Reading Time: 510 minutes

CHAPTER TWELVE
THE 1970s: ROME UNDER ATTACK, BUT FIGHTS BACK

Up until now Hollywood had been viewed, by the Papal hierarchy, as a great and powerful tool to sway the masses in Rome’s direction, but now all that had changed. What was Rome to do? How would she fight back? Could she even fight back?

Italian Papist Influence Replaces Irish Papist Influence in Hollywood

Another ethnic immigrant group now rose to prominence in Hollywood in the 1970s, replacing Irish-American Roman Catholic dominance: Italian-American Roman Catholic influence was now on top. There are many reasons for this massive change, not least among them the fact that Italian-Americans were perceived as being more emotional, more suspicious of authority, and thus more representative of what young Americans were feeling and expressing in the counter-culture decades of the 1960s and 1970s. The Mafia, the Mob, the Brotherhood, the Black Hand, the Cosa Nostra, the Underground, etc. – these all became favourite Hollywood themes, for they never failed to attract audiences who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for films about such things. And Italian gangsterism in America was always inextricably tied up with Italian Roman Catholicism. In Hollywood’s Little Italy, “Behind every plaster-of-paris statue of the Madonna there lurked a Sicilian hitman intent on his vendetta… every household shrine contained at least one votive candle burning for a mafiosi…. Virtually any Italian gangster of note could count on several lavish film biographies and a television series or two. A1 Capone, Joe Valachi, Lucky Luciano, and Joe Columbo became full-fledged media superstars.” ⁴⁷⁸

By this time, the Roman Catholicism of a place like New York was a very strange mix. Actually, it was hardly a mix at all, considering that the two main elements of it did not blend all that well. The situation was this: a Romish “clergy” dominated by Irish-Americans, and a Romish “laity” dominated by Italian-Americans. And Hollywood loved this dichotomy between what was perceived as Irish Romanist puritanism and dogmatism, and Italian Romanist sensuality and wayward sexual behaviour.

Certainly, the Irish Romanist immigrants of the past had come to dominate the priestly positions of the American Roman Catholic “Church”, and had taught abstinence before marriage, purity within marriage, and sexual self-denial for those who entered the priesthood or the convent – even if in practice they knew such things were so often not adhered to, and even if in practice they themselves were far from morally pure (as the scandal of tens of thousands of sexual predator-priests abusing children, which broke in the 1990s and gained such global momentum afterwards, has proved beyond doubt). ⁴⁷⁹ Italian Romanist immigrants, however, were not as rigid, and far more openly sensuous. “To Italians, Irish Catholicism seemed to be severe, doctrinaire, unemotional, and conservative; to the Irish, Italian Catholics were excessively superstitious, overly influenced by folk customs, fatalistic, almost pagan,” wrote one chronicler. ⁴⁸⁰

And all of this Italian Romanism was encapsulated in four movies of the 1970s in particular, all of which were about Italian-Americans: The Godfather (1972), The Godfather: Part II (1974), Rocky (1976), and Saturday Night Fever (1977).

And along with the rise of Italian-American Papists in Hollywood films and the fall of Irish-American Papist dominance, Irish-American Papists began to be portrayed in the movies and on TV as corrupt, racist, given to drunkenness, and hypocritically religious. This is how they were portrayed in such films as Joe (1970), Serpico (1973), Ragtime (1981), The Pope of Greenwich Village (1984), and L.A. Confidential (1997); and in such TV shows as Homicide: Life on the Street (1993- 1999), The Fighting Fitzgeralds (2001), etc.

The pendulum had swung back: once again, Irish-American Papists were being viewed as they had been before Hollywood had done so much to give them a make-over.

Another Important Vatican Document

A very important document was released by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Instruments of Social Communication in January 1971, entitled “The Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication” (Communio et Progressio). Let us study some aspects of this document.

Section 26 states: “If public opinion is to emerge in the proper manner, it is absolutely essential that there be freedom to express ideas and attitudes.” This sentence is designed to mislead the uninformed, to make them think that the “Church” of Rome is in favour of freedom of expression and ideas. It has never been in favour of these or any other freedoms, as its long history amply demonstrates with all the evidence one could desire. And in fact, this section immediately continues as follows: “In accordance with the express teaching of the second Vatican Council it is necessary unequivocally to declare that freedom of speech for individuals and groups must be permitted so long as the common good and public morality be not endangered.” Ah! This gives the game away, but sadly not to the masses of uninformed, who would see nothing sinister in this sentence, coming as it does immediately after the one about freedom of expression and ideas. Many would read this one and thi nk to themselves, “Yes, this is true; freedom of speech cannot be granted if it harms the common good and public morality.” But what does Rome mean by “the common good”? Commenting on this very section of the Vatican document, author D.J. Beswick correctly explains the Papistical meaning behind these words:

“We have seen that the requirement of not conflicting with the common good is equivalent to acting in accordance with the instructions and directions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It is thus easy to see how such freedom of speech is to be permitted ‘so long as the common good and public morality be not endangered’. In practical terms, what this means is that freedom of speech is to be permitted so long as there is no public criticism of the Catholic Church or Catholic social policy, or in other words one can criticise anything or anyone provided one doesn’t tread on Catholic toes.” ⁴⁸¹

Thus Rome sought to control freedom of speech and freedom of expression, by allowing these things as long as Roman Catholicism or any of its works was not criticised through the mass media. Of course, in practice Rome was only partially successful in achieving this goal; but the point is that this is Rome’s stated goal, and she will work constantly for the day when she can totally manipulate and control the mass media to her advantage all over the world.

Sec. 29 is very revealing: “The process of promoting what is sometimes called a ‘propaganda campaign’, with a view to influencing public opinion, is justified only when it serves the truth, when its objectives and methods accord with the dignity of man, and when it promotes causes that are in the public interest. These causes may concern either individuals or groups, one’s own country or the world at large.”

