Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute you, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation,
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
This you will do, that is our strong, firm belief.
Hail to the one we selected as commander,
Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!—Albert Gamse
On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump shall be inaugurated as president of these fifty United States, and their six possessions and territories. For the first time since Grover Cleveland in 1893 (and his was the first), Mr. Trump’s ceremonial return to office shall be after a four year hiatus, during which his political opponents ruled. Over the centuries since George Washington was first sworn in to office in 1789, the originally simple ceremony has grown in complexity and ritual — it had also grown in elegance; that of course ceased with the 1960s, JFK being the last to be inaugurated in top hat and morning coat. But in all its aspects, it remains a fascinating ritual. It has been organised quadrennially since 1901 by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The JCCIC maintain an excellent site on the history and present of the occasion, as do the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, the National Archives, the National Park Service, the White House Historical Association, and the Smithsonian Institution. I can only recommend that my readers examine them all in preparation for the upcoming rite.
To be sure, there is a religious element in the ceremony. The presidents have always been sworn in on a Bible — starting with that of Washington’s Masonic Lodge in 1789; this time Trump will be using Abraham Lincoln’s Bible. Since 1937, there have been prayers — and back in 2017 at Trump’s first, there was a large number of clerics giving invocations and benedictions: Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York; Rev. Dr. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Leadership Conference; Pastor Paula White, Senior Pastor, New Destiny Christian Center; Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center; Rev. Franklin Graham, Samaritan’s Purse and The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; and Bishop Wayne T. Jackson, Great Faith Ministries International. As has been the case since 1933, President Trump attended a religious service before hand — in this case at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square — “the church of the presidents.”
Truly, along with the Inauguration itself, the many religious and quasi-religious rituals adhering to both the presidency, the two houses of Congress, and even the Supreme Court are manifold: the Red Mass, the National Prayer Breakfast, National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, the Camp David Chapel, lighting of the National Christmas Tree, Easter Egg Roll, Memorial Day at Arlington, proclamation of the National Day of Prayer, presidential funerals and lyings-in-state, the chaplains of the House and Senate, the openings of Congress with prayer, the Chaplains’ Departments in the United States Armed Forces, and on and on. Correspondingly, the presence in the Capital of the Apostolic Nuncio, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University of America, the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and corresponding offices and edifices of all the other major denominations in America would give the impression that these United States are an extremely devout country — as would the similar establishments in the 50 State capitals, and the chaplaincies of our various veterans’, hereditary, and fraternal organisations.
But, of course, that is not really the case. Despite the earnest efforts of so many who man and operate these various things, the truth is that most of America is interested in religion of any kind only when it is a comfort, and not when it carries with it any obligation. Despite the exalted status that the inauguration rites would seem to convene upon our national chief executive, he is in fact only the head of one of the two parties, whose world views have become increasingly alien to each other over the years — and most recently from anything our grandfathers would have recognised as vaguely “Christian” — let alone Catholic. In these circumstances, a true statesman would have to look beyond party obligations to try to bind up and heal the nation; but because her wounds are to such a degree based upon her acceptance of error, it becomes difficult. Where could an elected president begin?
The first thing to remember is that he himself would have to have the right values, which in themselves would put him at odds with the establishments of both parties. He would have to basically dissimulate his entire career, only to emerge on inauguration day with his head clear, his leadership skills intact, and his dedication to truth unimpaired. But let us say that such a paragon somehow emerged. Now, his dedication to the Faith being intact, he would remember Pius XI’s words in Quas Primas: “Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: ‘His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’ Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. ‘Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.’ He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. ‘For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?’ If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. ‘With God and Jesus Christ,’ we said, ‘excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.'”
With the Supreme Court having declared war on all governmental acts of religiosity, this would be a tough sell; such religious acts as the Court does permit are tolerated as meaningless “civic deism.” Nevertheless, this president could do some things straightaway — the Red Mass, and indeed all Masses that he attended could be done with particular attention. But he would have to admit that Catholics have never really tried to bring about the recognition of the Kingship of Christ in this country, save a few marginal groups.
There is, however, an Evangelical Protestant narrative which sees the American Revolution and the making of the Constitution as almost Biblical acts, and the rest of our national story as a kind of Salvation history. It defines the United States as a “Christian” nation — although one might be hard put to define what they mean by that elastic word. Nevertheless, as early as August of 1992, as the Iron Curtain had just come down, an attempt was made to put through Congress a resolution naming Thanksgiving Week “American Christian Heritage Week.” It pointed out that the Supreme Court had — from the simple fact that the Constitution forbade Congress to establish a Church — forbidden depictions of the ten commandments in public buildings, prayers in public school, Christmas Nativity scenes on public property, and prayers at public meetings such as high school graduations. While this was defeated at a national level, several States have adopted the observance.
But the Supreme Court’s opposition to public “Christianity” is itself rather amusing; not only because its proceedings open every day with the words “God Save the United States and this Honorable Court, but because in 1892 the Court ruled, “If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
Now mind you, this seemingly rock-solid ruling has been for all practical purposes reversed. In this writer’s estimation, that is because — as with the well-meaning promoters of Christian Heritage Week — it was based upon shifting sands; a “Christianity” that owed its place in American life to majority rule, rather than acknowledgement of the Kingship of Christ. But by the same token, that acknowledgement — although certainly owed to Him by the peoples of this nation, cannot be imposed against the majority. Taking the fate of most pro-life measures at the hands of the various electorates since the quashing of Roe v. Wade as an example, it is safe to say that the majority as they stand would not take it.
The Kingship of Christ over these United States cannot be brought about by political means; it will require the conversion of the Americans to the Catholic Faith. But the creation of Christendom was not a planned event — it was the organic result of the conversions of Classical culture and the invading Germanic and Slavic tribes. If ever we manage to do so here, the results shall be incalculable; but until then, our presidential inaugurations shall always savour of the unreal.
