstätter had no way of knowing that anything like the Holocaust was going on. Patriotism is not our highest calling. Holiness is. See:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_J%C3%A4gerst%C3%A4tter

We are not supposed to clip, amend, or truncate our Catholic Faith depending on which secular country we happen to live in. Jesus was not an American. Pope Benedict XVI is not an American citizen. Jesus and the Twelve Apostles were not among the founders of the USA.

Why does this even matter?

Because I perceive that many Catholics in the U.S. do limit what parts of the Catholic Faith they will accept depend on what political authorities approve of or don’t approve of.

We know that political liberals want to lead Catholics away from complete fidelity to their Catholic Faith. Yet, to me, what is less seen, is that many political conservatives are working to do the same thing!

Is there evidence to back this up? Yes! See this, by an esteemed professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville: skrason.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/the-conservative-weakness-and-the-solution-catholic-social-teaching/

That’s the same university were Dr. Scott Hahn teachers, and were many other EWTN hosts are from.

 

[Bran_Stark]

The Supreme Court may currently believe that the U.S. Constitution supports abortion, yes, but you and I are by no means obligated to agree with their ridiculous opinion. If the Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade, the Constitution won’t change. So it’s not at all accurate to say “The Constitution supports abortion”, from a Catholic perspective.

 

[RedDuke50]

Well, I think that the Laws of God and His Church are the first ones to follow no matter what the laws of your country may be. But then we must follow the laws of our country for that is what the Church says to do. But if the laws go against what the Church teaches (like to protect abortion places or something) then we are under no obligation to follow those and actually shouldn’t even consider following them.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

That’s all true, RedDuke,
but the Prez is required by the FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO ((ABORTION AND NO OTHER)) CLINICS ENTRANCES ACT, to call out the troops (police, etc) upon Catholics and other Christians who peacefully protest at abortion clinics.

ANY Catholic who would obey this part of his “job”
is a Traitor to Christ, and to all his Catholic and other-Christian Brethren, willfully so.
And that goes for cops who arrest them, too,
even if they are “just obeying orders.”

That “I was just obeying orders” garbage didn’t work at Nuremberg,
and it won’t work before the Bar of the Almighty, either,
not one syllable of it.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Well, I think that the Laws of God and His Church are the first ones to follow no matter what the laws of your country may be. But then we must follow the laws of our country for that is what the Church says to do. But if the laws go against what the Church teaches (like to protect abortion places or something) then we are under no obligation to follow those and actually shouldn’t even consider following them.

So if you were U.S. president, and if the governor of the State of Texas used his Texas Rangers to SHUT DOWN every abortion clinic in the State of Texas, you would not order troops into Texas to re-open those clinics, as required by the federal law called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. You would ignore that law and risk being impeached?

Well, that IS what I’d do. But I don’t expect to get elected president. You, on the other hand, maybe will be president. So, President Red Duke, what would YOU do?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

That’s all true, RedDuke,
but the Prez is required by the FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO ((ABORTION AND NO OTHER)) CLINICS ENTRANCES ACT, to call out the troops (police, etc) upon Catholics and other Christians who peacefully protest at abortion clinics.

ANY Catholic who would obey this part of his “job”
is a Traitor to Christ, and to all his Catholic and other-Christian Brethren, willfully so.
And that goes for cops who arrest them, too,
even if they are “just obeying orders.”

That “I was just obeying orders” garbage didn’t work at Nuremberg,
and it won’t work before the Bar of the Almighty, either,
not one syllable of it.

Nice.

 

[JimG]

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.

 

[RedDuke50]

I always thought that we as citizens could be able to peacefully protest things if it is unjust to us. And that we had a freedom of religion but maybe that doesn’t hold if it goes against the laws. But then again, the law goes against our rights as having a freedom of religion.
If I was the president, then I would argue that to make those people stop protesting would be going against their rights as citizens. They aren’t burning the place and killing the docs, but are peacefully showing that this is wrong to them and we must take it into consideration.