[Question:]{.underline} Can a U.S. citizen swear an oath of loyalty to a foreign Christian prince?
[Answer:]{.underline} The answer to this question depends upon the question of the submission of subjects to legitimate rulers. This is a duty of justice that derives from the principle contained in Sacred Scripture and constantly taught by the Church that the civil power of government comes from God and not from the people. Rm 13:1,2: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.”
This reverence to civil authority requires that no oath be pronounced that be opposed to that authority, within the territory of its jurisdiction, or that undermines it. The swearing of an oath of fealty or submission to a foreign power or prince would regularly be considered by all parties to be an infringement of the rights of the civil authority, for no man can serve two masters. The citizen’s duty in justice is to defend his own country, its laws and its civil authority, by the virtue of observance, and not that of another. In general, the swearing of allegiance to a foreign rule means the compromising in some way of one’s obligation towards one’s own country, or at least the possibility thereof. This very possibility would make the swearing of such an oath immoral, since it would mean an attempt to bind oneself to an obligation that could be in contradiction with a prior obligation in justice.
There could be, however, exceptions to this principle. One such exception could take place if a person could establish that the established authority in his country is illegitimate, either because it is opposed to the natural and divine law, or because power was seized in an unjust manner. In such a case, one would theoretically not be bound in conscience to obedience to such an authority.
However, this does not seem to me to be the situation with our modern freemasonic governments. Many of their laws are unjust, immoral, and iniquitous and no one is bound in conscience to obey them. However, God has given them the authority to rule, and we should respect their authority for as long as they do not request us to do anything against Faith and morals. Civil governments would rightly refuse to acknowledge an oath of fealty to a foreign power, and would rightly punish a man who would deny his duty in justice to his own country to live up to such an oath. Consequently an oath of allegiance of a U.S. citizen to a foreign king ought to be considered unjust, illegal, and null and void, as being opposed to his allegiance to his own country.
A second exception that could exist is the modern situation of dual nationality, which has now become a common occurrence. When a person takes up a second nationality he must make an oath recognizing submission to the civil authority of the country in which he takes up a second citizenship. This is understood, however, to mean that each government is sovereign in its own domain, that is in its own country, and that the person with dual citizenship will fulfill his duties in justice towards the governments of both countries, without denying either one its rights, and that in case of conflict he will observe the laws and authority of the land in which he is living.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.