Reading Time: 510 minutes

CHAPTER NINE THE 1950s: ROMAN CATHOLIC MOVIE CENSORSHIP TAKES A BEATING

By the 1950s, Roman Catholic Americans were no longer a minority community on the edge of mainstream American society. They now numbered a quarter of the U.S. population, and occupied professional and managerial positions throughout the country. No longer were they bound to the “old neighbourhood” by their economic situation. And as they moved up the social ladder, so too the descendants of those Roman Catholic immigrants who had run the nickelodeons and movie theatres became directors of movies themselves.

Furthermore, during this time (the immediate post-war years) American Romanism not only blossomed, but became far less “European” and far more “American” than it had beenbefore. American Romanists themselves, having supported American anti-Communist nationalism, were now widely accepted, both in mainstream America with its newly wealthy Roman Catholic middle class, and in American politics. Wherever one looked in the United States of the late 1950s and early 1960s, one saw Roman Catholics dominating popular culture, epitomised by Frank Sinatra in the music industry. On TV, Papist monsignor, Fulton J. Sheen, had a programme entitled Life Is Worth Living. “After a century or more in urban ghettos, suddenly Catholics were everywhere.” ³⁴⁴

And this Romanist dominance of society was not by accident. The “Church” of Rome works tirelessly for world domination; and it was well aware that if it could conquer the United States of America, it would conquer the western world. And control of the mass media, in particular films and television, would ensure manipulation and indoctrination of the public in general, devoted as they were to their visual entertainment and visual news sources.

But this domination was to be constantly challenged in 1950s Hollywood.

Bitter Rice (1950): the Undermining Continues

The erosion of PCA and Legion authority was seen again with another film made in Italy, Bitter Rice, directed by Giuseppe De Santis, which was released in 1950 and which contained scenes of provocative clothing, seductive dances, nude swimming, illicit sex, and a plot that included abortion, a gruesome murder, suicide, etc. The distributors, Lux Films, did not even ask for a PCA seal, and it had been showing in the United States for some time before Breen and his staff saw it. They were shocked by the immorality and exposure of flesh. Quigley and the Legion condemned it, with the Legion branding it offensive to “Christian and traditional principles of morality.” The Tidings, a Romish newspaper in Los Angeles, said it was a Communist-inspired film.

Other leading Papists were worried about the film, too; but the PCA could not deny it a seal because Lux Films had not asked for one! They could not stop it being shown, and indeed large numbers turned out to see it.

As this particular film received wider distribution than was usual for foreign-language films, priest Little, concerned that a national campaign against it would make it still more popular, advised local Legion directors to act against it in whatever way they felt was best in their particular areas. Thus their responses varied, although most dioceses decided to just ignore it, hoping this would cause it to die a natural death in a short time. But this did not happen, and it continued to play.

Nevertheless, eventually Lux Films realised that even more money could be made from the film by making it conform to the Legion’s standards, thereby having the Legion remove the “C” rating. After huge cuts were made, it was finally reclassified as “B”.

The Miracle (1950): The Battle Over “Sacrilegious” Censorship

It was clear that although their power was still very considerable, the PCA and the Legion were not the a//-powerful organisations they had once been. It was a changing world, and there was a massive battle underway for control of the cinema. This was again brought home, with even more emphasis, with the release in America of yet another foreign film, The Miracle.

In 1950 Roberto Rossellini, an ex-Roman Catholic Italian director, made a film called II miracolo (The Miracle in English), which was screened at an art theatre in New York City. It had no nudity or crime, but it was “a modem religious parable” and the “Church” of Rome was livid over it. ³⁴⁵ It was an imported film about a simple-minded female goatherd who believes she has met “St.” Joseph, and who, when she finds herself mysteriously pregnant, believes the father is Joseph, and is ostracised and jeered at by others, finally giving birth in a local “church” building. When first shown in Italy, an organisation somewhat analogous to the Legion of Decency in that country strongly condemned it as an “abominable profanation”, but the Vatican did not attempt to suppress it. Leading Papists were unsure as to how to interpret the film. It might be an attack on the doctrine of the virgin conception and birth, but then again it might also be simply a commentary on the intolerance found in modem society. Not that it really mattered in the end, because it did not do at all well at the box office in Italy.

In the USA, however, it was a very different matter. Joseph Burstyn, who was in charge of showing it in New York City, was not legally bound to seek a PCA seal of approval for it as it was shown on the art-house circuit, and indeed he did not attempt to get one. But it was condemned as sacrilegious and blasphemous by the Legion, and the New York State board of censorship’s licence commissioner, Edward McCaffrey, a Roman Catholic, banned it from being publicly shown, despite having originally given it a green light. The movie was withdrawn from the circuit, but the distributors challenged the ban legally, and a formal hearing was scheduled for January 1951. This publicity did wonders for the film, which became extremely popular. Roman Catholics picketed the theatre showing it, but the ACLU and various newspapers weighed in, defending the movie and the right of people to see it – which large numbers did. The court ruled that McCaffrey had gone beyond his authority in banning the film.

