Could a NBC American Pope serve as President?

[Chronos]

Quoth kenobi65:

…
So, even if it was constitutionally allowed, Catholic canon law wouldn’t allow it.

But then, Pope Rick could just change the Canon Law.

[UDS]

@Civil_Guy

Look, the fellow has already been nominated by both parties. How much trouble will it be to obtain the Consent of Congress?

Altenatively, Pope Rick could use his papal jurisdiction to separate the offices of Pope and head of the Vatican City State. The Vatican City State, remember, was created only in 1929; from a Catholic perspective it’s not central to the papal office that it should be associated with a sovereign monarchy. The only thing the pope has to be is Bishop of Rome. Some lesser church functionary can be told to deal with the tiresome head-of-state business.

This would require a renegotiation of the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the Italian Republic, but for a man with the political skills to secure the nomination of both the Republican and Democratic parties and election as Pope, that should be a piece of cake.

[kaylasdad99]

@kaylasdad99

Is there a Constitutional barrier to Pope-President-elect Bricker taking the oath of office the following January?

@Melbourne

I can’t tell you. You’re not a Catholic.

Well, that’s by my choice. It’s my understanding that I can choose to re-insert myself at any time, since I haven’t been formally excommunicated.

[kenobi_65]

@Chronos

But then, Pope Rick could just change the Canon Law.

True enough. Current canon law prohibits it; it was allowed up until 1980s.

[md2000]

@John_Mace

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.

The constitutional issue is that the Pope is tied up being head of the Vatican state. Any other religion (except maybe Dalai Lama) no big deal, “my kingdom is not of this world”.

What would be extremely interesting would be the issue of state religion the first amendment lists - it would be very difficult to separate one from the other. We already see that some candidates (so far) are devout enough to think their abiding interest in the ten commandments overrides the constitution. I would be fascinated to see how a pope/prophet would justify voting for patently uncatholic/unmormon principles that the constitution mandates. JPII was right to tell clergy to butt out of direct politics.

(and the temptation here to quote “shalt not covet thy neighbour’s ass…” is overwhelming).

[John_Mace]

@HurricaneDitka

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”.

I watched every episode of Big Love, and read Under the Banner of Heaven.

[Nava]

@kenobi_65

True enough. Current canon law prohibits it; it was allowed up until 1980s.

And non-political offices are still allowed. The Bishop of Urgel is still co-prince of Andorra, along with the President of France; the job of co-prince is ceremonial, unelected (well, indirectly-elected on the French side) and rarely invoked.

[kenobi_65]

@Nava

And non-political offices are still allowed. The Bishop of Urgel is still co-prince of Andorra, along with the President of France; the job of co-prince is ceremonial, unelected (well, indirectly-elected on the French side) and rarely invoked.

I’ll classify this as “I’ve learned something new today.”

(But, seriously, I learn a ton from your posts, Nava…thank you!)