Reading Time: 510 minutes

CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE 1960s: THE BEST OF TIMES, THE WORST OF TIMES FOR ROME

The Legion of Decency Largely Irrelevant

The 1960s were years of radicalism and liberalisation in all spheres of society. This was the era of “free love”, drugs, the hippies, pop/rock music, anti-authoritarianism, the “civil rights” movement, race riots, “gay liberation”, draft-dodging campus students and campus riots, the younger generation at war with the older one. And in the light of the papal encyclical Miranda Prorsus, Rome had adopted a far more liberal approach to Hollywood, and the Legion of Decency began to reflect this change.

Of course, the Legion’s changed stance was only more liberal in the light of its previous Papist ultra-conservatism. Conservative Romanists viewed it as liberal now, but it was hardly so to the extent that society itself had become liberalised. In fact, the Legion was forced to admit that even most Roman Catholics did not pay any attention to it. In its 1960 annual report it stated that there was “widespread apathy and indifference” among Roman Catholics towards Legion movie classifications. Certainly Americans in general mostly just ignored it as a leftover of a bygone era, even though that era had only just ended. The same was true of the Production Code Administration: Jesuit priest Daniel Lord’s 1930 Code was now viewed by most American moviegoers as an absurdity. They did not want anyone censoring what they could see.

The Legion, however, despite its now more liberal stance, still tried to some extent to stem the rising tide of films with overt sexual and violent content. ⁴¹⁹ But its days were numbered.

Psycho (1960): Gory Realism from a Romish Film-Maker

Roman Catholic film-maker, Alfred Hitchcock, again pushed the boundaries with his movie, Psycho, in 1960. It had fornication, voyeurism, and a graphic, brutal bathroom knife murder, described as “a murderous frenzy without precedent in Hollywood cinema.” ⁴²⁰ Never had such gory realism been depicted on celluloid before. There was no turning back. Hollywood had moved into new territory.

Spartacus (1960): Communist Propaganda

When the movie Spartacus was made, the Legion strongly objected to all the blood and gore in it, as well as the sexuality, nudity, and hints of bisexuality. Cuts were ordered, and when they were made the Legion gave the film an “A3” rating, meaning it was limited to adults. The Legion was also disturbed by the fact that the author of the novel on which the film was based, Howard Fast, had been a member of the Communist Party, and by the fact that scriptwriter Dalton Trumbo was an active member of the Communist Party. Certainly the very message of Spartacus – slaves rising in revolt against their masters – was dear to the hearts of Communists. And certainly the slaves were depicted as great people, whereas the masters were depicted in the opposite light. There can be little doubt that there was a not-too-subtle attempt to push Communist propaganda via this “historical” movie. In this the Legion was correct. However, it was restricted to dealing with the moral content of films rather than their possible propaganda messages. ⁴²¹

La Dolce Vita (1960): Morally Acceptable to Roman Catholics

In 1960 the Italian film, La Dolce Vita, was released, dealing with promiscuity, prostitution, suicide, and homosexuality, among other things. Although director Federico Fellini claimed the film was actually against this kind of hedonistic lifestyle, the fact is that it portrayed these things graphically. The Roman Catholic institution in Italy condemned the film, as did the Italian government itself.

But when the film was submitted to the PCA in 1961, it hardly caused a ripple! Calling it “important, though controversial”, the PCA gave its seal of approval with no cuts having been made. But the Legion took a different view. After all, the Vatican had strongly condemned the movie – which meant it would be extremely difficult for the Legion to then pass it – and also, conservative U.S. Papists were becoming increasingly disturbed by the Legion’s more liberal stance in recent times. Thomas Little knew he had to tread carefully. He wrote to his superiors saying that since the recent court rulings on the issue of movie censorship, the Legion no longer had the power to prevent the film from being shown. Not only that, he said, but any condemnation of the film would not be supported by the public.

The Roman Catholic consultors who evaluated the movie for Little were not in agreement. Some wanted an “A3” rating, including some priests, with some even calling it a “moral” film that would not harm adults. Others, however, condemned it, wanting a “C” rating, with one saying it was Communist propaganda and certainly not decent entertainment. Still others wanted a “B”, or a Special Classification rating. However, as Little wrote to the bishop, James McNulty, “the majority [76.8 percent] of our reviewers and consultors judged La Dolce Vita to be moral in theme and decent in treatment at least for mature audiences.” ⁴²²

Little, knowing he could not stop the film being shown, knowing that many Papists would go and see it anyway, and knowing that the majority of the Papist reviewers found it “moral”, tried to exercise damage control. He negotiated with the film’s distributor, Astor Pictures, not to dub the film into English, to put an 18 age restriction on it, and to be careful with the advertising. In return Little agreed to give the film a Separate Classification.

When it was released, the Legion wrote that it was “a bitter attack upon the debauchery and degradation of a hedonistic society of leisure and abundance”, and that it was “animated throughout by a moral spirit.” This was not true. Even if Fellini’s aim was to attack the hedonism of modem society, he did not have to graphically depict sexual scenes in order to do so! Books condemn hedonism without titillating the readers while doing so, and films could do the same. It was thus not animated by a moral spirit at all, and a furious Martin Quigley knew it. He fired off a letter to McNulty, copied to cardinals Spellman and McIntyre, to close associates in the Vatican itself, and to conservative Roman Catholic pressmen. In it, he said La Dolce Vita was the most immoral and sacrilegious film he had ever seen. He correctly pointed out that the typical moviegoer would see “no sardonic commentary”on modem society; all he would see would be “vivid images of… adultery, fornication, prostitution”, etc. He also strongly condemned the Jesuits for being behind the approval of La Dolce Vita, referring (as mentioned earlier) to a “Jesuit clique” who were “opposed to any condemnation of any motion picture… in this ‘pluralistic society.’” ⁴²³ He said this Jesuit clique was cosying up to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union rather than protecting people from such filth. And he warned that unless action was taken to reverse the path the Legion was now following, the Code and morality in films would soon be a thing of the past. In all of these accusations he was correct. He branded the Legion a “jungle of amateurism” which displayed “phony sophistication and shocking lack of common sense.” ⁴²⁴

McNulty fired back a response: “Mr Quigley, this is unadulterated nonsense.” He said the notion of a Jesuit conspiracy in the Legion was “without foundation.” He was of course utterly incorrect, knowingly or not.

The problem was, however, that Martin Quigley’s strong criticisms sounded more than a little hollow to those who knew that, even if he really did dislike the movie, he had other reasons for speaking out the way he did; financial reasons. For some years prior to this, Quigley Publications began to experience declining revenues, and Quigley began to earn an additional income by working as a consultant to the film-makers who were experiencing difficulties with either the PCA or the Legion. He therefore now had a financial interest in the way the Legion operated. Priest Sullivan was a thorn in Quigley’s side, with the potential to reduce the need for film producers to approach Quigley to help them resolve problems with the Legion.