New York’s cardinal, Lrancis Spellman, was outraged, and in a letter read out at every mass in the New York archdiocese he made his feelings clear, calling the film “a despicable affront to every Christian” and “a vicious insult to Italian womanhood”, calling for Papists to boycott the movie, and making it clear that he believed the movie was Communist-inspired for the purpose of ridiculing the “Christian” (i.e. Roman Catholic) religion and promoting the enslavement of America to atheistic Communism. He called on all decent people to join with him to oppose the “minions of Moscow” in their attempts to “enslave this land of liberty”. This religious hypocrite spoke of America in glowing terms as a land of liberty, yet knowing full well that his very “Church” hated the liberties enjoyed by Americans, and had always fought against them! Spellman’s call was heeded by Roman Catholic Americans, and picket lines consisting of Roman Catholic war veterans at the theatre showing the movie expanded to over a thousand people. The signs carried by the picketers read: “This Picture is an Insult to Every Decent Woman and Her Mother”; “Don’t be a Communist – All the Communists are Inside” and “Don’t Enter that Cesspool”. The picketers insulted those who tried to buy tickets. Counter-pickets also formed outside the theatre, and Protestant ministers complained about the Papists imposing their will on everyone else. Attitudes hardened on both sides of the issue. Bomb threats were even made against the theatre, followed by bomb threats made against St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral!

Yet despite all Rome’s efforts, still the crowds came to see it.

Then Martin Quigley weighed in, with an editorial which, like Spellman, labelled the film as Communist: “With Americans dying daily in Korea, and the nation girding for total war if necessary to preserve our way of life, which is based on belief in God and the inalienable rights of man, it is intolerable that a film such as The Miracle should be shown in an American theater. Its logical birthplace in the modem world is the Soviet Union.” ³⁴⁶

It was utterly hypocritical of this Roman Catholic to speak of defending the American way of life, when Rome had been working to destroy that very way of life and turn America into a Papist nation. But of course this was the period before the pro-Communist pope, John XXIII, and the Papacy was still very anti-Communist. This would change in just a few short years. It was ironic, too, that he spoke of America’s belief in “the rights of man”, a concept bom out of the very humanistic/Communistic system he was condemning, and which, at this time, Rome was strongly opposed to anyway.

And the greatest irony of all? “Quigley may or may not have known that the Soviet Union rejected the film because it was, in their view, ‘pro- Catholic propaganda.’” ³⁴⁷ There were undoubtedly pro-Communist, anti- Roman Catholic films coming into America, and these most definitely had, as their purpose, the undermining of the United States; but it does not appear as if The Miracle was one of them. But to brand it as such was an easy way for the Romish hierarchy to raise the ire of anti-Communist American Romanists. It was a perfect way to kill two birds with one stone: to exert Rome’s power over what could or could not be shown on American screens, and to deal another hard knock to Communism, which was still Rome’s bitter enemy at this time.

And so, “Catholics from Cardinal Spellman on down freely tossed the charge of communism at all who favoured showing the film; picket lines and bomb threats were used in attempts to prevent audiences from seeing the film; those brave enough to run the gauntlet were accused of being communist or communist sympathizers; Protestant and Catholic representatives argued over what was and was not sacrilegious; and the professional film critics awarded The Miracle, at best a mildly curious picture, the Best Foreign Film of the year.” ³⁴⁸

The New York State censorship board now found itself under huge pressure to revoke its earlier decision to permit the film to be shown. Burstyn and his lawyers argued that this dislike of the film was pretty much limited to Roman Catholics, and submitted as evidence hundreds of letters from Protestant ministers who saw nothing wrong with the film at all. This is not to say that there really was nothing wrong with it, for by this time (the mid-twentieth century) many Protestant denominations and churches were already liberal in both doctrine and practice. But Burstyn was correct in stating that it was mainly Roman Catholics who were angered over the film.

Nevertheless, under extreme pressure from the Papal machine in America, the censorship board in New York revoked the licence to screen the film, stating as its reason that New York law insisted that “men and women of all faiths respect the religious beliefs held by others” and that the film associated the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible with “drunkenness, seduction and lewdness” and was therefore sacrilegious.

But things were changing in Roman Catholic circles. Some Romish publications criticised their own “Church” for its picketing and its dictatorial style. An editorial in Commonweal said: “We are burdened with an ancient siege complex”. It went on to state that the Romish “Church”s use of threats rather than persuasion may have caused those who were not Roman Catholics to “feel as if they were being treated like children by an alien force that didn’t give two cents for their personal liberty.” This was strong criticism from a Papist publication in those times. And there were Roman Catholics who criticised their “Church” over its handling of this film, and lost their jobs. One was Fra nk Getlein, the film reviewer for the Catholic Messenger of Davenport, Iowa, who lost his job at Fairfield University, a Roman Catholic college in Connecticut, for his criticism. Another was William Clancy, a teacher of English at the University of Notre Dame, whose article, “The Catholic as Philistine”, in which he called the Roman Catholic campaign against the film “semi-ecclesiastic McCarthyism”, cost him his job as well. ³⁴⁹

Burstyn was down but not out. He appealed the ruling, but when the New York State Court of Appeals upheld it he filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court in December 1951. Oral arguments for Burstyn v. Wilson were set for April 1952. Burstyn was challenging the Supreme Court decision of 1915 in Mutual v. Ohio (examined earlier in this book) which had upheld the constitutionality of state censorship boards.

Ephraim London, who represented Burstyn, argued that film was entitled to the freedom which the U.S. Constitution guaranteed to the press, as it communicated ideas just like the press did. Citing hundreds of letters and petitions from Protestant ministers and people that The Miracle was not viewed as sacrilegious by them, London argued that the state exceeded the constitution when it upheld the religious views of one group (in this case, the views of the “Church” of Rome) above all others.