Rome, of course, had been relentlessly pushing her own “propaganda campaign” via TV and the movies for decades when this was written, and she still is. This paragraph was an attempt to justify this. Considering the fact that Rome believes herself to be the sole propagator of the truth, and the sole and true defender of it, when she states that a propaganda campaign must “serve the truth” to be justified, this simply means the propaganda campaign must serve the interests of the Roman Catholic institution! As far as she is concerned, “causes that are in the public interest” are causes that are in Rome’s interest; for she believes the entire world must submit to her authority.

Following on from this clever Jesuitical reasoning, which the general public would never be able to see through, Sec. 30 states: “Some types of propaganda are inadmissable. These include those that harm the public interest or allow of no public reply. Any propaganda should be rejected which deliberately misrepresents the real situation, or distorts men’s minds with half truths, selective reporting or serious omissions, and which diminishes man’s legitimate freedom of decision.”

Terms do not mean what the dictionary may say they mean; they mean whatever those using them choose for them to mean. In this paragraph, Rome shows its antipathy towards any “propaganda” that is not its own propaganda (which she justified using in Sec. 29, as seen above). It is only Roman Catholic propaganda which, as far as Rome is concerned, ‘serves the truth” and is “in the public interest”; therefore, any viewpoint which differs from her own is seen to be “propaganda… which deliberately misrepresents the real situation, or distorts men’s minds with half truths, selective reporting or serious omissions.” The fact that Roman Catholics in the mass media deliberately misrepresent the real situation, and distort men’s minds with half truths, selective reporting and omissions is fine as far as Rome is concerned, because, as it has stated, Roman Catholic propaganda “serves the truth” and “promotes causes in the public interest.” As Beswick commented, “The Atheist-Communists use the same circular reasoning.” He wrote in addition: “if large scale Communist propaganda represents ‘Communist brainwashing’, then what does large scale Catholic propaganda represent? We have seen that the promoting of a propaganda campaign ‘with a view to influencing public opinion, is justified only when it serves the truth’, but this tells us nothing, because all propaganda campaigns, whether carried out by Atheist Communists, Roman Catholics or some other ideology, are claimed to serve the truth and promote causes that are in the public interest.” ⁴⁸²

Sec. 42 states: “But the right to information is not limitless. It has to be reconciled with other existing rights…. There is the right of secrecy which obtains if necessity or professional duty or the common good itself requires it. Indeed, whenever the public good is at stake, discretion and discrimination and careful judgment should be used in the preparation of news.”

So: when receiving news via any Roman Catholic or pro-Romanist news source (newspapers, radio, television), one can never be certain one is receiving the whole story. Take, for instance, the centuries- old sexual abuse of children by Romish priests. It had been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years before it became an international scandal in the 1990s and the 2000s. Was it ever fully or properly reported on by Roman Catholic media sources prior to that? No. Reason: Rome did not judge such news as being “in the interests of the public good”. Rather, it saw such information as requiring “discretion and discrimination and careful judgment”, for “the public good was at stake”. But by the “public good”, Rome means whatever is good for Rome!

“Thus we see that secrecy is to be used when the ‘common good’ requires it, and since Catholic Action is working for the ‘common good’, then secrecy is to be used when the machinations of Catholic Action require it. The complete lack of public awareness of Catholic Action shows that this directive is faithfully applied.” ⁴⁸³

Now for a very revealing paragraph. Sec. 106 states: “As represent atives of the Church, Bishops, priests, religious and laity are increasingly asked to write in the press, or appear on radio and television, or to collaborate in filming. They are warmly urged to undertake this work, which has consequences that are far more important than is usually imagined.”

In obedience to this directive, priests were seen to be acting as advisors for Hollywood movies, even the most diabolical, gruesome and sexually explicit, if it was believed they would advance the cause of Roman Catholicism thereby. Some even became actors themselves. This will be well demonstrated a little further on in this book, when we examine the movie, The Exorcist.

Sec. 145 reads as follows: “Catholic associations for the cinema should collaborate with their counterparts in the other media in endeavours to plan, produce, distribute and exhibit films imbued with religious principles. With discrimination, they should also use for religious teaching all the new developments in this field which make inexpensive productions possible. These include gramophone records, audio and video-tape recorders, video-cassettes and all the other machines that record and play back either sound or static or moving images.”

Of course, vast strides have been made in these fields since this was written; but just as the Roman Catholic institution made great use of these now old-fashioned forms of equipment, so today it makes great use of the modem successors of those old records, tape recorders, etc.

Pieces of Dreams (1970): Hollywood Attacks Priestly Celibacy

In the post-Vatican II world and in the midst of the iniquitous sexual revolution and anything-goes philosophy of the 1960s, which swept up an entire generation of disillusioned youth throughout the western world, literally thousands of priests left the “Church” of Rome, unable to accept or promote Rome’s teachings on abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, papal infallibility, etc. For them, the world had moved on and the “Church” had been left behind, stuck in an antiquated morality that as far as they were concerned was out of touch with the realities of the modem world. In particular, these young priests rejected priestly celibacy as old-fashioned and unnecessary.

Hollywood, of course, was not slow to take up these themes, producing movies which inevitably showed priests having affairs (often with nuns) and then leaving their “Church”. This is precisely what occurs in Pieces of Dreams.

The theme was very real. These things were happening all the time. But of course they had always happened, throughout the centuries. The only difference was that in the decade of the 1960s and afterwards, it was out in the open far more, and thousands of ex-priests were not ashamed to admit it.