Indeed, this again merely highlighted the hypocrisy of Quigley. For years he had been accused of double standards, because on the one hand this devout Roman Catholic condemned immoral movies, and yet on the other hand he advertised the movies in his magazines! Back in 1954, for example, the Catholic Times had stated that the film advertisements in Quigley’s publication, the Motion Picture Herald, violated decency, and accused Quigley of being essentially the same as a pimp. New World then said of Quigley that “the champion of decency offends against decency” with his advertising of motion pictures. And the Catholic Transcript ran the headline: “Martin Quigley is Rapped for Running Lurid Movie Ads.” ⁴²⁵

Sadly, this is precisely the kind of hypocritical moral stance which Roman Catholicism engenders in its subjects. Touting itself as the champion of morality, Rome has always had double standards, and been perfectly willing to turn a blind eye when necessary to any violations of its moral code if it will further its own aims. So it was not surprising that Martin Quigley’s own sense of morality was able to justify (at least to himself) that he was doing nothing two-faced. Roman Catholic “morality” has never been biblical morality. And in actual fact, this Roman Catholic notion of “morality” was shown by those ecclesiastics who came to Quigley’s defence and help. One was priest Francis Connell at Catholic University, who agreed with Quigley when the latter defended the advertisements in his publications by saying that his business would go under if he did not accept ads for “B”- and “C”- rated movies, and that if he could not continue his business he would also then be unable to do the good that he had always done within the film industry (a truly Roman Catholic justification if ever there was one!). Another was the cardinal, Spellman, who got priest John T. McClafferty to defend Quigley in letters written to the editors of Catholic Times and New World.

Priest John Devlin, who viewed La Dolce Vita on the orders of McIntyre, the cardinal, agreed with Quigley and told McIntyre that he did not know what standards the Legion was using anymore. He said only the Communists would benefit from the film, and that priests appeared helpless in it. Others went further still, with one magazine stating that the Legion’s response to this film showed clearly that Communists had infiltrated the “Church” of Rome. ⁴²⁶

There were certainly influential Roman Catholic leaders who supported Quigley and condemned the film, but the Roman Catholic press generally favoured the Legion’s position. And despite the lack of English subtitles the film did very well, being seen by far more than the “mature adults” the Legion said would be the only ones it would appeal to. Nor was the age restriction always firmly enforced.

Splendor in the Grass (1961): the Legion Not Dead Yet

The Legion also objected strongly to the movie Splendor in the Grass, the message of which was that if young people cannot have premarital sex, this may lead to a mental breakdown! The Legion still had enough clout to force Warner Brothers to cut a number of scenes and place an age restriction of 16 on it, and then it gave the film a “B” rating, which angered director Elia Kazan. ⁴²⁷

The Code Amended Again

In October 1961 the MPAA altered the Production Code’s stance on sodomy, stating that “[i]n keeping with the culture, the mores and the values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated [in movies] with care, discretion and restraint.” ⁴²⁸ This was an admission that films were going to be increasingly allowed to mirror society. But in truth they would go further: they would actually go beyond even what society found acceptable, pushing the boundaries and thereby lowering the morals of society till they grovelled in the gutter.

Lolita (1962): Quigley Approves, the Legion Condemns

As we have seen, Quigley, the conservative Roman Catholic, was quite the hypocrite. Ele had begun to act as a paid consultant, charging a large fee ($25 000) to read scripts so as to assist movie producers to obtain a seal and to get a favourable rating from the Legion. At about this time the film Lolita was made, about a twelve-year-old nymphomaniac and a middle-aged man. Director Stanley Kubrick hired Quigley to guide him “through the labyrinth of codes and Catholics” ⁴²⁹ so as to get approval for the film! “Thus Quigley, during the same period when he was attacking the Legion over the classification of La Dolce Vita, was toiling as a paid consultant to secure approval for a film about a pedophile who drugs a 12-year-old child in order to have sex with her and then kidnaps her so he can continue to savour her sexual favours! Quigley’s view of what was acceptable moral entertainment for the masses had undergone a radical – and remunerative – transformation.” ⁴³⁰ And his own justification for taking on this job was straight out of the warped Roman Catholic sense of morality: if he did not accept the job, the film would still be made, but without his input to “take this notorious story out of the gutter.” ⁴³¹

The PCA’s Shurlock and Vizzard were stunned at Quigley’s double standard, this man who had for so long accused them of being too lenient in enforcing the Code. The Code had been Quigley’s baby to such an extent, and here he was, helping film producers get their film around it! When Shurlock asked Quigley about this, Quigley replied: “Would you just want to turn the producers loose, to make it their way [since, as he pointed out, the film would be made anyway]? Or would you rather settle for a silk purse from a sow’s ear?” To which the stunned Shurlock replied, “[N]ow you’re talking just like us. This’s what we’ve been saying over the years, and you’ve sneered at us for it…. Now that you’re suddenly on the other side of the fence, it’s all right.” Incensed, Shurlock, in conversation with Vizzard immediately afterwards, referred to Quigley as a “pious [obscenity deleted],” and added: “Well, when he comes to us with that picture, it had better be clean or I’m going to rub his nose in it.” ⁴³² Shurlock was right about Quigley having a mask of piety, a hypocrite chasing after the money. And it was as transparently obvious as could be to many people.

So now the movie industry was treated to an astounding situation: Martin Quigley at odds with Geoffrey Shurlock – with the non-Papist Shurlock being more conservative over Lolita than the Papist Quigley! Shurlock found certain aspects of the film far too explicit, whereas, astoundingly, Quigley did not. He made several suggestions for cuts and changes, some of which the producers paid attention to and some of which they did not. They were reasonably confident, in the light of the recent liberalisation of the Legion, that they would get their film passed. And privately, Shurlock had to reluctantly agree that Quigley had done quite a job (by PCA standards, which were not of course biblical ones!) of cleaning up the film. After some further cuts and alterations to Shurlock’s satisfaction, he issued the seal of approval.

Next, the Legion reviewers viewed the film in order to issue a classification. Once again priests and “laymen” were divided. Some saw it as needing an “A3” rating as it would not harm adults, others believed it should have a “B” rating, but a larger number said it should be condemned. At a subsequent showing, this time to Legion staff, those who saw it were divided again. McNulty, the Romish bishop, cast the determining vote, saying Lolita was immoral and ordering Little to condemn it in strong terms. This he did. Quigley, for his part, pointed out that although the film was far from perfect it should not have been condemned, considering the fact that the Legion had not condemned other very objectionable films in recent times.

So here was the situation: a film about paedophilia being approved by devout Papist Quigley, yet condemned by the Papist Legion of Decency! And yet both Quigley and the Legion were utterly hypocritical!

Finally in April 1962, after further relatively minor alterations to the film, the Legion placed it in the Separate Classification, believing it had been modified sufficiently. But it told Romanists that watching it required “caution” and that it was “restricted to a mature audience.” What utter nonsense. It was pornography, plain and simple. But this was becoming a favourite term for permitting pornography: “mature audiences”. Certainly it shows that the morals of the Roman Catholic institution were as low as anyone else’s. Sullivan admitted, in an interview, that a film like Lolita would have been condemned ten years previously, but that in 1962 audiences were more “mature” and selective, exercising “more judgment”. Besides, he said, adults did not want censorship of the movies. He said that the Romish institution wanted “some type of voluntary classification by the industry and exhibitors”. The industry itself should rate its own movies. ⁴³³

This Jesuit priest had done much to get the Roman Catholic institution in the United States to adopt a more liberal approach to movies with questionable content. He would later, in the mid-1960s, write a new Legion pledge to replace the old one, which had branded movies as “a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and religion” and called on Papists not to watch movies deemed to be “vile and unwholesome.” Sullivan’s new pledge would urge Papists to promote good movies and work against bad ones “in a responsible and civic-minded manner.” The bishops would vote to adopt the new pledge, a Jesuit creation from start to finish, with Jesuit John Courtney Murray the guiding hand on Jesuit Sullivan’s shoulder. ⁴³⁴

Lolita was certainly not acceptable to many Roman Catholic reviewers, but in general it did well at the box office, reflecting how the morals of American society had sunk.