London was correct: in the United States, no religion’s views could be upheld above any others; a very sensible and wise law. It is what prevented the United States from persecuting people for their religion, as had happened so often in so many other countries of the world at one time or another, where such a law was lacking. For it is not the government’s place to interfere in religious matters. Whenever governments have done so, persecution has inevitably followed. The duty of the State is limited to matters of the physical world, not the spiritual. If citizens are threatened physically, or harmed physically, then the State must intervene; but in religious matters it has no jurisdiction from God, and should ideally have none in practice.

The end result was that on May 26, 1952, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the New York Court of Appeals. And in writing the unanimous decision for the court, Justice Tom Clark essentially stated precisely what has just been set out as the proper approach, if only governments would follow it: he said that the State has “no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them” and that it was not the business of government “to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.” ³⁵⁰

This wise and sensible position could justifiably be dubbed the Gallio principle: when “the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law”, then Gallio, the deputy of Achaia, replied, “If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words and names, and of your [religious] law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:12-15). He did not practice what he preached, of course, for when the Greeks then proceeded to beat up the ruler of the synagogue, we are told that “Gallio cared for none of those things” (v. 17), even though this was now most definitely “a matter of wrong”; but he was right in his stance that it was not his business, as a political leader, to get embroiled in religious matters. If only governments had held the same sentiments through the centuries, there would have been far less religious persecution in the world! The government’s business is to maintain law and order, to punish evildoers, etc.; it is not its business to regulate religion, to say what may or may not be said in matters of religion, or to stick its nose into spiritual matters of any kind. The United States, more than any other nation in the history of the world, sought to separate the State’s authority from that of religious authority of any kind, refusing to get embroiled in religious controversies, leaving such matters to the religions themselves to deal with. This prevented persecution on religious grounds, for it is a fact of history that wherever a government involves itself in such matters, persecution inevitably follows.

When it comes to religious matters, would that the whole world adopted the Gallio principle! Tragically, today, even America is rapidly moving away from it, increasingly interfering in religious affairs and attacking those who oppose, on religious grounds, such religions as Roman Catholicism and Islam.

And here a word must be said, also, to those Christians who thi nk a government should be involved in upholding the true Christian faith. This is just as wrong when it concerns the true faith as when it concerns false religions! Some professing Evangelical Christians believe that if the majority of the population professes to be Christian, the government should outlaw all publications, films, etc., which attack the Christian faith. In this they greatly err. The followers of Christ must proclaim the Gospel of Christ by the method of preaching, of persuasion (2 Cor. 5:11), and it will be received by all those ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). We do not need, nor should we ever seek, the legislation of Christianity.

Just as the 1915 Supreme Court ruling had been a defining moment in movie history, when (as seen earlier) movies were declared to be a “business, pure and simple”, which could be regulated, so the 1952 ruling was another such defining moment. The 1915 ruling was now reversed, with the court arguing that movies were expressions of ideas and as such, were covered under the freedom of speech clause of the U.S. Constitution and could not be censored.

However, it stated that it had not ruled “whether a state may censor motion pictures under a clearly drawn statute designed and applied to prevent the showing of obscene films. That is a very different question from the one now before us. We hold only that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments a state may not ban a film on the basis of a censor’s conclusion that it is ‘sacrilegious.’” Thus, according to the Supreme Court, it might have been legal for a censorship law to prevent obscene films.

The Supreme Court decision was a major blow to censorship boards across America, and over the next few years they would cease to function, for the majority of them contained statements prohibiting films on sacrilegious grounds, and to do so was now unconstitutional. In addition, this ruling severely restricted the power of Joseph Breen and the PCA to demand that material which violated the Production Code be removed from films. Censorship was still in place after this ruling, but it was now greatly weakened legally.

The Legion of Decency was affected most of all. While professing to only rate films for Roman Catholic audiences, not censor them, the Legion had done its best to prevent all Americans from seeing The Miracle, regardless of their religious beliefs. And it had done so in a particularly vicious manner, with boycotts, pickets, threats of bombings, etc. “In essence, the Catholic church through the Legion, had demanded that the state declare Catholic theology as official dogma. Protestant organizations rightly opposed giving that kind of sanction to the Catholic church, as did the U.S. Supreme Court. The boundaries of separation between church and state remained firmly defined .” ³⁵¹ It was a major setback for Rome’s attempts to increase its power over the life of all the people of the United States. If it had succeeded, the “Church” of Rome would have vastly expanded its influence over this country it had sought to conquer for so long. It would have been one giant step closer to becoming the official “State Church” in the USA, something utterly alien to the U.S. Constitution and to all that America had stood for since its founding. But the sovereign Lord had decreed otherwise, and providentially this bold plot was overturned at this time. Rome would not give up, however.

The Legion of Decency, as a result of its actions against this film, suffered a huge blow. Even many Roman Catholics turned against it. After all, many of them could not help but imbibe much of the spirit of Americanism: of such concepts as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. This has always been Rome’s dilemma in the USA – how to keep American Romanists faithful to Rome when they live in a country that is at its very heart the very antithesis of what Rome stands for. For example, the Roman Catholic publication, Commonweal, the only major Romish publication to support the Supreme Court decision, stated that when Romanists “obey the voice of the Church, it is a free act; to pressure or force, even indirectly, others who do not believe, into the same kind of obedience is to ask for servility.” ³⁵² This was an excellent statement in favour of religious liberty and liberty of conscience, and as such very American; but it certainly was not in line with the “Church” of Rome, which demands the very servility condemned in the statement, and has always used pressure and force against those who oppose it.

