Priest: God Hates The [Anti-Catholic] First Amendment of the US Constitutioneditor
From the Tradidi Quod et Accepti blog…
“God hates the First Amendment more than He hates abortion!” With these words, Father Jonathan Loop, a priest of the traditional Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), began his sermon one Sunday in the Fall of 2020. If it was Fr. Loop’s intent to grab our attention from the start of his homily, he certainly succeeded in our case. From the pulpit of Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls, Idaho, USA, Fr. Loop preached to hundreds of faithful that morning, beginning by reminding us how much more hateful violations of the first three Commandments are, compared to the latter seven, since the former are sins against the Honor of God. No Catholic would disagree with the concept, in principle, that murder is indeed less offensive to God than dishonoring His Sovereign Majesty. But Father then defined for his audience that, in the spectrum of grievousness, the sin of abortion comes under the Fifth Commandment since, he contended, abortion is murder. We will have more to say on this point later on; but suffice it to say that since abortion is the murder of an unbaptized child, we are not just dealing with killing, but with what most traditional theologians would agree is the denial of the child to ever enjoy the Beatific Vision…”
As the “Tradidi Quod” author goes on to point out, another SSPX priest, Father Christopher Hunter, anticipated all of Fr. Loop’s arguments by thirty years. So, to read the correction of Fr Loop in full, including his claim that the First Amendment is anti-Catholic, and to view the “Crisis #28 video (or read the salient points from the one hour video), click here
I didn’t watch the video but I read through the salient points and I couldn’t help thinking that this priest is fiddling while Rome burns, since it’s obvious that the US is being overtaken by Communism. The last thing any priest should be doing right now is attacking the US Constitution. As the article says, even in Catholic States the Church has always allowed the toleration of other religions, for the sake of civil peace in society.
It’s a pity because now I won’t be able to trust that SSPX series, which, until now, I’d liked.
I found the Tradidi Quod article very interesting indeed. However, I was so surprised to read the claim that George Washington had died a Catholic, that I took a minute to search for confirmation of this claim and found the opposite, I’m afraid. This seems quite a solid case against the claim that Washington converted at his death.
That said, I agree that Father Loop is way off beam and should not be attacking the US First Amendment which seems to give more protection to Catholics practising the Faith than the Irish Constitution now does!
That’s very interesting from Tradition in Action – although they’re far from being a favourite of mine, that does look like quite solid evidence that George Washington did not, in fact, convert to Catholicism. It will be interesting to see if our American bloggers agree, or if we (and TIA) are missing something.
Hello, Michaela, thank you for the link to the Tradition in Action website article regarding George Washington. The sources we used for the information on Washington were Fr. Christopher Hunter’s book on Solange Hertz, and an article that Fr. Hunter wrote for the SSPX Angelus magazine in the late 80s. Fr. Hunter’s sources include (among other Masonic publications and documents) the Masonic Research Association of Washington, D.C. and the Masonic Quiz Book. Fr. Hunter does caution us that the Freemasons love to claim that everyone of importance in American history was a fellow member of the Craft, while, for some strange reason, many Catholics take unsubstantiated Masonic claims as “proof” of membership of Founding Fathers who were supposedly in the Lodge. And Catholic authors are very selective concerning what they write about the supposed Masonic influences on those men whom we honor. For example, regarding the Father of our Country, Fr. Hunter’s research revealed that “the Masons well knew that Washington had renounced Masonry for he was know as a ‘seceder’ or one who secedes from the Craft.” In fact, Washington was quoted by his aide-de-camp that Masonry was “for the most part child’s play” and that “it might be used for the worst of purposes.” Interestingly, Dr. Horvat’s assertion that Thomas Jefferson was a Freemason is rejected by Masonic and non-Masonic writers alike. Fr. Hunter called the Masonic Service Association and personally inquired if Jefferson was considered a Freemason. The representative he spoke with made it clear that Jefferson was not, in fact, a Freemason. We will ask Fr. Hunter for his specific references on the deathbed conversion of Washington, and post here when we receive it. Meanwhile, as we mentioned in our article, Father told us the other day that he would be sending a second edition — an expanded version — of his little treatise, The Strange Spirit of Solange Hertz. If it is not currently in print, we may assume the burden of re-printing the second edition, thus making it available to all who are interested in this topic. Thank you again.