Boccaccio 70 (1962): “a Legion Rating Means Nothing”

Although studios, independent producers, and foreign moviemakers continued to submit their films to the Legion for review, it hardly seemed necessary anymore: whether or not the Legion gave its stamp of approval to a film made little difference to its success or failure with moviegoers. Why, then, did moviemakers continue to submit their movies to it? Only two reasons, really: they believed a Legion approval would cause more people to see the film, and major theatre circuits still did not like to show movies condemned by the Legion. But in 1962 all this changed radically.

In February of that year producer Carlo Ponti brought out Boccaccio 70, and this Italian production was imported into the USA by distributor Joseph E. Levine of Embassy Pictures. He submitted it to the Legion for approval. The three separate short films that made up the film, Boccaccio 70, contained strongly sexual themes and some nudity. Worse yet, they were directed by Italian Roman Catholics and one of them was an attack on censorship itself. It was all too much for the Legion. The film was shown at art-house theatres in various U.S. cities without having any PCA seal or Legion classification, but Levine wanted it shown by the major movie chains, and felt he needed both PCA and Legion approval for that. The plan was for the Legion to review it, recommend cuts, and then it would go to the PCA for a seal.

Little was not in New York at the time, and Sullivan, after reviewing the film, called for various cuts, insisted that it not be dubbed into English, and demanded an over-18 age restriction. But when Little returned and reviewed the film, he wanted it condemned outright. Levine, however, instead of complying and based on the fact that the film was doing very well in the art-house theatres, signed distribution contracts with major circuits after persuading them that they did not need Legion or PCA approval. This was astounding enough, but for the censors, worse was to come: Little and Sullivan were invited to a dinner conference hosted by the major distribution companies, but instead of the priests winning in the end, this time around Loew’s Theaters informed them that it was “no longer interested in Code seals for films which it books”, and also that “a Legion Condemned rating or no rating at all from the Legion means nothing.” ⁴³⁵ It was a huge blow to the Legion. “Boccaccio 70 was not a smash hit by Hollywood standards, but it did enough business to indicate clearly that most moviegoers by 1962-3 did not much care what the Legion or the PCA thought about a film. This had long been true, but finally it was clear even to those people who ran the movie business. For all intents and purposes the Legion was finished.” ⁴³⁶

Still, the Legion’s priests and bishops found this a very bitter pill to swallow. Once they had been all-powerful in Hollywood; but no longer. They did not go down without a fight. They did their best to get the film industry itself to adopt an age-based classification system; but this was fiercely resisted by Hollywood bosses.

The Code by 1963: “No More Taboos”

Films just continued to batter down the walls of the once-impregnable Code, so much so that by 1963 Shurlock was forced to admit: “There are now no taboos on subject matter. Movies have changed with the changes of civilization.” ⁴³⁷ In truth western civilisation was in moral freefall, and the movies had played an immense part in bringing this about.

The Cardinal (1963): Rome Depicted as the World’s Salvation from Communism

Yet even though this was the era of waning support for the Code and the Legion of Decency, it was, paradoxically, an era of some very pro- Roman Catholic movies as well.

In many movies during this era, and following the release of the papal encyclical examined earlier, Romanism was now portrayed as a powerful force for good in the world, rather than merely as the religion of underdog immigrants as it had been in the past. In particular, in that Cold War era American Romanism was portrayed as being strongly anti-Communist, in such films as The Fugitive (1947), Satan Never Sleeps (1962), and The Cardinal (1963). Almost always, in fact, when religion fought against Communism in the movies, it was the Roman Catholic religion that did so. ⁴³⁸ Not surprisingly, considering Papist/ Jesuit influence in Hollywood.

The Cardinal showed the rise of a priest to the position of cardinal, as the result of a life of devotion. When John F. Kennedy became the United States’ first Papist president in 1960, this kind of Roman Catholic self-assertiveness and international power was reflected in movies made at the time as well. In The Cardinal, the lead character, upon becoming cardinal, says “all men alike are the children of God, endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is America’s creed; that is the gospel of the Church.” ⁴³⁹ Thus the film mirrored what was happening in the world at that time: “an international Catholicism that more closely paralleled the growing American global empire” ⁴⁴⁰ of the Kennedy and post-Kennedy era. As author McDannel states in Catholics in the Movies, writing of movie fascination with Rome and the Vatican during the Kennedy era: “Catholics had what Protestants lacked (but desired): a centralized and disciplined authority structure that demanded and provided obedience, a sexuality that could be controlled such that it produced both celibate workers and fertile congregants, a powerful history that reached back two thousand years [or so they incorrectly believed, at any rate] and across continents, and a set of rituals that vigorously engaged all of the senses in order to generate spiritual ecstacy and communal solidarity. Moviemakers fully exploited the profoundly sensual, visual, and aural character of the Catholic story. With dramatic flare they presented cardinals and popes in robes and lace who never sacrificed their masculine power for their sartorial splendor. Clergy had intense friendships with other men, but their relationships never sullied their heterosexual orientation. Indeed, in this imaginary world women were inconsequential. Catholic leaders expressed their influence within the male world of politics.” ⁴⁴¹

It was, therefore, in many ways a good time for Roman Catholicism in the movies, even though the Legion of Decency was on its last legs and films were increasingly immoral. But as McDannel points out, it was most definitely an imaginary world that was being depicted. It was the kind of world Rome desired, the kind that it was as pleased as punch to see presented to both Papist and non-Papist movie audiences for it knew the indoctrinating power of the movies; but it was imaginary. Rome in the 1960s, no less than in any other era, was a cesspool of iniquity. Priests given to fornication and to sodomy were present then as now, Rome’s hand in politics was very far from clean, and even the much-loved Papist president turned out to be a lecherous womaniser. But in the movie theatres, all was rosy with Rome. There were those in Hollywood who were depicting the seven-hilled city and its devoted clerical army as the salvation of the free world from Communism.

Lilies of the Field (1963): an Ecumenical PR Triumph for Rome

In 1963 Lilies of the Field appeared, a film about East German nuns who escaped Communism, a black Baptist wanderer, and Mexican Roman Catholicism, all thrown together on the American frontier. The Papist John F. Kennedy was president, and the Second Vatican Council was in session in Rome, which, it was hoped by many Papists, would usher in a new era of openness and needed change within the Roman Catholic “Church”. Lilies of the Field was thus released in an era when Roman Catholics were being seen as equals to Protestants in the U.S., and when a more tolerant Romanism, more open to Protestantism, was hoped for by many. These themes were embodied in the movie itself. Of course, Kennedy simply showed up the kind of immorality, sexual and political, that Romanism produces in many of its subjects, and Vatican II did not accomplish what many more liberal Romanists hoped it would; but that was still a little in the future. “Out in the Arizona desert, Lilies of the Field carves out a space where ecumenical spiritual growth, new institutional identity, and liturgical experimentation can freely occur… An unlikely coterie of Protestants and Catholics in the Arizona desert works out the tensions of religion, race, and gender with the enthusiasm and exuberance of the early 1960s.” ⁴⁴²

It certainly was ecumenical, in keeping with the spirit of Vatican II, then in progress in Rome. Throughout the movie, that which supposedly is common between Romanism and Protestantism is emphasised, more than the differences. In this way the film helped to break down Protestant barriers to Romanism. In one scene, the nun beats the Baptist at quoting the Bible. Protestants were kn own as the Bible-lovers, the ones who knew the Bible and could quote it extensively – and yet here was a nun quoting it too, and to such effect that the Baptist was beaten. In truth, of course, this was all fiction rather than fact: the vast majority of Romanists are simply not familiar with the Bible and never have been, for to them it is not the sole rule of faith and practice, as it is to Bible Protestants. But the power of a movie to indoctrinate people cannot be over-emphasised, and a scene such as this had an effect far beyond that of any Protestant minister trying to explain that Roman Catholics do not love or know the Scriptures. In the minds of moviegoers a seed had been planted: the thought that the Bible was, after all, the basis of Romanism as well as of Protestantism.