Never again would the Legion of Decency be the all-powerful institution it once was. It was concerned, but continued on, applying Roman Catholic standards to the films it examined. This in itself would have been perfectly fine if it did so solely as a watchdog for Roman Catholic Americans, but it continued to act as if it had a divine right to act on behalf of all Americans, Roman Catholic or otherwise.

There could be no doubt, however, that both PCA and Legion influence and authority had been much weakened by these things. Oh, they were still extremely strong, but things were not looking quite so rosy, quite so certain, for them anymore. And Hollywood film-makers were becoming bolder in their desire to challenge PCA and Legion interference.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951): Yet Another Challenge to the Breen Office and the Legion

The assault on film censorship (which meant the assault on Roman Catholic-controlled film censorship) continued. The script for a film entitled A Streetcar Named Desire arrived on Joseph Breen’s desk in 1950. The Broadway play had been running since 1947, and contained themes of sexuality, homosexuality, suicide, adult-adolescent sex, rape, etc. It was a smash hit, which was why Hollywood showed interest in making a movie of it. But it was obvious it would fall foul of the PCA.

Breen objected to the homosexuality, nymphomania and rape in the story, and would never grant a seal if these themes remained. By various editings they were toned down, but not completely removed. Nevertheless the PCA seal was granted, quite surprisingly, after compromises were reached: Breen said he would accept the rape if it was done “by suggestion and delicacy”, and director Elia Kazan agreed that the film’s ending would provide “compensating moral values”. ³⁵³ But when priest Patrick J. Masterson of the Legion, and Martin Quigley, viewed the film, they were enraged, and Warner Brothers were informed by the Legion that it would condemn the film unless major cuts and alterations were made. Such was the Legion’s power, still, in Hollywood at this time that Warner Brothers actually hired Martin Quigley himself to do the editing, in 1951.

When director Kazan heard of the massive cuts being made in the editing room, he tried to stop the Legion. This same director would shortly appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He was later to write in his memoirs, “It was at this time that I became aware of the similarity of the Catholic Church to the Communist Party, particularly in the ‘underground’ nature of their operation.” ³⁵⁴ In this he was more correct than he could ever have known. It is a fact (but outside the scope of this book to demonstrate) that agents of Rome were involved behind the scenes in the very creation of Communism, that Communism had borrowed much from the Roman Catholic institution, and that in the years to come the two would develop an increasingly cosy and symbiotic relationship.

When Kazan confronted Quigley over the cuts to his film, Quigley emphasised the importance of “the moral order over artistic considerations.” All true Christians would agree that morality must always be paramount, and that this film was blatantly immoral; but of course when Quigley spoke of “the moral order” he meant as understood and interpreted by Rome. He denied it, of course: Kazan was outraged that the Roman Catholic “Church” was forcing its moral values on all Americans, but Quigley’s rejoinder was that the Legion censored according to the Ten Commandments. This sounded so much broader, and so much more innocuous, than claiming the Legion was acting according to the moral values of the “Church” of Rome. But it was not true.

Kazan was furious, and he did not remain silent. In a New York Times article he made it clear that “a prominent Catholic layman” had forced him to accept the changes to the film, and he wrote: “My picture has been cut to fit the specifications of a code which is not my code, is not the recognized code of the picture industry, and is not the code of the great majority of the audience.” He also wrote, “I was the victim of a hostile conspiracy.” He branded Francis Spellman, the Popish cardinal, “the gluttonous Pope of Fifth Avenue” who had humiliated him. ³⁵⁵

We have no sympathy for the Kazans of the world. They deliberately seek to make filthy, immoral movies, a flagrant attack on decency and morality. We include his complaints here simply to show the power of Rome in Hollywood at that time. Immoral films, like immoral books, do no good whatsoever and an immense amount of harm. But the “Church” of Rome has no business being the moral watchdog of society, given its polluted and degraded history. And yet for decades the movie industry was essentially controlled by this false “Church.”

The Resumption of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in Hollywood

While all this was going on, in 1951 the HUAC hearings resumed suddenly again – after a few years of silence and inactivity. This time around, large numbers of witnesses gave the HUAC the names of political associates. Once again, the Jewish moguls in Hollywood were frightened. They kn ew that if they did not fire all radicals, liberals and Communists in their studios, they would face pickets and boycotts of their movies and the hatred and rejection of American society. So they acted. In their panic they even fired people who were not Communists or Communist sympathisers, but whose names appeared on the blacklist. The story is told of a Hollywood writer whose name was on the list, who worked for Harry Warner. Warner fired him. The man said, “This is a mistake,” producing documents which showed he was anti-Communist. “The plain fact is that I am an nnP’-Communist.” To which Warner replied, “I don’t [care] what kind of Communist you are, get out of here.” ³⁵⁶

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952): Legion Authority Weakened Further