You make some very interesting points, and you have me wondering again.
Maybe Father Hunter will be able to provide further proof of George Washington’s conversion, and clarify the timeline given by those who were supposedly present at his deathbed.
It’s a very important topic, so I look forward to getting more information on this.
Like Michaela, I look forward to more information from Father Hunter.
I’ve also taken the liberty of copying your post over on the Tradidi Quod blog, because it is very strong and since, as well as keeping an eye on US politics, I also tune in to news commentary in Australia, this comment from you rang true with me; as Our Lady foretold at Fatima, Communism would spread across the world unless and until the Pope consecrates Russia as specified by God, through His Mother, I am incredulous at seeing this prophecy come to pass before my very eyes.
This, from you, therefore, is on the button…
“[Friends in Australia] are in a severe lockdown due to the plandemic, and are not allowed to attend Mass. Referring to this blog posting on the First Amendment, our friends expressed such admiration for a Constitution that would allow priests like Fr. Trevor Burfitt and Fr. Kevin Robinson (both, ironically, of the SSPX) to bring successful suits against their faithless politicians to gain liberty for Holy Mother Church. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” really does mean what it says. America-bashing “trads” focus on the first part — what is called the disestablishment clause; but it has, for nearly two and a half centuries, prevented sectarian strife, while the second part bestows on us the inestimable blessings of the freedom of worship. When I was commissioned as a Navy officer, I was proud to swear an oath before Almighty God that I would do my very best to “uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I would like any of the critics of the Constitution to state unequivocally and be able to prove that Catholic soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are guilty of cooperation in evil due to taking this oath. If they can’t do so, they should hold their tongues.
Game, set and match!
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on the question of George Washington’s conversion. I have tried to contact Father Hunter, but he was away from the priory in Veneta for about a week, and now he is on vacation. As he does not have a cell phone nor does he use the internet, it makes it difficult.
So, first I went into the SSPX Angelus magazine online to try to find his thirty-year-old article; but when I attempted to access the archives from the late 80s and early 90s, there were no results.
Consequently, I did some online sleuthing on my own, and can only say that much of the information regarding his reported conversion seems to be based on just a limited number of sources, including the archives of the Jesuit province at the time. The info included in some of these websites agree substantially with what Fr. Hunter wrote in his article so many years ago, from what I can recall.
Anyway, I compiled a list of websites that deal with the matter, and include for you both those that confirm and assert his deathbed conversion, or debunk it (like the one you quote above from Dr. Marian Horvat at Tradition in Action).
Here are two articles online that provide much of the substance about which Father wrote about thirty years ago in his Angelus article.
The following author cites Marian Horvat’s article on the Tradition in Action website offered above; but highlights Washington’s warm relationship with American Catholics:
The non-profit organization, George Washington’s Mount Vernon, says nothing about his conversion, but does confirm that he was earlier in life a professed Anglican, and documents with two letters a mutual respect that the first president and early American Catholics had for one another.
An online writer/blogger named Gregory Anthony Beacon, who clearly has no love for Catholicism, has some interesting (and I believe unsubstantiated) theories regarding Catholicism and its supposed role in fomenting our War for Independence. He includes the story of the conversion, but there are some very strange allegations here:
To close out my investigation, I offer this more positive look at the Father of our Country:
So, unless and until I can get anything further from Fr. Hunter, I suppose we should consider the report of George Washington’s end-of-life conversion unresolved — with just too many contradictory facts and statements surrounding the whole episode. I hope this helps a bit. God bless.
Many thanks for that detailed comment – I’ll check out the links soon but not now, as it’s 20 minutes past midnight here and I need my beauty sleep!
This post is beyond my shallow understanding of most, if not all of the several topics addressed, but here are a few observations:
“No Catholic would disagree with the concept, in principle, that murder is indeed less offensive to God than dishonoring His Sovereign Majesty.” – I was not aware that there was a hierarchy of importance and gravity in the commands of the Ten Commandments, but I would like more information about that.