A fallacy, certainly; but one which moviegoers now had in their minds.

And there were plenty of other indications of this supposed Romanist- Protestant commonality. The film shows the Baptist man teaching the German nuns to sing Baptist “tent-meeting” songs with gusto; the Baptist builds a Romish chapel; and yet despite their growing friendship and understanding of one another, he remains a Baptist and they remain Romanists. The lesson being presented: both are “Christians”, albeit of differing traditions. There is no sense whatsoever of either one being false, the other true. What a victory for ecumenism!

The film was a huge success, and the Papist press loved it. It did wonders for Roman Catholics, making them appear to be enlightened and progressive to non-Roman Catholics. Another triumph for Roman ism in Hollywood, and thus in America.

Vatican IPs “Decree on the Means of Social Communication” (1963)

The Second Vatican Council released its “Decree on the Means of Social Communication” (Inter Mirifica) in December 1963, another fundamental document on the subject. It is important to study certain aspects of it, to understand Rome’s attitude to the means of social communication, which continues to define and guide it to this very day.

Section 11 of this document states: “A special responsibility for the proper use of the means of social communication rests on journalists, writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics – all those, in a word, who are involved in the making and transmission of communications in any way whatever. It is clear that a very great responsibility rests on all of these people in today’s world: they have power to direct mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the pressure they exert.”

One can imagine the harlot Rome’s jowls slavering at the prospect of what it could do with such powerful means of mass communication! Very obviously it wanted total control over them, and still does, for by means of radio, TV and film Rome can exert immense influence over multiplied millions. Hence its desire to infiltrate its own people into key positions of power within the media.

Still from Sec. 11: “It will be for them to regulate economic, political and artistic values in a way that will not conflict with the common good. To achieve this result more surely, they will do well to form professional organisations…”

Was this directive carried out in practice? It certainly was. All one has to do is consider the very many professional Roman Catholic organisations which exist for the very purpose of regulating the economic, political and artistic values of their members: for example, the Catholic Stage Guild and the Catholic Writers Guild, both in England, and similar groups worldwide.

In Sec. 13 the following is found: “All the members of the Church should make a concerted effort to ensure that the means of communication are put at the service of the multiple forms of the apostolate without delay and as energetically as possible, where and when they are needed. They should forestall projects likely to prove harmful, especially in those regions where moral and religious progress would require their intervention more urgently.”

This paragraph plainly reveals the Romish hierarchy’s view of where the loyalties of those working in these fields should lie. They are to use their positions and the mass media to serve Rome! – “without delay and as energetically as possible”. But more than that, they are to actually ‘ forestall” (dictionary: intercept; cut off; hinder; obstruct) projects “likely to prove harmful”. By this is meant, film, TV or radio projects likely to prove harmful to the Roman Catholic “Church Should we be surprised, then, that Roman Catholicism, in the years after this document was released, was often portrayed in such good light in movies and on television? No, we should not be surprised at all. Rome’s agents, “energetically” working within the film and TV industries, saw to that.

Sec. 14 states: “The production and screening of films which provide wholesome entertainment and are worthwhile culturally and artistically should be promoted and effectively guaranteed, especially films destined for the young. This is best achieved by supporting and co-ordinating productions and projects by serious producers and distributors, by marking the launching of worthwhile films with favourable criticism or the awarding of prizes, by supporting or coordinating cinemas managed by Catholics and men of integrity.”

Sec. 14 continues: “Likewise, decent radio and television programmes should be effectively supported, especially those suited to the family. Ample encouragement should be given to Catholic transmissions which invite listeners and viewers to share in the life of the Church and which convey religious truths. Catholic stations should be established where it is opportune.”

Of course, true Christians would be wholeheartedly in support of films, radio and TV programmes which provide wholesome, decent entertainment. But what must always be understood is that Rome means something different when she uses words like these. She means, by “decent” or “wholesome entertainment”, films, radio and TV programmes which promote Roman Catholicism! Those which (in the words of this section of the document) “invite listeners and viewers to share in the life of the [Romish] Church and which convey religious [i.e. Roman Catholic] truths”. For to her way of viewing things, there can be nothing more wholesome or decent than this.

The following is a very valuable commentary from an author in New Zealand on why, despite the presence of Roman Catholics in positions of high influence in the mass media at the time when he wrote (1976), extreme violence on children’s programmes shown on TV in New Zealand did not illicit any real condemnation:

“An illustration of the Catholic Action interpretation of ‘decent radio and television programmes’ is given by a short article which appeared in the ‘Evening Post’ of 26-8-76 and which stated that ‘fourteen of the fifteen most violent American television programmes are at present being shown in New Zealand at prime television viewing times when elder children are able to watch.’ There are good reasons for this. With prolonged exposure to violence in the mass media, e.g. television, the younger generation are conditioned into accepting violence as ‘normality’ and their senses of perception become dulled. Consequently, if terrorist groups such as the Australian section of the Croatian Catholic ‘Ustashi’ – ‘Croatian Nationalists’ being half of the truth – decided to extend their training activities into New Zealand, then the non-Catholic population in particular, will be unable to grasp the sinister implications. It is interesting that our self-appointed guardian of community standards, one time Catholic nun Patricia Bartlett, is silent in regard to the continual violence in our TV programmes. Evidently it is in accordance with her ‘Christian standpoint.”’ ⁴⁴³

What this author wrote of the situation in New Zealand in 1976 could so easily have been written of almost any country in the western world at that time – and ever since. Rome utters very pious-sounding statements about the need for “decent” films and TV programmes, etc.; and yet, even in places where there has been strong Roman Catholic infiltration of the mass media, violence in children’s movies and TV programmes has always continued unchecked.

Again from Sec. 14 of the Vatican II document: “The noble and ancient art of the theatre has been widely popularised by the means of social communication. One should take steps to ensure that it contributes to the human and moral formation of its audience.”

This paragraph takes one back to the Jesuits and their use of the theatre in centuries past, as examined earlier in this book. To Rome, the theatre was only “noble” insofar as it advanced the cause of Roman Catholicism. To Rome, film, TV and radio are merely the modem versions of the theatre of old – and in this she is correct. These modem forms of communication have, as she puts it here, “popularised” the ancient theatre. As for ensuring that these things contribute to “the human and moral formation of’ those being entertained by them, Rome means, quite simply, the formation of the audience according to Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, nothing more and nothing less. She well knows the huge potential of the mass media to sway vast audiences in her favour. As the Jesuits once used the stage, so now they sought to use movies, TV and radio programmes for precisely the same purpose: indoctrination and manipulation. And yet the masses have always been too blind to see it.

Sec. 15 states: “Priests, religious and laity should be trained at once to meet the needs described above. They should acquire the competence needed to use these media for the apostolate…. To this end, schools, institutes or faculties must be provided in sufficient number, where journalists, writers for films, radio and television, and anyone else concerned, may receive a complete formation, imbued with the Christian spirit and especially with the Church’s social teaching. Actors should also be instructed and helped so that their gifts too can benefit society. Lastly, literary critics and critics of films, radio, television and the rest should be carefully prepared so that they will be fully competent in their respective spheres and will be trained and encouraged to give due consideration to morality in their critiques.”