M*A*S*H (1970): the Roman Catholic Religion Ridiculed

Ring Lardner received an Oscar for the screenplay for M*A*S*H. A quarter of a century before, he had refused to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities regarding his possible affiliation to the Communist Party, and now he was rewarded for a film which was not only a criticism of America’s involvement in wars but also an outright attack on religion, in particular the Roman Catholic religion. Robert Altman, the director, was a Roman Catholic, but even so M*A*S*H was “the first major American movie openly to ridicule belief in God – not phony belief; real belief’, according to reviewer Roger Greenspun of the New York Times , ⁴⁸⁴ Clearly Altman was a very disillusioned Romanist. Romish chaplains were depicted as fools, Romish sacraments were mocked, and sexual sin was glorified. Bible- reading, praying characters were ridiculed. Sex, in fact, replaced religion in the film. Sex, in essence, was the religion, just as it was the religion of multitudes of young people of that era.

The Godfather (1972): Rome’s Mafia Connections Shown

Hollywood’s attitude to Rome had now changed dramatically. With no pro-Roman Catholic Production Code to live up to, directors and producers were free to make any movies they liked, and to attack any and all religion – including the Romish religion – freely. And they did so with a vengeance, depicting such themes as intrigue, murder, corruption, sex and much more as being closely connected with the Roman Catholic “Church”.

In 1972 The Godfather was released, to be followed by The Godfather: Part II in 1974. These films became icons for devoted moviegoers. In them, Romanism and the organised Italian Mafia criminal underworld in America are constantly interwoven and juxtaposed, with the crimes committed in the film being linked with solemn Romish rituals. These films have been interpreted as follows: “From wedding to baptism in The Godfather, from first communion to a final prayer at the hour of death in Godfather II, organized religion and organized crime reveal themselves as two faces of a single, blood-stained coin.” “Catholicism is revealed as another racket, another set of opportunities to gain advantage by lying to yourself and to others, another hand-kissing hierarchy of absolute power”. ⁴⁸⁵ It seems a huge stretch to believe that it may only have been the intention of the movie’s maker to interweave Romanism because the characters in the movie were Italians and thus Romanism was an integral part of their lives, and not for any sinister purpose of portraying the Romish religion as evil in itself. Certainly the movies’ director, Francis Ford Coppola, a Roman Catholic, is on record as having said, “I decided to include some Catholic rituals in the movie, which are part of my Catholic heritage…. I had never seen a film that captured the essence of what it was like to be an Italian American.” ⁴⁸⁶ But he was not being totally forthright in saying this. The fact is that Romanism was depicted as being integrally connected with evil Italian Mafia figures – as indeed, in the real world, it is. The Italian priests are depicted as being unconcerned with how their Italian parishioners live, and only concerned with the external, empty rituals of the “Church”. As long as the parishioners attend the rituals, the priests are satisfied. They ask for no more, and the gangsters continue to flourish and commit terrible crimes, while remaining in good standing in the bosom of the “Church” in which they have lived their whole lives.

Mean Streets (1972): a Dark Depiction of Popish Guilt

Another movie showing the interaction between Italian-American Roman Catholicism and Italian-American crime, this film was the work of Martin Scorsese, a Roman Catholic from Little Italy in New York who was also an ex-seminarian and therefore very familiar with the priesthood. It has been said of his films that they are “disturbingly sexual, embarrassingly personal, overpoweringly violent, and intensely religious.” ⁴⁸⁷

The film centres around an Italian-American Roman Catholic man involved with the Mafia, and his guilt and desire for forgiveness and comfort from his “Church”, which he just cannot find. All he experiences from his “Church” is more guilt, not peace or forgiveness. This of course is the reality for millions upon millions of Roman Catholics worldwide: their “Church” entraps them in a seemingly never-ending cycle of guilt and confession, but this does not bring peace to any who are truly troubled by their sins. Sadly, Scorsese obviously knew this only too well. Yet most of these Roman Catholics remain in their “Church” because it is all they know, constantly hoping for the very thing – forgiveness of sins – which they can never truly find there, for it is a false church and proclaims a false way of salvation.

Last Tango in Paris (1973): No Widespread Roman Catholic Outrage

As the 1970s progressed it was as plain as day that the morals of American Roman Catholics had sunk to new levels, with vile, immoral movies being praised in Roman Catholic publications. For example, in 1973 Last Tango in Paris was released, a film containing scenes of nudity, vicious and degrading sex, masturbation and murder; and yet NCOMP reviewers were not in agreement about the film, with one priest recommending an “A4” rating, and another reviewer calling the film a “stunning and overwhelming experience.” Furthermore, Roman Catholic publications were far from condemnatory. “Catholic opinion in Commonweal, America, and the Listener reflected the radical change in America toward movies of this sort. There was no sense of moral outrage, no demand for a national boycott by Catholics.” ⁴⁸⁸

Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1973): a Flower-Child Francis

This film, about the life of the Roman Catholic “saint”, Francis of Assisi, was made by Roman Catholic Franco Zeferelli. But it depicted Francis as a virtual flower-child, doubtless to attract the hippie generation. ⁴⁸⁹

Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar (1973): Hollywood Declares Open Season on the Son of God

Now that there was no Jesuit-authored Production Code, nor any Roman Catholic Production Code administrators breathing down their necks, leftist Hollywood producers declared open season on both true Christianity and false “Christianity”, and even on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Hollywood movies of the time, Christ was attacked, mocked, ridiculed. He was not shown as divine, only as human – sometimes very human: a wandering hippie, a cubic “free love”, anything-goes caricature, His disciples mere groupies of the sort that were following the rock stars of the time. Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were the most flagrant examples of this, but they were not the only ones.

But Romanism was not a spent force in Hollywood. Not by any means. And Jesuit involvement in the movie industry continued. This is amply demonstrated by The Exorcist.