Regarding Fr. Loop’s faulty syllogism, if the United States was a Catholic state, which it obviously is not and never was, then the First Amendment would indeed appear to be an affront against the honor of God (however, see my comment below the Pope Gregory XVI quote). The U.S. was founded by English Protestants and Freemasons, with only one Catholic participating in the work of the Founders. I should also add that not only is the U.S. not a Catholic state, but Catholics were extensively and severely persecuted during the first 100-150 years of our existence, including by the Ku Klux Klan (a Masonic front group).
Regarding the First Amendment itself, it is worth noting the words of four Popes regarding “freedom of speech”:
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum (“On the Nature of Human Liberty,” 1888):
“Yet there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free…the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirare Vos (“On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism,” 1832):
“if you are free to express ideas that are good, as well as ideas that are evil, you will end up expressing only ideas that are evil.”
[Speaking of religious indifferentism, it seems clear that the First Amendment sows the field with this faulty seed, which is a heresy, and therefore an affront against God.]
Pope Leo XIII again, Immortali Dei (1885):
“If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. The State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue.”
Pope Pius XI:
In an Allocution dated December 20, 1926, he stated, “Catholics may not support, favor, or read papers which are edited by men whose writings are in notable opposition to Catholic doctrine in faith and morals…”
Like Pius XI, he spoke clearly and forcefully against freedom of the press. In 1946, he told a group of American editors that freedom of the press “does not allow a man to print what is wrong, what is known to be false, or what is calculated to undermine and destroy the moral and religious fiber of individuals and the peace and harmony of nations.”
Finally, regarding George Washington’s allegedly questionable membership in the Lodge: if he had only been in a Lodge “once or twice,” then this begs the question, why did he allow himself to be painted with a Masonic apron on? Moreover, having only “been in a Lodge once or twice” sounds like an evasive statement to me. It would be helpful to post his letter here that disavows his membership in Freemasonry, so we could examine it for ourselves.
I think two things about the quotes you give from the popes. Firstly, you can find ways of complying with them in Canon Law. It is up to the bishops to make sure that truth not error is spread in their dioceses, e.g. through what is published there in Catholic newspapers and who is invited to speak on Catholic premises, you can’t expect secular states to keep to that standard, more’s the pity. In secular states like the USA, where the Church is not given any prominent role of authority, the Church can only do what she can do, and compared to other systems, the US system of government seems very fair to the Church. You speak about the first 100 or so years in the US when Catholics were persecuted but Catholics were persecuted in all Catholic countries during the Protestant reformation time, including in Britain.
The other thing to remember about the popes’ quotes you give, is that even in Catholic nations, the Church always tolerated the existence of non-Catholic religions – otherwise there would be public disorder.
I agree about the letter being published that disavows his membership of Freemasonry. I would like to read that for myself too.
I think I understand the concept of a hierarchy of importance regarding the commandments. If someone blasphemes God who is all perfect, then – in God’s eyes – that would be more grave than taking the life of another human being, because that murdered person could still be saved. However, an unborn child is unbaptized and if killed cannot enter Heaven. Even though that baby would enjoy natural happiness, nothing compares with the vision of God which the aborted children are denied.
I’m not sure if I’m making sense, so tell me if I’m not, LOL!
I forgot to say that I’m wondering if your comment means that you think God hates the First Amendment? I’ve never thought of it like this before, but looking at the quotes from the popes you give, maybe that is right – God might hate free speech because he wants us to speak and listen to only the truth, but then where does free will come in?
This has been a really interesting thread to read. I am not an expert in the US constitution (or any other one, for that matter, LOL!) but it seems to me that, as constitutions go, the US one is one that gives the greatest possible freedom to Catholics to practise our religion. What other country has “In God we trust” in their courtrooms, above the heads of the judges (I’ve seen it on the films, so assume it’s true!)
I think the SSPX priest is speaking about what would be the ideal in a Catholic society, then God might hate a constitution that does not make every law based on Catholic teaching, but I don’t think God will hate the constitution of the States given that it was written by non-Catholics and is interpreted very fairly, as far as I can tell.
Here are a few more thoughts, hopefully I’ll have time later for more.