Rome was certainly not bothering to hide its intentions! As far as she was concerned, all Romanists working in the mass media were to “use these media for the apostolate”. This was re-emphasised in Sec. 17 which states: “For the main aim of all these [Papist newspapers, films, radio and TV programmes, etc.] is to propagate and defend the truth [i.e. the “truth” according to Rome] and to secure the permeation of society by Christian [i.e. Papist] values.” And certainly such schools, faculties, etc., were established in various countries, their purpose being to chum out faithful Roman Catholic servants of their pope to work in film, radio and TV, and tilt these Romeward to the very best of their ability. For example, by 1975 it could be reported in an Australian newspaper that the Sydney radio station 2SM (“SM” standing for “St Mary’s”), which was owned by the Roman Catholic institution, had become so powerful that: “It owns 50% of… the largest programming organisation outside the U.S.A., and through it has an interest in a radio announcers’ school, concert promotions and the programming of other stations”. ⁴⁴⁴

Kiss Me Stupid (1964): Hammering the Nails into the PCA Casket

It was very evident that priests Sullivan and Little were now presiding over a far more liberalised Legion; and Shurlock at the PCA was not, as he said in 1963, going to be “holier than the pope” and fail to give a PCA seal to a film the Legion accepted. And so, when Kiss me Stupid was shown to the PCA and the Legion in 1964, the producers did not foresee any major problems, even though the film dealt blatantly and favourably with marital infidelity and prostitution. Shurlock said he would pass the film. His words were: “If dogs want to return to their vomit, I’m not going to stop them.” Jack Vizzard said Shurlock’s announcement was akin to “the sound of hammers on casket nails.” ⁴⁴⁵

Priest Little at the Legion was not so accommodating, finding much that was offensive in the film. The studio reluctantly agreed to make some changes, but these did not go far enough in Little’s opinion. When United Artists studio dug in its heels, the Legion condemned the film, calling it “morally repulsive” with “crude and suggestive dialogue” and “a leering treatment of marital and extra-marital sex”. And then the Legion expressed shock that such a film could have been granted a seal by the PCA, with Little saying, “It is difficult to understand how such approval is not the final betrayal of the trust which has been placed by so many in the organized industry’s self-regulation.” Martin Quigley stated that Kiss Me Stupid meant that the Code was now history, and “it could be blown away by a gentle zephyr.” ⁴⁴⁶

The film did not do well at the box office anyway. But even so, the Code was now, for all practical purposes, a relic of history. The hammers had driven the nails into the casket.

The Legion of Decency Changes Its Name

Martin Quigley died in 1964. By 1965 the Roman Catholic priests and bishops in charge of the Legion were well aware that the organisation was simply unacceptable to most Roman Catholics, who no longer cared much for it at all and viewed it as nothing but a censorship body. And so, in an attempt to still retain some influence, the bishops came up with a plan: they would change the Legion’s name. In November 1965 it was renamed the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures (NCOMP). Time magazine commended the Legion for the name change, referring to the old name as “arrogant and muscular”. But it was to be expected that a statement would be issued declaring that the new name did not mean that the Roman Catholic institution no longer cared about film decency; and indeed, such a statement was made by the chairman of the Episcopal Committee, John J. Krol, archbishop of Philadelphia. ⁴⁴⁷ Thereafter it was still often referred to as “the Legion”, and it still existed for the purpose of censoring movies it found objectionable by trying to get them altered. But its teeth were pulled.

Joseph Breen died in 1965, a few days after Krol announced the Legion’s change of name. And state censorship boards were dying out as well. Furthermore, as we have seen, this was also an era of changes within the Roman Catholic institution itself, including changes in its attitude to the movies.

A Rash of “Nun Movies”, Notably The Sound of Music (1965)

Various Roman Catholic or pro-Roman Catholic films, some of which were highly successful and with far-reaching influence, were made during this era as well.

“Nun movies” were particularly popular at this time. In films such as Heaven Knows, Mr. Alison (1957), The Nun’s Story (1959), The Sound of Music (1965), The Trouble with Angels (1966), Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows (1968), and Change of Habit (1969), nuns were portrayed as real human beings, real women, without being ridiculed. But there was more to Roman Catholic movies than nuns, even when they played a prominent part.

The ever-popular movie, The Sound of Music, the most commercially-successful depiction of nuns in the history of cinema, came out in 1965, and was used to show that Roman Catholicism had opposed Nazism, for the nuns rescue a family from the Nazis. ⁴⁴⁸ It was described this way: “the film is a merry chase across the Alps, full of ‘Edelweiss,’ ‘The Sound of Music,’ and ‘My Favourite Things.’ The von Trapps climb every mountain while buffoonish Nazis bumble around like hapless stooges and errant schoolboys. The whole German high command seems little match for a few giggly nuns who steal the alternator and battery cables from their jeeps and then run to the mother superior to confess their mischief.” ⁴⁴⁹ The cold hard truth was very different, as has been stated previously in this book: the Papal institution had supported Nazism, from its pope down to priests and nuns! But Hollywood was useful to indoctrinate people away from this reality, and to present a far “nicer” Roman Catholic “Church” to the world.

Of course, as seen previously, even in the final year of World War Two the trend had been set by The Bells of St. Mary s, starring Bing Crosby and Ingrid Bergman. Nun movies were big business in the late 50s and the 60s. This was a time in America where nuns were seen everywhere, running Roman Catholic schools and hospitals, etc., etc. It was good business sense for Hollywood to make films about them at a time when many Americans had constant contact with them in everyday life. But in addition, it kept Romanism in the forefront of movie audiences’ minds. ⁴⁵⁰

Paulist Priests Start Making Their Own Films

In the 1960s an order of Roman Catholic priests, the Paulist “Fathers”, established their very own film and TV production company. Known as Paulist Pictures, it went from strength to strength, and in 1989 made the movie Romero, about the murdered archbishop in El Salvador, Oscar Romero. It was distributed by a major Hollywood studio and shown in theatres across America. ⁴⁵¹

The Pawnbroker (1965): the Legion Tottering on the Edge of Its Grave

By the mid-1960s one moral issue after another had been challenged by Hollywood; but the bishops of the U.S. Roman Catholic institution decided to draw a line in the sand when it came to nudity. They ordered Little and Sullivan of the NCOMP (the old Legion) to condemn all movies containing nudity. Hypocritically, the bishops in a statement declared that “nudity is not immoral and has long been recognized as a legitimate subject in painting and sculpture”, but that it was unacceptable in movies! ⁴⁵² Either something is immoral or it is not. Nudity is certainly immoral, biblically, whether in art or in movies. But the Romish bishops have always had their own set of moral standards, which are not those of the Bible, the Word of God.

Usually, if the Legion objected, nude scenes were still removed by the moviemakers. But this changed in 1965, when Sidney Lumet’s The Pawnbroker was released in the USA, and scenes of nudity were deliberately left in the film. The movie was denied a seal by the PCA’s Geoffrey Shurlock, but the producer, Ely Landau, appealed to the MPAA board, which eventually gave the seal to the film after Landau slightly cut the length of the scenes involving nudity. The film was released, and when the Legion reviewed it a few weeks afterwards its reviewers were divided, some approving of it and others condemning it. Little did not believe the film was obscene, but said it had to be condemned because of the nudity – obeying the instructions from his superiors. Yet this was possibly the mildest condemnation of a film by the Legion in its history, according to Variety magazine. ⁴⁵³ The Legion knew that its authority and influence were almost over.