As was seen, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to the decision that it was necessary for films to be included under the protection of freedom of speech, and that states should not be permitted to censor them. The protection given by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution was now extended to movies. Not only that, but film-makers themselves were now emboldened to challenge the Roman Catholic influence on Hollywood exerted for so long by the PCA and the Legion. In 1953 Hollywood’s Samuel Goldwyn called for the Production Code to be reviewed and brought “reasonably up to date.” ³⁵⁷ Others were more blatant and called for the Code and all censorship to be scrapped. Even the Papist Commonweal publication, whose film critic was a consultant to the Legion, now called for the Code to be revised. ³⁵⁸

One of the Hollywood film-makers who was emboldened to challenge PCA and Legion authority after the Supreme Court’s 1952 ruling was Cecil B. DeMille, maker of various so-called “biblical epic” films that were neither doctrinally sound nor morally decent. He now decided to make a film about the circus – the result being The Greatest Show on Earth. The PCA did not object to the film, but the Legion gave it a “B” rating (objectionable in part for all) because of the costumes worn by the women and the lustful characterisation of one of the male characters, as well as the fact that another character had performed so-called “assisted suicide” on his dying wife (even though in the end he was arrested). The “B” rating meant that the film was off-limits to children, and DeMille was angry and refused to make any cuts. He also pointed out to Thomas Little, the monsignor of the Legion, that the costumes worn by the actresses in the movie were the same ones as were worn by Ringling Brothers and Bamum and Bailey circus, which was ritually blessed by a priest of Rome every year.

DeMille was supported by many Papists who could see nothing wrong with the film, including many priests. Romish disapproval of the Legion’s rating was voiced by many. One monsignor, J. B. Lux, arranged for four monsignors and a number of Roman Catholic “laypeople” to see the film. All loved it. Lux said the Legion’s concern about the “euthanasia” was “sheer nonsense”, and added that if the Legion objected to this film, Roman Catholics would not take the Legion seriously anymore. He went still further, saying, “we are not behind the iron curtain and we have a right to disagree [with] the Legion.” ³⁵⁹ Clearly, Legion authority was gradually waning in Roman Catholic circles.

The Legion rating was not removed, despite criticism from such Romish leaders. Nevertheless, the film did extremely well at the box office, and large numbers of Roman Catholics took their children to see it, as evidenced by the turnout in such Papist strongholds as New York City, Chicago, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. It had become obvious that a film-maker could challenge the Legion and still make a lot of money.

The Moon is Blue (1953): the PCA is Ignored and Cracks Appear in the Legion

The Moon is Blue was a Broadway play that had been running for three years without much complaint from religious institutions, including the Romish institution, despite the fact that the play was full of sexual innuendo in a comedy setting. A film version was planned, and United Artists agreed to distribute it even if the PCA refused to provide a seal and the Legion condemned it. The script was sent to the PCA, and of course it was found to violate the Code. And when the film itself was submitted to the PCA in 1953, Breen found it unacceptable. The MPAA agreed with Breen and a seal was denied, but this was because, if the MPAA gave a seal to the film, Breen’s authority, or what was left of it by this time, would have been severely undermined. The MPAA’s Eric Johnston said in a statement: “There has been a feeling in some areas both within and without the industry that the Code or some parts of it are out of ‘style.’ It is a living and vibrant document that deals with principles of morality and good taste. These are ageless.” ³⁶⁰

True to its word, United Artists distributed the film even without the seal. But the studio had to resign from the MPAA because membership was only permitted to those who upheld the Code.

Martin Quigley agreed with Breen and told the studio that the Legion would condemn the film if it was not revised. But the two priests in charge of the Legion, Patrick J. Masterson and Thomas L. Little, were shocked to discover that a committee of Legion reviewers from the ILCA were not much offended by the film, and recommended a mere “B” rating. There was not much about a “B” rating to put people off, including Roman Catholics. Times had changed; Romanists themselves had changed, and were no longer as morally shocked by such things as they once would have been. The movie industry had succeeded in wearing their morals down.

But the two priests, Masterson and Little, over-ruled the women of the ILCA and condemned the film. They did so not only because they disagreed with the ILCA’s recommendation of a “B” ruling, but also because Quigley put pressure on Masterson to make sure that the film was condemned by the Legion. Quigley did this because his own credibility would have taken a knock if a “B” rating was granted after he himself had told the studio that the Legion would condemn the film outright.

When Masterson died suddenly, Little took over the Legion. He urged Roman Catholics to avoid The Moon is Blue because “the strength of the Legion is going to be tested by the commercial success or non-success of this film.” ³⁶¹ He could see the handwriting on the wall: the Legion’s authority was in real trouble by this stage. He called on Papists to unitedly protest against the film, and bishops were provided with a sermon, to be given to the priests under them. He was supported by New York’s cardinal, Spellman, who called for a boycott, by Papists, of any theatre which showed the film. Bishops in Los Angeles and Philadelphia echoed Spellman’s call, although the majority of bishops in the United States did not – which was significant in itself. The Roman Catholic “Church” in the United States was no longer speaking with a united voice when it came to the movies. The film critic of St. Joseph s Magazine, which was “America’s Catholic Family Monthly”, came out in praise of The Moon is Blue, even calling it “wholesome”. Still, Roman Catholic pressure paid dividends in some parts of America. ³⁶² A priest in El Paso, Texas, informed the Legion that he had “put the hate” on the local chain which was exhibiting the film. The San Francisco Junior Chamber of Commerce cancelled its sponsorship of the film’s premiere. It was banned in Kansas, Ohio, and Maryland. Police in Jersey City arrested the theatre manager and took possession of two prints of the film. Upon being released the theatre manager showed a reserve print, and “was threatened by some local hoods.” ³⁶³ So much for Romanism being a loving, “Christian” church.