On the faulty syllogism: after thinking about my first post, I’ve decided that Fr. Loop’s conclusion is actually correct, though I’d say he wasted his time arriving at it by ignoring the real issue, which is the heresy of religious indifferentism (Abp. Lefebvre wrote quite a bit about the false American definition of religious liberty). So here is my attempt to revise his syllogism;
1. The First Amendment legally establishes religious indifferentism in the US by placing all religions on an equal footing – the one true religion with all the false ones. [Note: this is a Masonic position]
2. Religious indifferentism is a heresy.
3. Heresy is an offense against Almighty God.
4. Therefore, the First Amendment is an offense against Almighty God.
On George Washington renouncing his membership in the Lodge, I decided to look up the apron, and found this:
“When he joins the lodge, each Freemason receives a white lambskin apron, to symbolize innocence. As the candidate moves through the degrees of Freemasonry, how he wears the apron changes to signify rank and responsibility.”
So the question of the nature of G.W.’s membership can be resolved by having someone knowledgeable about these things tell us how he wore his apron in the famous painting. Did he wear it as someone in the higher degrees is supposed to wear it? Then he was lying about visiting the Lodge once or twice. Did he wear it, on the other hand, as a mere candidate? Then he was probably telling the truth.
There was one more thing that struck me as odd about this article: that Solange Hertz was described as a “somewhat mysterious author.” I had never heard of her so I looked her up. She was a well-known contributor to The Remnant and the author of several books about the traditional Faith. Besides being a public Catholic figure, she was also known as a military widow, her husband having been captured by the Viet Cong and either executed or died from malaria. She was one of those who were attempting to have his remains identified and returned to the US. I am therefore not understanding the basis of the “mysterious author” description.
That’s all very interesting. I wonder, though, in practical terms, if now the pro-life Catholics should stop fighting for the unborn and start campaigning against the First Amendment. If the First Amendment is more offensive to God than abortion, that seems an obviously conclusion to reach – they should pour all of their energy and resources into ending this attack on Almighty God.
What say you? (Gently, please – I’ve not had any chocolate yet 😀 )
There are so many great comments in this thread that I barely know where to begin. First, we think that Laura is quite right when she speaks of Father providing us with the ideal (of a Catholic state). The problem is that he keeps referring in his podcast to these ideals of a Catholic state And RCA Victor is correct when he points out that the United States has never been a Catholic country. We would disagree with his assessment of persecution of Catholics for the long period of time he cites. In fact, the KKK developed from the Knights of the White Camelia, which was started by the former Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest in response to an oppressive occupation of the South that the Northern victors called “Reconstruction.” Any KKK persecution of Catholics (and Jews and Blacks) generally occurred in the latter part of the 19th century. Discussions of earlier persecutions of Catholics, especially during the middle of the 19th century when the “Know Nothing” party was prominent, would necessitate much more involved analyses that would even touch on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution vs. what we have had since the War Between the States (or, as we Southerners call it, the War of Northern Aggression). But aside from those isolated periods mentioned above, we have various sources from the earliest days of the Republic (including letters from Catholics at the time) which attest to the fact that Catholics were generally respected and held offices throughout the nascent country.
We would completely agree with RCA Victor in his assertion that we must, as Catholics, believe that “religious liberty” is certainly displeasing to God. As a theological concept, it does indeed err in placing other religions on the same level as that of our One True Faith. Still, Father’s syllogism and RCA Victor’s argument are faulty because they equate the wording of the disestablishment clause of the 1st Amendment with religious liberty. It is not; the point we were trying to make, by laying out the syllogism as we did, is that one would have to read deeply into the words of the 1st Amendment to arrive at a conclusion that it is promoting religious liberty. And the historical context must be taken into account to understand why the 1st Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights in the first place.
In other words, it is not possible to read “all religions are equal” or to recognize the heresy of Indifferentism in a political document that seeks to prevent the social upheavals and religious strife that so many other nations were experiencing, especially in the 16th to 18th centuries. It is hard to see how the 1st Amendment wording, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .” is equivalent to the heresies of religious liberty and indifferentism. It certainly does not say, “Since all religions are the same.” It makes no pretense about being a religious document or making any theological judgment of that kind. It is a political document in a multi-sectarian nation meant to provide, as the next clause makes clear, freedom of worship in a land made of many Protestant sects (as a group, in the majority) and minority Catholics. One-half of one percent means that there was one Catholic out of every two hundred Americans in 1787. I would respectfully ask RCA Victor the question that Fr. Hunter poses in his book: “What would you have done if you had been there?” As we point out in our article, it is nearly miraculous that we received the blessings of liberty that we did. It does seem to us a bit facile for Catholics to look at the Founding documents and criticize them from our perspective nearly 250 years later, without taking into account the historical context and original intent. To assume that it was written and placed in the Constitution to promote Masonic or Deist ideals is presumptuous, to say the least.