When the film opened, shockingly, a number of “Protestant” reviewers praised it and had no problem with the nudity! ⁴⁵⁴ Roman Catholics were divided over it, and over the Legion’s attitude to it. “There is no place for the ‘Legion’ type of censorship,” stated the editorial of Film Heritage, a Roman Catholic-edited film journal. It called for the Legion to abolish the Condemned rating as it was a “brutalizing form of pressure.” ⁴⁵⁵ Certainly pro-Legion reviewer William Mooring was correct when he wrote that the Code had been reduced to “a mere scrap of paper.” ⁴⁵⁶

The truth of the matter was that the Legion’s condemnation of The Pawnbroker was a further nail in its own coffin. American Roman Catholic audiences, having imbibed the American spirit of “freedom of expression”, no longer wanted the Legion to censor what they could see, and they turned out in large numbers to see the film. Besides, Rome itself was now clearly more broad-minded when it came to scenes previously condemned as “immoral” in movies. This sent conflicting messages to the Papist population. And then too, because the film was about a Jewish Holocaust survivor, and because it was kn own that the “Church” of Rome had not stood up to Nazi aggression against the Jews and had even, in fact, colluded with Hitler, Rome’s condemnation of the film was seen by many to be yet further evidence of its anti-Semitism, ft was plain to see that the Legion was tottering on the edge of its own grave.

Vatican II and Movies

The Second Vatican Council was held from 1962 to 1965, one of its purposes being to “modernise” certain aspects of Roman Catholicism to make it more appealing to the modem age. But in doing so, it actually lost much of its former glory and mystique in the eyes of millions of Romanists. Latin was rejected in favour of the vernacular, priests and nuns became more “user-friendly”, with nuns in particular often casting off their austere dress code and appearing in public as “regular girls”, Papist rituals were downplayed to make Romanism more appealing to Protestants in the ecumenical age, etc. But as a natural consequence, as Romanism in the world lost much of what had made it distinct from other “churches”, it also lost much of its distinctiveness in the movies. Not only that, but now that censorship was virtually dead, moviemakers were free to make movies that attacked Roman Catholic beliefs if they liked. And many of them liked – very much so.

As for priest Little himself, he changed with the changes occurring as a result of Vatican II. As has happened to countless other men through the ages, he told Jack Vizzard that in his younger years things appeared as “stark blacks and whites”, but with age “issues seemed less simple and more complex, and assumed various shades of gray.” After the change of the Legion’s name, he said the Legion had developed a reputation for being a “stubborn, antiquarian, unrealistic defender of Catholic movie goers”, and that this was not how it should function in the aftermath of Vatican II. ⁴⁵⁷ In truth, Roman Catholics had changed, and the Papal institution itself now wanted to “move with the times”. Rome speaks haughtily of “defending eternal morals”, but is ever ready to embrace the shifting sands of the times and adjust its “morality” accordingly. The true moral law of God is eternal, and does not change; and true Christians do not suit their morality to the times they are living in. But Rome will do anything to keep its members.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1965): Priestly Morals in the Gutter with Everyone Else’s

When it was announced that a film version of the Broadway play, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? would be made, the Legion once again came out with guns blazing, because it was laced with some of the most filthy language and overt sexual dialogue to which audiences had ever been subjected. When Geoffrey Shurlock read the script in October 1965, he told Warner Brothers that a PCA seal would only be given once all profanity and sexual dialogue had been cut. The reason Warner Brothers wanted a seal and Legion approval as well, even though they knew films were now doing very well commercially without them, was that this particular film had been a big-budget one for the studio, and if Warner wanted to make a profit it was felt that the approval of the PCA and the Legion were still needed. The studio stated that it would make the film an “adults only” one, and that it would submit it to the NCOMP (the Legion) ahead of the MPAA appeal.

The film was shot, however, with the language pretty much intact, and the PCA, after reviewing it in May 1966, did not give it the seal. Shurlock, however, told Warner to appeal his decision to the MPAA board, which was done.

As yet another indication of how much the Legion had changed from the old days, although there was no consensus on the part of the consultors who reviewed it, a sizeable majority voted against condemning the film.

Those who favoured it, including some (celibate?) priests, described it as valid adult entertainment, despite its foul language and sexual dialogue! It was clear that the morals of many priests and Papists were no different from those of society around them. Warner gave the assurance that no one under 18 unless accompanied by a parent would be allowed to buy a ticket, and the film was classified “A4” by the Legion (adults only). In June 1966 the MPAA board met to rule on the film, and a seal was granted.

“However, when Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton hit the screen screaming and tearing at each other with a hateful vengeance [in Who .V Afraid of Virginia Woolf?] it was obvious that the movies had been changed forever. No longer were they going to be reigned [sic] in by codes.” ⁴⁵⁸ Quigley’s son, Martin Quigley, Jr., declared in the Motion Picture Herald that the Code was now dead. ⁴⁵⁹ The supreme irony, however, was this: “[Roman Catholic] Church pressure had created the PCA in 1934, and, thirty-two years later, the [Roman Catholic] church played a major role in hastening its demise”, when the Legion granted an “A4” rating to this movie.

“The decision to award Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? an A-IV rating touched off the biggest outpouring of protest letters in the history of the Legion and NCOMP.” ⁴⁶⁰ This just showed that despite the liberalisation within much of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic institution, there was still a huge bedrock of conservative Roman Catholics who were utterly opposed to the new direction being taken. The NCOMP was referred to as the “NCOMPetents” by one group of angry Romanists. Martin Quigley, Jr. wrote to Spellman, the cardinal, asking him why it was that such things as blasphemy, profanity, and obscenity were now acceptable to the “Church” when displayed in movies. Sullivan the Jesuit was kept busy replying to over a thousand letters about the film. In writing to a bishop, he said that despite the fact the film was controversial it attempted to make “a moral statement about our times consistent with a Christian viewpoint on life.” What an astounding statement! This aptly encapsulated the liberal Romanist notion of “morality”, so far removed from the Word of God. That such a film could be justified, even partially, as being “consistent with a Christian viewpoint of life” speaks volumes about the vile, false “Christianity” of Roman Catholicism. It also shows how the Jesuits had changed course, changed tactics, and swung the “Church” to the left when it came to films.

But then Sullivan went even further, showing how deeply he had himself imbibed liberal Romanism and jettisoned the conservative Romanism of the pre-Vatican II days: he wrote that Pius XII’s encyclical, Miranda Prorsus, had opened the way for a more “tolerant”, open- minded view of movies, and stated that “we cannot intrude upon what is alone their [adult Roman Catholics’] right and obligation, namely, the exercise of individual responsibility in conscience.” ⁴⁶¹ This may have reflected the general American (and even western) attitude to “freedom of expression” and “freedom of conscience”, but it must be remembered, firstly, that it is not the truly Christian one, for true Christians do not seek to be entertained by filth (thus showing, yet again, the unchristian nature of Romanism); and secondly, it shows the base hypocrisy of Rome, which has always been against liberty of conscience and freedom of expression, and yet – when it suits its purposes – it speaks in favour of the very things it opposes! Vatican II and its aftermath often produced statements like this from the lips of Roman Catholics, so as to attract more people to the “Church” and to hold on to those who had imbibed such notions from the America they lived in.

Darling (1965): the Legion Sinks Still Further

The astounding about-face of the Legion (the NCOMP) was seen again when the 1965 British film, Darling, was shown in America. Although it was about a woman who leaves her husband, has various affairs, participates in an orgy, appears nude, has an abortion, etc., the NCOMP, after getting a few seconds of nudity cut from the film, awarded it Best Picture of 1965, a film of “artistic vision and expression”! The old Legion was clearly nothing like it had once been. And Romish publications reviewed it very positively as well. ⁴⁶² There were protests from many Romanists, however, showing again that the “Church” hierarchy was moving faster than many in the pews.