The Exorcist (1973): a Jesuit Horror Film

This film not only pushed the boundaries of decency even further, sinking to new lows in the horror film genre, but it also did something more. “ The Exorcist is not merely a horror film; it is a Catholic horror film. And, more specifically, it is a Jesuit horror film.” ⁴⁹⁰

Indeed so. But how could this be?

The film came out in 1973. Its writer and producer was William Peter Blatty, a Roman Catholic American of Lebanese descent. He had been a student at Georgetown University, the oldest Roman Catholic university in America and, specifically, a Jesuit university. He had considered becoming a Jesuit priest himself. His mother had recently died and he had many questions about life after death, and wanted to make a film examining these. While at Georgetown he had read about a Roman Catholic exorcism, and decided to make a film about it. The demon possession he read about concerned a 14-year-old Lutheran boy in Maryland who had experienced poltergeist phenomena in his room after playing with the Ouija board. The family’s Lutheran pastor could do nothing for him, telling them to go and see a Roman Catholic priest as “the Catholics kn ow about things like this.” This they did, and the boy was eventually supposedly delivered after Jesuit priests performed a month of exorcisms. He was baptized as a Roman Catholic during this time. And in 1950 one of the Jesuits who had been involved addressed Georgetown University where Blatty was a student. ⁴⁹¹ It had a profound effect on him.

He remained fascinated with exorcisms, and after his mother died (and encouraged by Jesuit priest Thomas V. Bermingham, who later played the president of Georgetown University in the film) Blatty went into seclusion in 1969 and wrote a novel called The Exorcist. It became a bestseller, and then was turned into a movie.

Thus the film’s writer/producer was a Jesuit-educated Papist; the film’s director, on the other hand, was William Friedkin, an agnostic Jew! Here we see yet another Papist/Jewish collaboration on a Hollywood movie. From its very earliest years Hollywood had been under the influence of Papists and Jews, and even now, despite the Production Code having been long removed, that collaboration still at times continued.

It is a film about a girl whose mother comes to the Jesuits’ Georgetown University – Blatty’s university, which features prominently in the movie in various ways. In the film, when the young girl begins to behave in a violent and obscene manner, showing signs of demon possession, her mother asks a young Jesuit priest-psychiatrist, who has begun to question his faith after his mother’s death, to perform an exorcism. He, along with another priest-exorcist, perform the exorcism, the girl is no longer possessed, but both priests die. This ending, although defended by Friedkin the Jewish director, was very unsatisfactory for Blatty, the Papist writer-producer, because the film gave the appearance that evil had been victorious, which was not what he wanted to convey.

Nevertheless, it did convey other things Blatty wanted to say. For example, Jesuits have been willing to die for their religion throughout their history, and many of them have. The death of the two Jesuit exorcists, then, was almost to be expected (in the film) in the sense that they were “heroic” priests willing to lay down their own lives for the sake of freeing the young girl from the demon. The movie’s main priest shouts out to the devil, “Take me! Come into me!” This the devil does, and the priest dies a violent death; yet his death is seen as a sacrifice of love for the soul of the girl. This is why Blatty gave the name Damien Karras to the priest in the movie: “Damien” was the name of a third-century “saint” who was brutally killed, and it was also the name of a nineteenth-century Romish priest who died of leprosy while ministering to lepers on a Hawaiian island; and the surname “Karras”, Blatty explained, evoked the Latin word caritas, or “charitable love.” ⁴⁹²

Even priest Karras’ doubts about his faith, and his physical wrestling with the devil in the movie, are straight out of the Jesuit textbook, The Spiritual Exercises, written by the Jesuit founder Ignatius de Loyola. Loyola wrote, “it is characteristic of the evil spirit to harass with anxiety, to afflict with sadness, to raise obstacles backed by fallacious reasonings that disturb the soul”; and, “The action of the evil spirit upon such souls is violent, noisy, and disturbing.” ⁴⁹³

By having the Jesuit Karras call out to the demon to possess him instead of the girl, and then having him die as a demon-possessed man, Blatty claimed (in the Jesuit magazine, America, in Lebruary 1974) that the priest acted out of love, and by sacrificing his own life in this way he defeated the devil. However, director Lriedkin filmed the priest’s violent end in such a way as to make it uncertain what the priest’s ultimate fate would be. Those watching the film were left to make up their own minds as to whether or not the priest had actually succeeded in defeating the devil.

No true Christian would say such a thing to a devil, of course; nor can a true Christian ever be demon-possessed.

Not only was Blatty a Jesuit-educated Roman Catholic, but real Jesuit priests were used as consultants for the movie, and even acted in the film. Jesuit priest William O’Malley played the part of Jesuit priest Dyer, and Jesuit priest Thomas Bermingham played the president of Georgetown University. These men, claiming to be “men of God”, “other Christs” (as priests of Rome do), were happy to be part of a film with vile language, extreme violence and perverted sex! This truly shows the nature of Roman Catholicism. They were able to overlook these things, for they knew that it promoted the power of Romanism, which was all that mattered to them. In becoming actors in this film, and consultants for it, these Jesuits were simply obeying the directive given in Section 106 of Rome’s “Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communication” ( Communio et Progressio), issued just two years before in 1971, which (as we have seen) stated: “As representatives of the Church, Bishops, priests, religious and laity are increasingly asked to write in the press, or appear on radio and television, or to collaborate in filming. They are warmly urged to undertake this work, which has consequences that are far more important than is usually imagined.” Just how important such consequences would be for Rome when The Exorcist was released, will soon be seen.