At the risk of distracting us from the original theme of the article, Solange Hertz is “mysterious” because information that can be discovered about her is sparse and cryptic. Her official biography does indeed state that she was the widow of a “civilian” POW, while Fr. Hunter uncovered info that her husband, Gustav Crane Hertz, was a career State Department./USAID diplomat. It is mysterious because, having been in the military intelligence field and now in a position to assess captivity situations, we found very little indeed in the USAF SERE library other than reference to a Life magazine article at the time. It should be noted that State Department and USAID were often “covers” for other less palatable agencies, so the real government affiliation of Mr. Hertz may never be known.
If you wish to know much more about her, neither the Remnant nor any other publishers were able to impart much info. There is a standard biography online that sounds like something she perhaps provided to Amazon and Good Reads, among others. Fr. Hunter once wrote to her to request info about her background. She merely responded that “she had five children, an unspecified number of grandchildren, and that she wrote for various Catholic journals.” It is clear from her writing that she was a woman promoting an agendum, which can easily be seen in her book, “The Star Spangled Heresy,” in which she equates the error of “Americanism” with an “independent spirit” and “separation of Church and state.” Fr. Hunter documents her numerous falsehoods and half-truths in his little book, The Strange Spirit of Solange Hertz. If anyone wishes to know more, perhaps a copy can be procured from Fr. Hunter in Veneta, Oregon.
Finally, I would like to re-focus us on the real issue: is the 1st Amendment evil, and if so, are those who swear allegiance to the Constitution cooperating in evil?
I’m at a huge disadvantage in this discussion, not having been taught any American history – goodness, I can barely remember what I was taught about the Battle of Bannockburn!
Add to that the fact that I’m slaving away to finish the September newsletter, having lost time over the new look blog and other new-fangled technology, so I hope you will understand why I won’t be able to offer any meaningful response to any of your impressive comment for … well… a bit 😀
I popped in to see if there was any news back from Father Hunter – I this this thread really interesting but until we get word back from him, I think we’re stalled! Maybe I’ve got it wrong but I thought you had said you would contact him and post back here. If I’ve picked that up wrong, I apologise.
I would just add that, the more I think of it, it’s obviously not offensive to God to swear allegiance to the First Amendment or all the Catholic notables of the past would be in the soup! There are American saints, like St. Frances Xavier Cabrini who would have pledged allegiance to the Constitution, so to say that God is offended by the First Amendment would mean that all those Catholics who swore allegiance to it over the years had offended God. That cannot be right.
Marinaio has emailed a response to your question – as follows…
… Would you be kind enough to pass to Laura my reply that I left a message for Fr. Hunter on Monday; but I have not heard back from him yet. He does travel quite a bit when offering Mass in distant locations. Please assure her that as soon as I have the details from him regarding the account of the likely conversion of George Washington, I will indeed send it to you so that you may place it in the discussion.
May I add, Laura, that’s a great point about the saints. More food for thought! Thank you!
It is quite interesting that Fr. Loop is the subject of this discussion since it was he who was assigned by the U.S. District Superior to try to convince the Traditional Catholics in Idaho to accept the SSPX’s erroneous approval (with caveats) of abortion-tainted vaccines. I agree that he is way off the mark with his recent observations regarding the First Amendment and abortion, which are misleading to say the least. I always get suspicious when a priest keeps associating himself with controversy.
I agree about priests who court controversy – it’s definitely not a good sign. In this case, I am concerned at this priest’s attitude to abortion – it’s almost like he’s trying to justify his role in pushing abortion-tainted vaccines by trying to make the case that God is more offended by the First Amendment of the US Constitution that by abortion. It’s really quite concerning and I hope his superiors are taking note.
This series is really excellent even if the podcasts are a tad long! I listened to this one earlier on:
Comments are closed.