The Code Replaced by CARA: Censorship Now Truly Dead

In 1966 Jack Valenti became president of the MPAA. He was an Italian Roman Catholic. But he also loathed censorship of any kind, from any source whatsoever, and he planned to destroy the Code. He said, “It was plain that the old system of self-regulation, begun with the formation of the MPAA in 1922, had broken down. From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President’s office, I had sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this stem, forbidding catalogue of ‘Dos and Don’ts’ the odious smell of censorship, I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment.” ⁴⁶³

And junk it he did. In September 1966 Valenti’s new Code came in. It was not merely a revision of the previous Code, but amounted to a brand new one. “Expunging the last vestiges of Quigley-Lord-Breen moral absolutism, the new document stressed opposition to ‘censorship and classification by law’ and delegated the parents of America as the final ‘arbiters of family conduct.’… The official MPAA press release explained, ‘this revised code is designed to keep in closer harmony with the mores, the culture, and the moral sense and the expectations of our society.’” ⁴⁶⁴ It certainly was, for society had changed, and not for the better. And now that the floodgates were opened, Hollywood would cause it to sink even faster into a vortex of moral relativism and degraded filth.

Instead of regulations, the new policy was to issue ratings: classi fications of films according to their content. And so it was that, in November 1968, the Production Code was replaced by a rating system developed by the Motion Picture Association of America. It was called the Code and Rating Administration (CARA). Geoffrey Shurlock of the PCA retired, to be replaced by Eugene Dougherty, a Roman Catholic. And priest Little retired from the NCOMP, to be replaced by priest Sullivan.

The original CARA ratings were as follows: “G” (Suggested for General Audiences); “M” (Suggested for Mature Audiences); “R” (Restricted – no persons under 16 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian); and “X” (Persons under 16 Not Admitted). Krol, the archbishop, was in favour of the new age classification system, and he sounded like priest Sullivan (quoted above) and even like a committed American when he declared that the Roman Catholic institution was committed to the U.S. Bill of Rights, “no part of which is more important to the American people than that freedom of utterance which includes artistic expression.” ⁴⁶⁵ This Popish archbishop’s supposed fondness for the Bill of Rights was a sham. Rome has never been in favour of American freedoms, and has opposed and warred against them from the very beginning. American freedoms have always stood in the way of Rome’s authoritarian expansionist ambitions. So a statement like this was made for reasons of expedience, to fool the people, to make it seem as if the “Church” of Rome was pro-American, and thereby to increase its own power in the United States.

As the years went by, the CARA ratings system would be altered. But consider this: “CARA is a secret society, guided only by the gut instincts and inchoate feelings of a membership whose names, qualifications, and grade-point scale are a mystery to all save the inner sanctum of the MPAA – a true star chamber.” ⁴⁶⁶ It is in fact so secretive that Kirby Dick, director of a documentary entitled This Movie Is Not Yet Rated, which came out in 2006, actually hired private detectives to learn the identities of the board members!

Are true Christians able to trust the ratings system? Absolutely not! These ratings should never be used by believers as their guide. It is the height of foolishness when naive parents look at a movie’s rating and say, “Oh, this one will be great for the children – it says ‘All.’” Christians should never, ever entrust a faceless, nameless, essentially secret society to tell them that a particular movie is safe for their children! Christians are to raise their children according to the Word of God – not according to the world. They must expect the world to have a very different understanding of what is wholesome family entertainment! The world’s ideas of morality, right and wrong, family, entertainment and decency are not the same as the Christian believer’s. The world is not governed by the Word of God.

In effect, with the replacement of the Code by the ratings system, censorship was now dead. Anew era had dawned for the movie industry. It would not be an easy one for the Roman Catholic institution. Rome would not have things all her way as had pretty much been the case throughout Hollywood’s “Golden Age”.

“The code was dead, censorship was dead, and the cultural war that had raged between the Catholic church and the movie industry was, at least temporarily, over.” ⁴⁶⁷

The NCOMP Continues to Liberalise

The NCOMP was hardly recognisable, now, as the Legion of the past, and Romish media support for movies which once would have been condemned outright was so enthusiastic that it can only be described as a total about-face. “Subjects that in the past had aroused the church’s ire were no longer an issue” ⁴⁶⁸ – including such subjects as foul language, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Even the Legion’s old automatic opposition to any nudity at all was greatly relaxed now. And even when Romanism itself was shown in a somewhat poor light in a film, this was not automatically condemned by the NCOMP. Furthermore, priests or nuns having sexual affairs was no longer a subject off-limits either! These were astounding times.

The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968): Promoting a Socialistic Romanism and Foreshadowing John Paul II

A film that only makes sense in the light of the post-Vatican II “Church” was The Shoes of the Fisherman. In this film, a Popish cleric, Kiril Lakota, is ransomed from the Gulag Archipelago, taken to Rome, and is in the conclave when the pope of Rome dies suddenly. The film’s hero gets elected as the first non-Italian pontiff in four centuries. In these aspects, the movie (unknowingly, of course) anticipated the 1978 election of just such a non-Italian pope, Karol Wojtyla from Poland (who almost uncannily shared a name sounding very similar to that of the film’s character), who became John Paul II. Furthermore, in the film, in a summit meeting with the Soviet Union Communist premier and the Chinese Communist leader, this pope averts a nuclear war, caused by a famine, between the two Communist states by pledging to give the vast resources of the Roman Catholic “Church” – its land, its buildings and art treasures – to alleviate hunger. The film was clearly a promotion of a radical new, Socialistic brand of Romanism which in the wake of Vatican II was sweeping through the Romish institution. Although the real non-Italian pope, John Paul II, elected ten years after this film was released, never did anything quite so radically and Socialistically left-wing, he certainly was a “people’s pope” who held firmly to his own brand of Catholic-Communism. ⁴⁶⁹

Rosemary’s Baby (1968): Marking the Beginning of Hollywood’s Satanic Season

This horror film of demon possession, Roman Polanski’s screen version of an Ira Levin novel, described by one as “a highly serious lapsed- Catholic fable”, ⁴⁷⁰ centres on Rosemary, a young Irish-American ex- Roman Catholic girl who nevertheless cannot escape being haunted by images from her Roman Catholic childhood. She becomes impregnated by the devil during a Satanic black mass.

It is significant that in the Hollywood of the post-Code era, Roman Catholic girls were so often the focus of interest from Satan. There are a number of reasons for this, notably that Romanism’s teaching on sex, sexuality, marriage, etc., has always been distorted, closely associated with confessionals, priestly absolution, and feelings of deep guilt and shame. In the popular mind and thus in Hollywood, Roman Catholic girls have so often been divided into either pious anti-sex maidens or morally loose harlots who rebel against the restraints of their religion, knowing they can always just go to confession and put it all right.

In the black mass, during a realistic dream, Rosemary is tied down to the altar by Satanists, all of whom are Roman Catholics (including John and Jackie Kennedy), and Satan impregnates her. The impregnation by the devil is not a dream, but real. She is comforted by the pope of Rome himself, who forgives her, and she kisses his ring.

Asked why all the dream figures during her impregnation by the devil were Romanists, Roman Polanski said that this was because Rosemary was an ex-Romanist, and her associations in such circumstances would be people who represent married Roman Catholicism to her. But this explanation is hardly the whole of it: clearly, this film was a frontal assault on the religion of Rome. In the film, the cover of Time magazine which stated, “God is Dead!” is very prominent; and clearly the film itself was a strong statement to that effect. It was a film in which Satan was made out to be victorious.