In order to achieve as much realism as possible from the actors, Friedkin went to extreme lengths on set to make this horror film. Fie and his crew would fire off guns at times, simply for the purpose of making the actors tense and jumpy. Complex rigging caused real pain to some of the actors and their screams were genuine. Friedkin even slapped Jesuit priest O’Malley through the face while the cameras rolled, so as to get real pain registered on his face. At times the set was made very cold, down to 10 degrees below zero, so that the actors really felt cold and their breath was frozen, to demonstrate how the demon sucked the warmth out of the air. And on top of everything there were very real disasters that occurred on set, such as an interior set burning down. Rumours started to circulate that the production was cursed, rumours which Friedkin was happy to encourage. All of these things made everyone very edgy, leading to Jesuit priest Bermingham “blessing” the set. ⁴⁹⁴

Even though Friedkin deliberately tried to create a tense atmosphere, real pain, etc., we have no doubt that demonic forces were at work behind the scenes of this movie.

It was a huge success when released, with long queues of people waiting to see it and security guards to prevent rioting. Audiences were deeply shocked by its horrifyingly graphic nature. In addition to being full of violence, degraded sexual practices and obscene language, it contained scenes of urination and vomiting, and of course, graphic portrayals of demon possession. Mass hysteria ensued: some people threw up while watching it, some passed out, some ran in terror for the exits, some cried uncontrollably, and some believed they had become demon-possessed while watching it. There is no reason to doubt that they really had, in some cases. Nurses were present when it opened in New York to assist in the chaos. In Los Angeles, one theatre manager estimated that at each screening there was an average of four people fainting, six vomiting, and many running out of the theatre in panic. There were reports of heart attacks and even a miscarriage as people viewed it. People were admitted to hospitals countrywide after viewing it. An English boy apparently died from an epileptic fit the day after seeing the film; a German boy shot himself in the head; a teenager killed a nine-year-old girl and said he did it while possessed; a man killed his wife with his bare hands after he believed he had become possessed. In fact, everywhere there were people claiming that either they or their children were possessed. ⁴⁹⁵ Demon possession, as the Bible shows, is a very real phenomenon, and no doubt this horror film was an instrument of the devil in many cases of real demon possession at the time.

The film’s “strange effect on adolescent girls” caused the British Board of Film Classification to refuse to permit recordings of it to be distributed in Britain until 1999. Yes, truly there was a dark power at work behind the scenes.

But just as the film’s vile content had not stopped Jesuit priests from acting in it, it did not stop certain Jesuits from praising it either. For example, Jesuit priest Robert Boyle spoke well of it for its portrayal of the Jesuit community, among other things, in the Jesuit magazine America . ⁴⁹⁶

This willingness of Jesuits to act in the film, and to praise it, is not at all surprising when one understands the unofficial Jesuit motto that “the end justifies the means”, and the strong Jesuit belief in the power of theatre (and film) to influence people along Jesuit lines. In making this film, Blatty gave the world nothing less than “Jesuit theatre.” ⁴⁹⁷

What The Exorcist did for Roman Catholicism was phenomenal. As one film critic, Pauline Kael of the New Yorker, said, it was “the biggest recruiting poster the Catholic Church has had since the su nn ier days of Going My Way and The Bells of St. Maty s. ” For it “says that the Catholic Church is the true faith, feared by the Devil, and that its rituals can exorcise demons.” ⁴⁹⁸ Precisely. Just as that Lutheran pastor had directed a family in his flock to go to a priest of Rome for help concerning a case of demon possession, so now, after the film’s release, non-Papists began to increasingly look to the priests of Rome to help them with exorcisms. As a result of The Exorcist, people of various religious persuasions became convinced that if ever an exorcism was needed, a priest of Rome needed to be called in. This faith in priest- exorcists was reflected in other movies as well: for example, in The Amityville Horror (1979), in which a family calls in their parish priest to exorcise their home. Truly, this Jesuit horror movie had increased the power and prestige of the Romish priesthood immensely.

“For an America soaked in ‘God is Dead’ promulgations, The Exorcist was a startling revelation, an everlasting no to secular humanism, a homage to the demonic and the angelic, an epic poem of Catholicism.” ⁴⁹⁹

“Long before William Peter Blatty read about the 1949 exorcism in Maryland, he was being schooled by Jesuits. Blatty – perhaps unwittingly – articulated in his novel and film themes that he had been taught during his eight years of Jesuit education, which was noticed by Jesuits like Robert Boyle. The Exorcist… [can be viewed] as an expression… of a complicated Jesuit spirituality.” ⁵⁰⁰ This is correct. As we have shown elsewhere in this book, the Jesuits almost from their very inception were well aware of the power of theatre to move audiences, and they wrote and produced many plays. Then when film was invented, they continued using their methods to the same purpose. It will be remembered that centuries ago, Jesuits were in the forefront of elaborate stage productions that dazzled the audiences. And this Jesuit strategy is seen clearly in The Exorcist. “The explicit imagery that gives The Exorcist much of its power grew from the same Jesuit heritage.” ⁵⁰¹

William Peter Blatty had, probably unknowingly, served Satan well. The Jesuits, who for centuries had been at the forefront of education and the theatre and later the movie industry precisely for the purpose of moulding the world in their own image as far as possible, had shaped and then directed Blatty to play a major part in advancing the Jesuit/ Papist cause. A vile horror movie had done wonders for the Roman Catholic “Church”.

Interestingly, by the time The Exorcist was filmed and released, Blatty claimed he was no longer a practising Roman Catholic. But he did not call himself an “ex-Catholic”, rather merely a “Christian.” He once said that there is actually no such thing as an “ex-Roman Catholic”, for the Roman Catholic religion is “like a woman you’ve had children by; she’s always in your blood.” ⁵⁰² Indeed, even if he was no longer a practising Papist (and with Jesuits and their pupils one can simply never be sure of this), Blatty’s movie was still an extremely Papist one, serving the interests of the Vatican very well. The Jesuit- educated Blatty created a pro-Jesuit movie that did wonders for the Order. The Jesuits’ fingerprints were all over it.

