Is the Constitution Catholic?

1. Is the Constitution Catholic?

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. • “[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).

6. 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. • 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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…”

12. The Constitution Precludes a Catholic State “Hmm. Where is God?” Constitution

13. 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.

14. 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].

15. 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).

16. 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.

17. 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).

18. Conclusion Washington the Freemason

19. 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

20. Questions, Comments, Concerns…

21. Is the Constitution Catholic?