But ultimately the Legion did not succeed. Otto Preminger, the film’s director, stood firm, refusing to alter anything in it. Stanley Warner and United Paramount, two of the largest distributors, ignored the Legion and booked the movie. Although some state censorship boards banned it, others approved it. And eventually the courts overturned all decisions to ban the movie as being unconstitutional. Little even had to reluctantly admit that ticket sales had actually been given a huge boost by the Legion’s condemnation. The movie was a smash hit all over the country, playing to large audiences even in staunchly Roman Catholic cities, much to the disgust of Martin Quigley, who had helped to create the Legion back in 1934. ³⁶⁴

It was, in fact, the first time that Roman Catholics, in large numbers, had objected to a Legion condemnation. Priests joined people in speaking out against the Legion, voicing the once virtually heretical thought that the Legion had outlived its usefulness.

And Joe Breen’s authority suffered as a result of the furore over The Moon is Blue, as well. What is more, the Legion became increasingly concerned that Breen’s standards were dropping. In 1953, in fact, the Legion criticised Breen for his handling of sexually related matters in a number of films.

Martin Luther (1953): the Legion’s Agenda Exposed

In 1953 a low-budget film on the life of the German Reformer, Martin Luther, was released, and to the surprise of many it became a box-office hit. The film’s production was financed by six Lutheran organisations in the United States, and contained no sexual themes, no immorality of any sort, no violence. Joe Breen approved it, even though the PCA was dominated by Roman Catholics. But the Legion of Decency condemned it.

Although many were very surprised at this, no one who understood Romanism should have been. Martin Luther, the sixteenth-century German monk who defied the Roman Catholic “Church”, had sparked the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was the greatest blow Rome had ever suffered. In the eyes of Rome, Luther was a heretic and he was deeply hated. There was no way the American Papist hierarchy was going to approve of the film.

But the Legion had a problem. It had always claimed that its purpose was to keep films moral by keeping immorality out of them. But there was nothing immoral about Martin Luther. Not only that, but the Legion had always claimed that it was broader in its mandate than simply condemning movies that offended Roman Catholic morals. It claimed to defend what it termed Christian morals in general. It desperately wanted to condemn this film because it presented Rome in such a poor light, but the only thing it could condemn about it was that it presented Rome in such a poor light! And it knew this would never fly, because condemning a perfectly moral film merely because it showed up the errors of Rome was outside the Legion’s mandate, and would result in a countrywide condemnation of the Legion from Protestant institutions. And the danger of that was that many would then see the truth – that the Legion of Decency was condemning it solely because it was a Protestant film. In Protestant America, despite the by-now huge influence of Romanism in politics and society, this was a massive risk to take. Rome’s power was immense and growing, but the United States was still a Protestant land. This was not Europe in the Dark Ages.

Realising this, Little, although longing to condemn the film as heretical and a danger to Roman Catholics, had no choice but to issue some other classification than a “Condemned” one. And so, even though many Papists urged him to condemn it, he called for it to be placed under the “Separate Classification” category, which was innocuous enough. This was eventually done, with the Legion issuing the warning to Roman Catholics that the film “offers a sympathetic and approving representation of the life and times of Martin Luther, the 15th century figure of religious controversy [actually he was a 16th century figure]. It contains theological and historical references and interpretations which are unacceptable to Roman Catholics.” ³⁶⁵

The Legion could not condemn the film, but Roman Catholic publications were free to do so, and they did with a vengeance, blasting it as inaccurate, unfair, unbiblical, and so on. The strongest condemnation came from The Wanderer, which charged the film’s director, Irving Pichel, with having connections with Communist front organisations and activities. Other Romish publications also claimed that the film had been made by Communists. This was a rather common tactic used by Romanists in those days, when the USA was facing down the Soviet menace and the Romish institution was still strongly anti-Communist. This would change in a few short years with the accession of the very pro-Communist John XXIII as pope of Rome, but in the early 1950s that was how things stood. The Papists’ case was strengthened, however, at least in their own eyes, when Allan E. Stone, the man who wrote the screenplay, appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and admitted that he had once belonged to the Communist Party. Ah, now Romish publications could condemn Martin Luther as being un-American. And they did, vociferously.

However, such strong Legion opposition to the film did not help its cause at all, because the entire idea of censorship was under assault at that time in the U.S., and this kind of Legion vitriol only served to strengthen the case of those opposed to censorship. Moreover, although many Protestant institutions had often supported the Legion’s condemnation of various immoral movies, they now saw this Roman Catholic organisation coming out with guns blazing against a film for no other reason than that it was Protestant. The Legion’s cause was not helped, furthermore, by slamming the film as part of the international Communist conspiracy. This just made it look foolish. ³⁶⁶ It was obvious now, to more people than ever, that the Legion of Decency was not only concerned with matters of morality, but with advancing the Roman Catholic agenda. This was the period prior to the Second Vatican Council and the ecumenical movement – Protestants still very rightly viewed Romanism with deep suspicion, and many more Protestants than today were well aware of Rome’s desire for domination of the United States. The Legion’s hysterical reaction to Martin Luther only proved that they were right.