And yet…although it was certainly their intention to give the world a pro-Papist, pro-Jesuit film, and for many this was exactly what it was and it did wonders for Rome, for many others it had the opposite effect. For these others it was nothing but “a real horror show devoid of both God and humanity”, ⁵⁰³ for it depicted a weak God and very weak priests opposing a very powerful devil, a Roman Catholic “Church” which used primitive rituals, miraculous medals, holy water, ceremony rather than anything really genuine. “Warner Brothers had the biggest hit of the Christmas season not by celebrating an infant God of love, but by offering a horror masterpiece that wallowed in curses, blasphemies, desecrations, spirit-rappings, levitations, sexual perversion, hysteria, evil spirits, frustration, doubt, and despair. Audiences were coming not to be uplifted, but to be ‘grossed out.”’ ⁵⁰⁴ There is much truth in this. For many, it was a pro-Roman Catholic recruitment film; for many others, it was an attack on Roman Catholicism, a denial of its supposed power and sanctity. Much of this did not please Blatty. He disagreed with director Friedkin over the ending where the priest appears to perhaps have been defeated by Satan. And he disagreed with Friedkin about other scenes which ended up being deleted from the film, scenes which Blatty felt were crucial to explaining the theology behind the film. But Friedkin wanted action only, not pauses for theological explanations. To this degree the Jesuits did not have it all their way with the filming. Besides, the film was so graphically horrific that, quite frankly, it is doubtful whether any inclusion of spoken Romanist theology in an attempt to explain the film and give it an overtly Roman Catholic purpose would have succeeded at all. It was so full of horror imagery – blood-covered crucifixes, vomit, filthy language, and above all, degraded sexual practices – that any overt Roman Catholic “message” would have failed. One critic branded it nothing but a “religious pom film.” ⁵⁰⁵

But as it turned out, years later William Peter Blatty got the ending to the film that he had always wanted. As stated previously, he had always been dissatisfied with the ending, for it seemed to indicate that evil had triumphed. He wanted the film to end in what he considered to be an uplifting way. In 2000 he and Friedkin re-edited it, added eleven minutes of new footage, and re-released it, advertising it as “The Version You’ve Never Seen.” “In the 2000 version, Regan [the young girl] not only recognizes the symbolism of Father Dyer’s Roman collar with an affectionate kiss, she smiles and waves at him as the car drives away. She has undergone some kind of transformation. Rather than giving Karras’ medal to Father Dyer as she does in the original, Chris MacNeil [the mother] keeps it. Blatty explained that this gesture meant that ‘she is now open to faith.’” ⁵⁰⁶ Furthermore, the movie now ends with priest Dyer meeting the Jewish detective and walking off arm in arm; and the last words heard in the film are, “God is most great.”

Pro-Papist American TV Shows of the 1970s

Certain American TV shows were of particular value to Rome at this time. One such was The Archie Bunker Show, a very popular comedy series. Carroll O’Connor, the Irish-American who played the lead character, received the “St. Genesius Award” in Rome, which was periodically presented to outstanding Roman Catholic actors. ⁵⁰⁷

Rome’s Worldwide Influence Over the Mass Media by the Mid-1970s

The massive influence of Roman Catholicism in American broad casting by the first half of the 1970s is shown by the number of Roman Catholic radio and TV programmes, some of which had been broadcast for decades, and most of which were propagated through the Department of Communications of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the United States Catholic Conference. In 1974 the Catholic Almanac listed the following Romish radio programmes: Christian in Action, a weekly programme heard on over 50 radio stations; Christopher Radio Programme, a weekly programme heard on 937 stations; Christopher “Thought for Today ”, a daily programme on over 2600 stations; Crossroads, a weekly programme on almost 325 stations and produced by the Passionist “Fathers” and “Brothers”; Guideline, a weekly programme heard on approximately 90 stations; and Sacred Heart Programme, five 15-minute programmes and one half-hour programme produced weekly by the Jesuits. And it listed the following Roman Catholic TV programmes: Sacred Heart Programme, a weekly programme produced by the Jesuits; Directions, a weekly programme on over 100 stations; Look Up and Live, on approximately 120 stations; and Religious Specials, the Roman Catholic portions of which were telecast on approximately 175 stations. ⁵⁰⁸

But it was not just in the United States that Roman Catholicism exerted a huge influence in the mass media by the first half of the 1970s. In Britain, Roman Catholics systematically infiltrated key positions in broadcasting and other areas of the mass media. The 1974 edition of the Official Catholic Directory of England and Wales gave the names and addresses of 26 Popish priests attached to the BBC as local radio advisors; 12 priests attached to the independent TV companies; four Roman Catholic representatives (two bishops, a priest and a “layman”) on the Central Religious Advisory Committee of the BBC and ITA; the priest who was Roman Catholic assistant to the Head of Religious Broadcasting for the BBC; the priest who was Roman Catholic assistant for religious broadcasting for North England, Midland and Wales; the priest who was the Roman Catholic representative on the religious advisory board of the Independent Broadcasting Authority; and the director and board of trustees, most of whom were bishops, of the Catholic Radio and Television Centre in Middlesex. ⁵⁰⁹

And if this was the number of priests involved in the British broadcasting system, one can only imagine the number of Roman Catholic employees distributed throughout the system as well.

The same kind of Papist infiltration took place in New Zealand. It was so obvious that in the mid-1970s Radio New Zealand was kn own colloquially, to the senior non-Romanist broadcasting officials, as “Radio Vatican”; and so was the NZBC before it. Most key positions were held by Papists. ⁵¹⁰ In fact, according to a senior non-Papist broadcasting official in 1975, 82% of all NZBC employees were Papists, and the programming section consisted entirely of Papists. ⁵¹¹ This in a country where Papists at the time constituted only 17% of the population.

