By Fr. Jerry J. Pokorsky

Reverence and contempt for the rule of law exert a reciprocal and formative influence on both Church and secular leadership. When religious leaders exhibit implicit contempt for legal order, they weaken respect for the rule of law among secular authorities; when secular leaders disregard the rule of law – particularly by distorting the meaning of words – they erode moral seriousness within the Church. Genuine cultural renewal, therefore, depends on restoring reverence for truth in language and for the rule of law, both in personal conscience and in public governance.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are grounded in the Deposit of Faith as handed down from the Apostles. This Deposit is preserved and transmitted through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Priests, bishops, and popes, by the grace of Holy Orders, serve as authoritative guardians of this faith. They are stewards, not authors. The laity, in turn, receives the faith through the Church.

Clergy teach principles of faith and morals. The laity then apply those principles to the concrete circumstances of their lives through prudential judgment properly their own. The faithful act as moral agents as free members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Christian moral life begins with the question, "What does God, via the Church, teach?" It continues with a second, equally demanding question: "With God's grace and through my encounter with the sacraments, how am I to live accordingly?"

A parallel structure exists in the governing framework of the United States. The Declaration of Independence, followed by the Constitution and amendments, forms the philosophical and legal foundation of American law. Congress is charged with enacting laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The president executes those laws within constitutional limits. The Supreme Court adjudicates disputes concerning the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions. Like the Church's Deposit of Faith, the Constitution is something received and interpreted, not reinvented anew by each generation.

Ideally, a legislator approaches proposed laws with disciplined moral and constitutional reasoning. First, a wise legislator must ask whether a proposed law or spending plan is constitutional. If it is not, the law must be opposed, regardless of its popularity. If it is constitutional, the next question is whether it advances the policies preferred by constituents. If it does, the legislator should vote in favor; if not, the legislator should oppose it.

A legislator may vote, however, for a constitutional law that does not immediately serve constituent interests. This may support a broader political vision that ultimately benefits both the nation and its constituents. Legislators may rightly invoke conscience and the requirements of natural law (the law of God written on our hearts) and legitimate political exigencies for guidance.

In practice, the American political system has drifted from its constitutional moorings. Legislators rarely oppose measures on the grounds that they exceed constitutional limits. This erosion is most visible in war powers: although the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to declare war, America has not deferred to that authority since World War II, engaging instead in major conflicts – from Korea and Vietnam to the Middle East – without formal constitutional debate.

Similarly, politicians often do not oppose large government spending programs on constitutional grounds. These patterns suggest a significant breakdown in the rule of law, replaced by power politics. Power politics is increasingly rooted in financial influence rather than constitutional principle. Empirical studies consistently show that candidates who significantly outspend their opponents win congressional races at a markedly higher rate.

Meanwhile, a significant portion of voters increasingly expect their leaders to dispense government benefits detac...