I Confess (1953): Pro-Papist Movie by a Jesuit-Educated Director

Nevertheless, although change was in the air, influential Roman Catholics in Hollywood still did much to promote their religion through film. One such was the Jesuit-educated Roman Catholic director, Alfred Hitchcock, whose movie I Confess was an attempt to glorify the Romish sacrament of confession and of a priest’s attempts to never violate the secrecy of the confessional, and even to sacrifice his own life if necessary. The priest in the film is linked to a crime but cannot clear his name without violating the confidentiality of the confessional. The film certainly glorified both the priesthood and the Popish sacrament.

The French Line (1953): Thumbing the Nose at the Censors

In 1953 the film, The French Line, was released by Howard Hughes, starring Jane Russell. Breen had passed the script but warned Hughes that the actresses must be properly covered when the film was shot. When the finished film came out, Breen saw that Hughes had paid no attention to his warning and RKO, Hughes’ studio, was denied a seal.

But Hughes did what would once upon a time have been utterly unthinkable: he simply ignored Breen, ignored the MPAA board of directors as well (RKO was a member of the MPAA so this was a deliberate rebellion), and released the film to the public anyway. Not only that, but he deliberately scheduled the film’s world premiere for the city of St. Louis – hometown of Jesuit priest Daniel Lord, the author of the Production Code, and a city with a large Roman Catholic population!

Hughes was deliberately challenging the PCA and MPAA to try to stop him, and they knew it. Breen was able to slap a $25000 fine on Hughes because RKO belonged to the MPAA, but for a multimillionaire like Hughes this was an ineffectual slap on the wrist. Breen sent PCA staff member, Jack Vizzard, to plan what to do about it with Romish archbishop, Joseph E. Ritter. They knew very well what was at stake, for Vizzard said it himself: “What was at stake was the survival of the whole system, and even the whole concept, of achieving decency in the movies. A successful breakthrough by Hughes, exploiting the bulge created by Preminger, would spell eventual doom for the entire experiment.” ³⁶⁷ By “decency in the movies”, of course, Vizzard meant, essentially, the imposition of Roman Catholic morality on, and control of, the movies. One must always read such statements by Romanists, especially ones influenced by the Jesuits as Vizzard was, in the sense in which they mean them.

When the archbishop asked Vizzard if he thought a pastoral letter should be issued forbidding Roman Catholics from seeing the film under pain of committing mortal sin, Vizzard replied that this was a good idea, even though he privately felt it was going too far. As for the Legion, priest Little told Hughes that unless he withdrew the film right away, the Legion would condemn it. When Hughes sent a print of the film to the Legion for review, the reviewers condemned it and told Hughes that serious cuts had to be made.

Hughes tried to get Breen to reconsider his conde mn ation of the film by resubmitting a new version for his evaluation. But Breen refused to budge, and Hughes then told the Legion that he was not going to withdraw his movie, nor make any further major changes to it just to please the Legion.

It had not gone down well with the archbishop, Ritter, when he learned that the president of Hughes’ RKO studios, James Grainger, was in fact a Roman Catholic himself, and that Grainger’s son Edmund had produced the movie! Ritter was livid that Roman Catholics were so morally degenerate that they could happily be involved with Hughes in the making of The French Line. Spellman, the cardinal, said he would lambaste such Romanists. ³⁶⁸ James Grainger told Little that as far as he was concerned, the Legion was not playing fair with Hughes and was being too straight-laced when it came to sexual matters and the exposure of the female form on screen. He pointed out that in Roman Catholic countries like Italy and France, it was acceptable for viewers to see more of the female form than what was permitted in America. ³⁶⁹

The Legion went ahead and condemned the film as obscene, suggestive, indecent and offensive; and Little called on bishops to put pressure on their local theatres not to book it.

Vizzard, the Romish archbishop Ritter, and priest John Cody tried to get Protestant and Jewish groups to protest against the film with Roman Catholics, but without success. So they then sent a letter to all priests in the St. Louis diocese, saying this movie would irreparably harm the Legion and the PCA and calling on Papists to make the film a failure at the box office. Then Ritter did what he had asked for Vizzard’s advice on – he declared in a letter read out at all masses held in the diocese that viewing the film was a “mortal sin” – the most serious form of sin known to Papists, a sin for which they believe they will go to hell if it is not confessed to a priest.

The Legion had learned from past mistakes, however. It had come to realise that loud pickets by angry Romanists outside theatres would actually generate more publicity for the film, so this time around priests went to theatre owners and simply asked them nicely not to show the movie. If the theatre showed it anyway, then the priests were to make “a temperate and heartfelt appeal” from their pulpits for their people to stay away from it. ³⁷⁰ Truly, Rome was realising that changing times meant changing tactics. They knew the days of priests throwing their weight around had ended, at least for the time being. Rome would have to try a more subtle, gentler approach. This was contrary to her nature but she had no choice.

And just in case one is tempted to think that this gentler approach was genuine, consider this: while publicly the priests of Rome acted gently and courteously, in private they found out which theatre owners were Roman Catholic and then tightened the thumbscrews, by (for example) refusing to administer the sacraments of Rome to the theatre owner. For a Papist, to be denied the sacraments is to be put outside the “Church”, and in danger of eternal damnation. Of course, one accepts that any church or professing “church” has the right to demand of its members that they accept the doctrinal position of the church, or they must leave. But acting in this cloak-and-dagger way, smiling publicly and threatening privately, was hypocritical, sly, sinister and nasty. It was, however, par for the course as far as Rome was concerned.