According to the New Zealand Tablet of May 19, 1976, the Catholic Women’s League, and Roman Catholic schools, were seeking to actively promote involvement in the media, especially television, “to promote Christian and human values.” ⁵¹²

Truly it is accurate to say of the mid-1970s that: “If one takes a gen eralised view of material presented in our mass media, there are indications of a systematic Roman Catholic influence in the mass media throughout the western world”; and, “throughout the western world the control of the flow of information in the mass media, is fundamentally a Catholic Action phenomenon.” ⁵¹³

The movement known as Catholic Action was one of the primary sinister influences behind the scenes, to bring this about. Although only a minority of Roman Catholics ever belonged to Catholic Action, around 10%, it was nevertheless extremely powerful, exerting a disproportionate influence over society wherever it was active. How true this comment from New Zealand: “in the case of New Zealand this figure [10% of Roman Catholics] accounts for 50,000 people. Now if, for the sake of argument, there happened to be 50,000 Atheist- Communist Actionists in New Zealand engaged in activities such as the programming of broadcasting (giving a subtle Communist slant to news and current affairs etc.)… or if this much was even suspected – then the thinking non-Communist would be highly concerned at the implications.” ⁵¹⁴ Why, then, were non-Roman Catholics not con cerned at the militant nature of Catholic Action and other Popish movements, and their infiltration of key areas of society, and why are they not concerned still? Tragically, it is because Protestants and others no longer know the truth about Romanism and its plans for world domination; plans which are more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous, than the world domination plans of international Communism or international Islam.

“The Roman Catholic lawyer and writer, the late Edmond Paris, has shown that when an organised movement such as Catholic Action controls the media it also controls the affairs of the country.” ⁵¹⁵

The Omen (1976) and Its Sequels: Romanism Portrayed as Weak, Useless “Christianity”

These horror films – The Omen (1976), Damien – Omen II (1978), and The Final Conflict – Omen III ( 1981)- depicted the triumph of satanic forces over Roman Catholic priests and ritual. They depicted Rome’s priests as fools and comics, well-meaning but unable to stop the forces of darkness.

The Omen was adapted from a Gothic novel by David Seltzer, a book which was about a time when “democracy was fading, mind impairing drugs had become a way of life… God was dead.” It was about the time of the coming of Antichrist, and mankind could do nothing to prevent it. And Roman Catholicism was portrayed as Christianity, utterly powerless, a religion of superstition, one moreover full of priests and nuns who were actually secret Satanists. The foster family of the Antichrist in the film is portrayed as a lapsed Roman Catholic family. Romanism is everywhere in the film – but always in a negative light, a religion of ineffectual ritual and superstition.

In Damien – Omen II, this attack on Romanism and its priesthood is intensified. And in The Final Conflict – Omen III, the demon actually mocks and sodomises a statue of Rome’s “christ”. Again in this film, Rome’s priests are defeated one after another. And yet in the end, supposedly, “Christ” wins. It is a hollow victory, however, considering that in all three films there are hours of celluloid depicting Satan’s victories and power.

Rocky (1976) and its Sequels: Romanism Once Again Holds Its Head Up

This movie, and its sequels, centred around a character called Rocky Balboa, a Papist Italian-American boxer, played by Sylvester Stallone, an Italian-American actor who became one of the most famous and one of the richest actors in Hollywood history.

Although the films are about a white heavyweight boxer who beats black boxers (and in the wake of the boxing successes of Mohammed Ali this went down well with white audiences), it was also a film in which Romanism played quite a part, albeit usually in the background rather than up-front. But it was always there: whether represented by an image of “Christ” behind the ring in a boxing club, or Rocky asking a priest to bless him, or holding a vigil at a Romish shrine, having a Romish wedding, or praying in a Romish hospital chapel. He may seduce the girl before marriage, he may be a boxer from the other side of the tracks, he may not be a very good Romanist, but at heart he is still a Romanist; that is the point. He is an Italian, and therefore he is a Romanist. It is part of who he is. It has been said that “Rocky’s intrinsic humanity and his wholehearted love for marriage, his wife, and his kids afford a moving witness to Roman Catholicism’s emphasis on the sanctity of the family,” ⁵¹⁶ and this may be true to the extent that Rome has always emphasised these things in its teaching; and of course this would have been a huge boost for Romanism at a time when Hollywood had declared open season on the “Church”. But let us not kid ourselves here: Romanism’s much-vaunted “emphasis on the sanctity of the family” has been, through the centuries, nullified by its own immoral practices: enforced celibacy for priests contrary to the institution of marriage, leading to all the filthy sexual immoralities of which so many multiplied thousands of them have been guilty; sex before marriage; philandering husbands all too often easily “absolved” by going to confession; nuns shut up in convents and denied the joys of married life; children and women forced to confess sexual sins to a bachelor priest; children abused by priests; and so much more.

Besides, for all its supposed promotion of the sanctity of Romish marriage, the films are full of brutal violence in the name of sport, filthy language, etc. But these things do not seem to overly concern priests and people within the “Church” of Rome.

Nevertheless, “Few contemporary film portraits of Catholics celebrate such stirring accomplishments [as “Italian pride, Catholic marriage, and the family circle”]…. Most contemporary portraits of ethnic Catholicism are dark portraits of stunted lives, compulsive guilt, and abiding despair.” ⁵¹⁷ This was written in 1984, and was correct, as we have seen: after the demise of the PCA and the Legion, Hollywood declared war on the Roman Catholic religion. It was a vicious backlash, a reaction against those decades in which Romanism had been Hollywood’s religion by force, and film-makers (mostly Jewish) had been compelled to kowtow to Rome’s stranglehold on the industry, even though they well knew that the saccharine image of Romanism so often depicted in the movies of the era was far from the grim reality. Now, with all that in the past, they were wreaking their revenge. But the Rocky movies were, for Rome, a welcome lull in the battle.

