Is the Constitution
Catholic?
When the State Must be Catholic
One of the “chief duties” of rulers is to “favour
religion, to protect it, to shield it under the
credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to
organize nor enact any measure that may
compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty
of rulers to the people over whom they rule.”- Leo XIII,
Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) 6.
The Church’s Teaching On Church-State Relations: Forever the Same
These principles are firm and immovable (my
emphasis). They were valid in the times of Innocent
III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of
Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in
more than one of his documents…”- Cardinal
Alfredo Ottaviani.
The Errors of Liberalism, Secularism, and Americanism
Liberalism
A. What is a liberal? In ideological terms a
liberal is generally someone who accepts the
principles of the French revolution. Liberals
accept the revolutions ideals of Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity and the results that flowed from
these principles such as the separation of Church and State
and the equal treatment of all religions under the law.
The Errors of Liberalism, Secularism, and Americanism
B. Liberalism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
C. In the United States liberalism has embedded itself within
the fabric of our society.
1)
“[i]n America it [Liberalism] would scarcely seem to exist at all, so
ingrained is it in our social conditions, so natural is it to the prevailing
modes of thought, so congenital is it with the dominant religious
notions about us, so congenial a habitat to the Protestant sects. Indeed
it is a very constituent of the pseudoreligious and pseudomoral
atmosphere we daily breathe.” F. Sarda Y Salvany. Liberalism is a Sin
170 (1886).
The Errors of Liberalism, Secularism, and Americanism
Secularism
A. What is secularism? It is the chief manifestation of liberalism in the
United States.
B. Nonsectarianism or secularism upholds a number of
erroneous doctrines.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
One religion is as good as another.
That everyone has a right to believe what he pleases.
That differences in creed are but differences in forms of expression.
Everyone may select his own creed or sect according to his taste, or even
altogether repudiate religious beliefs.
Religion is a thing entirely apart from civic and social life.
The Errors of Liberalism, Secularism, and Americanism
Americanism
A. What is Americanism? The theory that Catholics in
America should minimize or change Catholic doctrine in
order to be accepted.
American Church-State Relations are Not Ideal, Universally
Lawful, Or Expedient
It would be very erroneous to draw the
conclusion that in America is to be
sought the type of the most desirable
status of the Church, or that it would be
universally lawful or expedient for State
and Church to be, as in America,
dissevered and divorced.” Leo XIII,
Encyclical Longinqua (1895) 6.
The Constitution Precludes a Catholic State
“No religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.” U.S. Const. art. VI.
“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const.
amend. I.
The Constitution Precludes a Catholic State
“[T]he Government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
[and] has in itself no character of enmity against the
laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…” Treaty of
Tripoli, Art. 11.
The Constitution Precludes a Catholic State
Proposed Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution: “We, the people of the United States,
[humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all
authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus
Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as
the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian
government,] and in order to form a more perfect union…”
The Constitution Precludes a Catholic State
“Hmm. Where is God?”
Constitution
Man’s Law Trumps God’s Law
States Can Regulate General Conduct
The Supreme Court has ruled states may prohibit or regulate conduct in general, and this is true even if
the prohibition or regulation happens to interfere with a person’s religious practices. The First
Amendment cannot be used to challenge a law of general applicability unless it can be shown that the law
was motivated by a desire to interfere with religion.
A. Generally No Exemptions Required
The First Amendment does not require exemptions from criminal laws or other governmental
regulations for a person whose religious beliefs prevent him from conforming his behavior to the
requirements of the law. In other words, a law that regulates conduct of all persons can be applied to
prohibit the conduct of a person despite the fact that his religious beliefs prevent him from complying
with the law.
Man’s Law Trumps God’s Law
B. Examples
The Supreme Court has held that no religious exemption was required for the following religiously neutral
regulations, even though certain groups objected because the regulation interfered with conduct inspired
by sincerely held religious beliefs:
 Criminal laws against polygamy [Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)-challenged as
applied to a Mormon who claimed that his religion commanded polygamy].
 Prohibition against use of peyote [Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)-challenged
by person whose religious beliefs require use of peyote during religious ceremony];
 Denial of tax exempt status to schools that discriminate on the basis of race [Bob Jones
University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)-challenged by religious school whose tenets require
certain separations of races];
 Requirement that employers comply with federal minimum wage laws (Tony and Susan Alamo
Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 574 (1985)-challenged by employer that argued minimum
wages interfere with members’ religious desires to work without compensation];
 Requirement that employers pay Social Security taxes [United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)challenged by person whose religious beliefs prohibited payment and receipt of Social Security type
payments]; and
 Sales and use taxes [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S.
378 (1990)-challenged as applied to sales of goods and literature by religious group].
Man’s Law Trumps God’s Law
Justice Antonin Scalia: ‘We [the Supreme Court] have never held that an
individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise
valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary,
the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts
that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter…:
“Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious
toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at
the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of
religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political
society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political
responsibilities.” We first had the occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds
v. United States… where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be
constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws” we said, “are made for
the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they
may with practices… Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To
permit this would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in
effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”’ Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S.
872, 878-79 (1990).
Man’s Law Trumps God’s Law
Examples of “laws” permitted by the Constitution that punish Catholics and
“Christians” who are attempting to obey the divine and natural law:
 Prohibiting pro-life demonstrations that allegedly “interfere” with the business






of abortion mills, or which trespass on judicially or statutorily created “bubble
zones” where the pro-life speech of Catholics and other “Christians” has been
prohibited.
The refusal of Catholic hospitals to dispense “emergency” contraception.
The refusal of adoption agencies to permit “gay adoption” or the refusal of local
officials to certify “gay marriages”.
The refusal of Christian organizations to hire homosexuals.
To provide medical coverage for abortions and contraception.
The refusal of a wedding photographer to photograph a “gay wedding.”
The refusal of a campground facility to host a “gay marriage” ceremony at a
pavilion on its property.
Man’s Law Trumps God’s Law
“Plaintiffs’ claim based on the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment is almost sure to fail [because]…
[Obamacare’s]… contraceptive coverage requirement
is neutral and generally applicable. [The right to freely
practice one’s religion] does not relieve an individual
of the obligation to comply [with a] valid and neutral law of general
applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct
that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius,
No. 12-cv-1096, 2012 WL 6845677 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2012).
Conclusion
Washington the Freemason
Conclusion
“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life,
that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great
blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and
harmony.” Pius XI, Encyclical Quas Primas
Questions, Comments, Concerns…
Is the Constitution
Catholic?