Let’s say for instance, that Pope Francis starts letting priests be married (and married men become priests). Let’s further say that a devout fella who we’ll call Rick Bricker hears the call, gets the go-ahead from his wife, and enters the priesthood. His is a successful ministry, and he moves up in the heirarchy to Monsignor, Bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinal. Then (G-d forbid), Pope Francis passes away, and Cardinal Bricker is summoned to Rome to participate in the election of Francis’s successor.
(NBC in this case, stands for (Natural Born Citizen)
A slight complication exists within this hypothetical, however. Cardinal Bricker has by acclamation, been given his [major] party’s nomination for the upcoming U. S. Presidential election (because this is happening in an election year). As fate would have it, he also was given the nomination of the opposing major party.
And THEN! And then, friends and neighbors, Cardinal Bricker goes and gets himself elected Pope! And wins the American Presidential election on the same day (because let’s make this thing as outlandish as we can)!
Is there a Constitutional barrier to Pope-President-elect Bricker taking the oath of office the following January?
It could be a barrier, but it would require proof that he had acted “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” when he accepted the headship of a foreign state. If he was a presidential candidate at the time, that would be good evidence that he didn’t intend to relinquish his US nationality.
But if the Pope-President continued to accept any of the accoutrements of his papal office, it would probably be a violation of the US Constitution, which prohibits the president from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
A better question might be if our hypothetical nominee was the head of a different religion, one that didn’t make him a titled person of another state. Let’s say he was “The Prophet” in the Mormon Religion (or whatever the top guy in that religion is called). I don’t see that as a constitutional problem, just as that we have had Catholic priests in Congress.
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the same time he was U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
The Forum is pretty high-ranking, but of course neither the Forum or being a cabinet secretary is the top job. Still, back in the 1950s it wasn’t a problem.
I might have to think this guy is the Anti-Christ/Beast of Revelation (mix of biblical and pop culture versions). Everyone loves him (at least popular with both parties in US, anyway) - that’s a prerequisite. And he’s both President of the USA and Pope - and people with those jobs are frequently believed to the Anti-Christ. Something to be concerned about.
The (unwritten) British constitution is rather different from the U.S. Constitution. However, it is quite clear that the monarch of the U.K. cannot be the Pope, since he or she cannot even be a Roman Catholic, and that’s a qualification for being the Pope.
In 1983, the Roman Catholic Church specifically banned Catholic clergy from holding political office, after Pope John Paul II forbid the practice in 1980, forcing two U.S. priests to abandon their Congressional campaigns. One of the two priests affected by the 1980 ruling was Father Robert Cornell, who had been my Congressman.
So, even if it was constitutionally allowed, Catholic canon law wouldn’t allow it.
The National Constitution Center has weighed in with a firm…“Don’t know”. While there may be a prohibition against applying for foreign citizenship, in this cased it isn’t applied for but automatically granted. As far as the granting of titles of nobility is concerned,
. Titles can be given by foreign governments, but our government won’t officially recognize such titles. This may lead to a situation where the Ameri-Pope becomes a U.S. President, but our government refuses to recognize him as Pope.
First off, John Mace, mad props for getting the title essentially right. We refer to the leader of the Church here on Earth as either “President ____” or “the prophet”.
President Monson isn’t in very good health right now, so probably not a great candidate for President, but I don’t see that he’d be Constitutionally-barred from doing so.
I highly doubt that. The Mormons were pretty keen to be part of the USA, even very early on: State of Deseret - Wikipedia
He would then hypothetically be the head of two states. I don’t know how they’d feel about that in Vatican City, but I can’t see it going over well in the U. S.