Lipstick (1976): an Attack on the False Sanctity of Romish Establishments

In this film the Roman Catholic “Church” once again comes in for a beating. It is about a rapist who is a music teacher at a Romish girls’ school, and who is supported by nuns who cannot believe that he is guilty of what he has been accused of – and yet he is. And there were other films, too, along similar lines, which came out over the next few years.

Saturday Night Fever (1977): an Anti-Roman Catholic Disco Movie

After the Production Code days were over, Hollywood, in its all-out attack on Roman Catholicism, focused most often on Rome’s attitude to sexual matters. This was seen very plainly in Saturday Night Fever, an immensely popular musical centred on an Italian immigrant family in New York. One son is a priest, the other (played by John Travolta) is a teen idol and disco star. The father is an unemployed though hard working Italian immigrant who has seen better days. The mother is a devout Roman Catholic who takes refuge from the reality of her life in her religion and wishes her wayward son was a priest like his brother.

The priest-brother renounces the priesthood when he realises that he was a priest only because this is what his parents wanted for him. And the girls in the film are Roman Catholic girls with very loose morals. Italian Roman Catholic culture has so often inculcated the great double standard of sexual morality: that the men must try to seduce the girls, but the girls must either remain virgins or become whores. There is no middle ground: they must either be very loose, or very virtuous.

Tony, the wayward son, tries on his ex-priest brother’s priestly garment. “In a daring image, the most striking anti-Catholic metaphor in the whole Hollywood catechism, Tony imagines himself strangled by the vestments of the old creed. The scene, a pantomime, details the central idea about Catholicism and sexuality in contemporary film – Catholicism is a ‘hangup’ that kills. Catholicism, this image asserts, strangles the young with outworn ideas, stifles desires, and makes growth, happiness, and autonomy impossible. In cinema’s new cosmology of sexuality, Roman Catholicism is the dark star, the death principle, a somber creed steeped in thanatos and crippling guilt.” ⁵¹⁸ Unfortunately, with Romanism equated with Christianity in Hollywood after so many decades, such powerful criticism, and rejection, of Romanism in a film was also a powerful criticism and rejection of Christianity. And this is how millions took it, when they watched films such as this. An entire generation of young people were influenced against Christianity because of what they saw in the cinema. It was a vicious assault which very few true Christians recognised as such then, or have recognised since.

The Amityville Horror (1979): Depicting Demonic Victory Over Rome’s Priests

In this horror film, the clear victors are demons, not the Roman Catholic institution. It revolves around a haunted house purchased by a Methodist man and his Roman Catholic family, and the horrors they experience while living there. A nun who attempts to enter the house is forced by demons to flee, vomiting as she does so. The priest who tries to confront the devil is trapped in the house and overpowered by the demons, and even back in his own rectory continues to experience demonic attacks. He is just no match for the devil, as is made abundantly clear, and ends up, blinded and in despair, being taken care of by another priest.

In the film there is also a lengthy theological debate between this priest and two others, who try to dissuade him from attempting the exorcism and tell him that to proceed would be to disobey his superiors. He is described as a modernist priest who felt that the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s did not go far enough; and he pleads with them that the “Church” is his home and his strength, and both he and the family he is trying to help need the “Church” very much. But the other priests recommend nothing more than a vacation for him. In the words of two researchers, these scenes in the film “suggest a sinister segment of Hollywood’s treatment of Catholics in the sixties and seventies. The combination of massive change in the Church and massive turmoil in the country set the stage for old demons which the new Church seemingly couldn’t control. The Age of Kennedy and the tragic aftermath of Camelot shifted the focus to the evil assassin’s magically accurate bullet and the devil’s dark powers.” ⁵¹⁹ It is true that Hollywood had turned against the Roman Catholic institution, to a very large extent, in the post-Code years; but against this must be set the other undeniable fact, that for decades Hollywood had been dominated, even controlled, by Romanism, as has been amply documented here. And as we have said before, there is always a reaction to such oppressive control by this evil religious institution. The reaction ends up being as evil as the religious institution it is reacting against (witness the French Revolution), but as terrible as this is, it is not at all surprising. Rome, by its sinister stranglehold on Hollywood for all those decades, sowed the seeds for the virulently anti-Romanist films which took such pleasure in mocking everything Roman Catholicism stood for in the years that followed the demise of its domination.

The Wanderers (1979): Another Critique of Roman Catholicism

This was yet another film depicting Italian-American life, in which sexual themes abound and the attitude of the Roman Catholic institution to sex is mocked.

The Runner Stumbles (1979): Yet Another Critique of Roman Catholicism

This was the film version of a Broadway drama of the same name, and another assault on Romanism. The priest in the film, played by Dick Van Dyke, and the nun, played by Kathleen Quinlan, not having found what they sought in their “vocations”despite trying very hard, fall in love; but the priest’s devout housekeeper murders the nun, believing she was demon-possessed to seduce the priest. The priest leaves the priesthood, and at the nun’s graveside he cries out to God, “What kind of God are you? I loved her. I loved her. I don’t have the Church anymore. What do you want from me?” ⁵²⁰ Romanism is depicted in this film as a failure, unable to satisfy the deepest longings of the heart (which is true). Such a film could never have been produced in Hollywood’s “Golden Age” when Joe Breen presided over the industry; but now, even though Roman Catholicism was still a powerful force to be reckoned with in the movie industry, it was by no means all- powerful. It could now be freely criticised, attacked, ridiculed in films, and it frequently was. And unfortunately many people, in seeing such films, equating Romanism with Christianity, were not only encouraged to forsake Romanism but to close their eyes even to true Christianity.

The devil had done his work well: through both pro-Papist and anti- Papist films, he was deceiving multitudes.