Furthermore, according to the manager of Lafayette Theater in Buffalo, New York, thousands of letters and phone calls had been received from Roman Catholics objecting to the movie, but these included some of “the most vulgar and obscene and immoral language ever uttered,” he told Variety magazine. ³⁷¹ Yes, Roman Catholics piously condemned various admittedly immoral movies, yet in their own personal lives they were so often immoral hypocrites.

Although high-ranking prelates continued to fulminate against the movie and declare it to be a mortal sin to watch it, and many theatres and municipalities refused to show it on the grounds of obscenity, large numbers flocked to see it, even in strongly Papist areas. Obviously Roman Catholics were turning out to see it despite the threats of their religious leaders, a fact admitted by priest Little himself in his annual report to the bishops. ³⁷² The film made a huge amount of money and was a box-office success. It would have made even more if Hughes had submitted to the PCA and the Legion, but he did not, preferring to thumb his nose at the censors and thereby drive another nail into the coffin of Roman Catholic-controlled film censorship in the United States.

On the Waterfront (1954): Social Romanism and Praising Jesuit Worker-Priests

Nevertheless, in the declining era of Breen’s dominance of Hollywood, there were films which still promoted a positive (albeit changing) image of American Romanism. One such was Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront, described as “a hymn to a socially aware Church”. ³⁷³

The script was partly based on a series of stories by Malcolm Johnson, which highlighted the work of two Jesuit priests, Philip A. Carey and John M. Carridan. Scriptwriter Bud Schulberg, a self-described “liberal freethinker”, nevertheless was deeply impressed with the fiery Jesuit Carridan, a “tall, fast-talking, chain-smoking, hardheaded, sometimes profane Kerryman”. Carridan spoke of revolution, reconstruction, social justice, “Christian” (i.e. Papist) charity, and labour union power. This was the kind of priest Schulberg could relate to, a priest so un priestlike (for those times) that Kazan at one point pulled Schulberg aside and asked him, “Are you sure he’s a priest?” ³⁷⁴ This was the era when the Communist-inspired “worker priests” were gaining ground, and the Jesuits were often in the forefront. It was an era when the “Church” of Rome, still under an anti-Communist pope (Pius XII), was nevertheless beginning to change sides, from being decidedly anti-Communist to becoming increasingly pro-Communist. ³⁷⁵ Roman Catholicism was beginning to throw its huge weight behind the “workers of the world”. Worker-priests were agitators, on the side of the “workers”, and were often viewed as “men’s men” themselves, not just worldly-wise but worldly, cussing, hard drinking. All this was done to get the working classes to view the priest as “one of them”. And it worked.

This was how the priest was depicted in this film, modelled on the Jesuit Carridan. And also, another character in the film, a dockyard worker, is represented as a Christ-figure, and there is a very obvious parallel in the film with the crucifixion of Christ.

But despite such films, the times were changing. And Breen saw the writing on the wall.

The Battle is Lost: Joseph Breen Retires

Joseph Breen could no longer face up to the task. He had taken a beating and was feeling it. In 1954 he decided to retire from the Production Code Administration which he had dominated for two decades. He had sought to impose his Roman Catholic morality on Hollywood and had succeeded for years. The following quotation well summarises his influence: “Joseph Breen had more influence on the content and structure of films than any other single person in the long history of Hollywood. From 1934 to 1954, Hollywood’s golden age of studio production, producers had submitted more than seven thousand scripts and films for his inspection. His word was law during this long reign…. Without Breen and his view of the code, the films of this era would have had a much different look, structure, and feel.” ³⁷⁶

He had received various honours from his “Church” through the years. Loyola University of Los Angeles gave him an honorary degree in 1937, and St. Joseph’s University did so in 1954. Especially treasured by him was when he was made a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory by the pope of Rome, Pius XI, in a ceremony at the Vatican itself. “The man who had ridden into the mouth of the dragon in Hollywood had literally been dubbed a knight.” ³⁷⁷

He had fought long and hard for Rome, and had been eminently successful. Rome’s domination of Hollywood’s “Golden Age” was primarily attributable to him. But it was now a different era. As Variety magazine stated in 1954, “Hollywood is taking a different view of screen ‘morality’ and, as a result, marked changes in [the] interpretation of the Production Code are on the way. In a sense, the picture business is embarking on a new era, for even the symbol of old-guard screen standards – Code administrator Joseph I. Breen – is doing a fade.” ³⁷⁸

In March 1954 Breen attended the annual Academy Award ceremony in Los Angeles, and was presented with an honorary Academy Award for “his conscientious, open-minded and dignified management of the Motion Picture Production Code.” ³⁷⁹ It was the movie industry’s shallow “tribute” to a man who had fought for years to tightly control the industry. The award was quite obviously given more as an empty gesture than from any sincerely felt gratitude. Hollywood moguls would never have viewed Breen’s censorship as “open-minded” in truth.

The Legion of Decency and Joseph Breen had worked closely together over the years. Although they sometimes differed, he and the Legion generally saw eye to eye and assisted one another in exerting their Roman Catholic influence over Hollywood.

With Breen gone, the Irish Roman Catholic dominance of Hollywood was over.