Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The Pope holds no office under the Federal government. I could imagine that anti-Catholics could attempt to force the government to strip the Pope of his citizenship, but that would go no place fast.
With how totally unhinged modern leftists have become, I could forsee someone in the future trying to do that to prevent a papal visit.
It would be silly and stupid beyond reason, and as noted it probably would go nowhere, but I could see one of the Theater Kid types trying it in desperation and pettiness (see the fire alarm stunt)
If anything, this law will just preempt that nonsense so I’m on board.
Don:
I’d like to see this just to see who’d come out against it and why.
Under Kennedy, they were worried that the president would obey the pope. Now we’re worried that the pope can vote for president.
As a priest, Pope Leo XIV is citizen and Pope.
Separation of Church and State gives no one the power in America or elsewhere to change this.
Well, I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but here goes.
Millions of people who desired U.S. citizenship have been required to first renounce allegiance to any foreign power. This is only logical, as citizenship implies obligations to one country which may be at cross purposes with those to another. Dual citizenship should not be permitted. First, it is a privilege that naturalized citizens are denied. Second, it can aid criminals fleeing the country in avoiding extradition. Third, it can encourage individuals with mixed loyalties to engage in activities detrimental to the country, e.g. the several U.S. citizens who were accused, and in some cases convicted, of spying for Israel.
It isn’t just in the realm of religion that a man can’t serve two masters. Fr. Prevost should have been stripped of his U.S. citizenship when he became a citizen of Peru.
I don’t like dual citizenships either. Practically, it’s not a problem, but the theory is bad.
Becoming a citizen of Peru was to facilitate Fr. Prevost’s missionary work. Pope Leo XIV first is a priest. As a Priest, like Jesus, all priests are citizens of the world, their mission.
Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Trust in Jesus.
“Dual citizenship should not be permitted.”
You have a point in asking where loyalties lie. It’s not a blanket answer. I would argue that it depends on which two citizenships are held. Chinese / Australian – No. Australian / US – Yes. Because the first 2 countries have opposing political and social ideologies and the latter share common social and political ideologies.
If it’s to prevent citizens living abroad voting in an election in a country they pay no taxes to you could argue it could benefit the country to still be able to vote. If ex-pats holding dual citizenships to a country where Christian’s are outnumbered, then it would work in favour of the Christian population to allow ex-pats and diaspora absentee votes to maintain a strong political Christian vote, in say a country where Islam is growing. There are places in the ME where this is important.
So it depends on what two citizenships are held and each country should have a habit of revisiting this every decade or two because the global political climate is continually changing.