It is chilling indeed that Roman Polanski had wanted his own wife, Sharon Tate, to play the part of Rosemary (it was eventually played by Mia Farrow); and Tate reportedly was the one who came up with the idea for the scene in which Rosemary is raped and impregnated. Not that long afterwards, on August 9, 1969, when Sharon Tate was eight and a half months pregnant, she and her unborn baby were brutally murdered by Susan Atkins and Tex Watson, two disciples of Charles Manson. Screenwriter Wojciech Frykowski was at Sharon Tate’s home at the time and was also murdered, and when he asked Tex Watson who he was and what he was doing there, Watson replied, “I’m the devil, and I’m here to do the devil’s business.” ⁴⁷¹ Satan is all too horrifyingly real.

This was, truly, the beginning of Hollywood’s assault on Roman Catholicism via the medium of horror films in which Satan emerges victorious. The late 1960s, and the decade of the 1970s, was a time of increasing interest in witchcraft, Satanism, black magic, and all things occultic, especially among the disillusioned youth of the “flower power” generation. Partly, Hollywood simply plugged into this fascination with all things evil and dark, but partly, Hollywood itself led the way into it, as it threw off the constraints of the Papist- controlled Production Code years and went into attack mode against all things Papist. And in the process, it was also assaulting morality, decency, and the truth of the Gospel which Romanism had perverted for so long, but which was associated in the popular mind with the Romish religion.

The Legion Limps On

The NCOMP soldiered on, under priest Sullivan, for some years more, a mere shadow of its former self. When it condemned certain films, very often the Papist press ignored it and recommended what the Legion had condemned.

In 1970 the NCOMP, together with the National C ouncil of Churches (NCC), was well aware that Hollywood was no longer paying any attention to their concerns. In a joint statement, they said theatres were not enforcing the age restrictions on movies; movies containing sex and violence were being classified as “G” (all ages admitted) and “GP” (all ages admitted, parental guidance suggested); etc. But the MPAA did nothing, and so in 1971 the NCOMP and NCC withdrew their support for the MPAA’s rating system. ⁴⁷² But the truth was, “No one in the industry seemed to care. At a time when more than half of all U.S. Catholic women reported practicing birth control, a much more serious sin in the eyes of the church than attending a condemned film, it was hard to believe that the laity was paying much attention to NCOMP’s evaluations. Where once the threat of a Legion condemnation could bring the movie moguls to heel, news that NCOMP had condemned 20 percent of the films it reviewed in 1971 caused hardly a ripple within the industry.” ⁴⁷³

It was an even greater blow to the NCOMP that “Church” leaders and so many Roman Catholics in general were simply ignoring it. The faculty and students of a Jesuit college, Creighton University, invited the producer of a movie that had been condemned by the NCOMP to screen it on campus; and the film critic for Our Sunday Visitor, an influential Romish publication, placed two movies in his 1971 list of the ten best films which had been condemned by the NCOMP! ⁴⁷⁴

The End of Irish Roman Catholic Domination in Hollywood

Irish Papists had always been viewed by Anglo-Saxon Protestants as lazy, given to drunkenness, and fanatically devoted to the Roman Catholic “Church” – a stereotype which, nevertheless, in general terms contained quite a bit of truth. But the power of Hollywood helped greatly to change this perception, for as has been shown in this book, Irish-American Roman Catholics were very involved in the movie industry from its earliest years. And by the mid-twentieth century they had managed to swing public opinion in their favour via Hollywood movies that portrayed them very positively, movies such as Boys Town, Going My Way, and a number of others. In fact, Irish-American Roman Catholics were the movie industry’s favourite ethnic group from the late 1930s through to the 1950s. Although Jews owned the movie studios, there were important Irish-American directors, actors and actresses during this period; and in addition it was Irish-American Roman Catholics who made and enforced the Motion Picture Production Code, as was seen, the enforcing being backed by the powerful Legion of Decency, which was under Irish-American control. The Jewish studio owners kn ew on which side their bread was buttered, for American cities, where moviemakers earned the most money, were heavily Roman Catholic, and if they did not toe the line when it came to Roman Catholic standards of morality, the Legion could organise boycotts that could ruin a film’s success financially.

But in addition to Irish Papist dominance of Hollywood, there was another reason why those who made the movies (even when they were predominantly Jewish) were usually very happy to make use of Irish- American Romanists as characters in their movies. This was because, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Irish-Americans were in a special position as far as immigrants were concerned: they were not yet fully accepted into American society, but they were more accepted than other immigrant communities, being English-speaking and less “different” than other immigrants; they had been in the United States longer than most other immigrants; and they were recognised by other, newer immigrant communities (such as Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans, also both Roman Catholic in religion) as the leaders of all immigrants. This was not by accident: Irish-Americans had deliberately positioned themselves as leaders via their militant, proud brand of American Romanism, which proved very attractive to the newer Romish immigrants – Poles, Italians and French – who thus formed with the Irish a larger American Roman Catholic group, yet always with the Irish in charge. And as the twentieth century progressed Irish-Americans ascended the social ladder, becoming very powerful in many aspects of American life, including politically.

Even Jewish-Americans recognised this leadership role of the Irish: “Hollywood made over forty films pairing Irish Catholics and Jews between 1910 and the early 1930s, for example, and almost all of them taught the same lesson: the easiest way for Jews or any other new immigrant people to become Americanized was to marry, enter into partnership with, or even adopt an Irish Catholic.” ⁴⁷⁵

These, then, are the factors behind the dominance of Irish-American Papists in Hollywood during this era. But it all changed in the 1960s. When the Motion Picture Production Code was dropped, and the Legion of Decency lost its influence, the huge power of Irish-American Romanism in Hollywood came to an end. The 1960s were also a time of massive social change in the United States, as indeed throughout the world, and a new generation of restless, directionless young people, stirred up by deliberate Communist propaganda in their music, ⁴⁷⁶ strung out on drugs and sold out on “free love”, turned against the authority structures of their parents, the government and the “church”. These youngsters included large numbers of Irish-Americans, who turned against the religion and the restraints of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Prominent Irish-American writers of that era wrote much against what had gone before. And here it was: the root of all that was wrong with Irish-Americanism, according to these young writers, was the Roman Catholic “Church”. “For almost all members of the new generation of Irish American Catholic writers, the Catholic church lay at the root of all the repression, hypocritical pieties, deadened thought, and narrow ethnocentrism that plagued Irish Catholic America.” ⁴⁷⁷

The tragedy is that they were right, to an extent even greater than they knew. No matter how long it takes, there is always a reaction against repression and oppression. The French Revolution was just such a reaction against centuries of domination and oppression by the Papal institution in France; and the 1960s youth rebellion was another one. And just as the French Revolution went to shocking excesses, so did the 1960s counter-culture rebellion. Revolting against the oppression, the stifling of intellectual thought, the hatred, the racism of Roman Catholicism and other forms of false “Christianity”, the youth of that generation dived headlong into sexual promiscuity, drugs, perverse music, and Communist philosophy and thought. With the ignorance of youth, they were pawns in the hands of the Marxists and they did not even know it. Their hatred for “institutional religion” and all forms of control made them cannon fodder for the Communist revolutionaries quietly going about their business behind the scenes.

Hollywood was not slow to jump on the bandwagon. Indeed, it can be argued – successfully – that to a very great extent Hollywood was used, particularly by Jewish Communists, to spearhead this youth rebellion and thereby promote Communist ideology across young America. Hollywood had changed: the Papist-controlled Production Code was gone, and new men were running the show.