This video is dispiriting. Is it capable (reasonably) of an interpretation according to which Amy Coney Barrett has not renounced the Faith? The text of the U.S. Constitution was not written to favour the Catholic Faith. Any respect in which it may do so is accidental to the intentions of its framers. As far as I can tell (and I am entirely open to correction) the text of the US Constitution does not conflict with Natural Law. In virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1783) the thirteen colonies became “free sovereign and Independent States”. They therefore possessed the right to replace the authority hitherto exercised by the Crown of Great Britain with the government created by the constitution of 1787. Having been legitimately enacted in an indifferent matter (governmental form) without conflict with Natural Law this text ought to be interpreted by judges according to it’s literal sense (the plain meaning of the words when written). Presumably, it would be possible to interpret the document disingenuously so as to favour the Catholic Faith in a way contrary to the plain meaning of the words when written. For example, one might interpret ‘religion’ to refer exclusively to Catholicism. To eschew such disingenuous interpretations is entirely legitimate. If the U.S.A. is one day to fulfil ‘the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ’ it must be through honest and legal means. That is, this duty should be fulfilled through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution not through a transitory control of Congress and the Presidency (contrary to the 1st Amendment and prudence) and certainly not through judicial activism. If this is all Mrs Barrett means, that she would not interpret the U.S. Constitution disingenuously so as to favour the Catholic Faith in a way contrary to the plain meaning of the words when written, then she has not made any undertakings incompatible with the Faith. Let us hope that this is what she meant.