CHAPTER TEN
THE 1950s: HOLLYWOOD LIBERALISES UNDER JESUIT DIRECTION

Geoffrey Shurlock Replaces Breen; the Code Amended

The old guard was passing from the scene. Will Hays died in 1954, the same year that Breen retired, and Jesuit priest Daniel Lord, author of the Code, died in 1955. Breen was succeeded at the PCA by Geoffrey Shurlock. And in his appointment, too, there was an indication of changing times, for the Papist candidate to replace Breen, Jack Vizzard, did not get the post. Shurlock was not a Papist; he was an Episcopalian.

Although he pledged to stick to “the Breen principle” and, using Breen’s own phrase, “to make pictures reasonably acceptable, morally, to reasonable people”, Shurlock was certainly not as rigid as Breen had been, disagreeing with him on some of his decisions even when Breen had been his boss. Shurlock interpreted the Code far more liberally than Breen ever did, the latter being a strict conformist to the letter of the Code’s law. For this reason Martin Quigley and the Legion had been against Shurlock taking up the reins of the PCA. They wanted the PCA to remain firmly in Roman Catholic hands, but they were unsuccessful. Priest Thomas Little accused Shurlock of granting a seal to more immoral movies than had ever occurred before. Furthermore, under Shurlock the PCA came under ever-increasing pressure from all sides, dying a slow death year by year as it continued to lose ground. The “Shurlock Office” was just not the “Breen Office.” Calls were again being heard for the Code to be modernised. Sam Goldwyn stated, “The world has moved on in the years since the Code was adopted and I believe that, without departing from fundamentals, the motion picture industry should move with it.” ³⁸⁰

Inevitably, the MPAA buckled under the pressure and, in September 1954, approved the first really serious amendments to the Code since its adoption in 1930. Breen himself, before his retirement, had proposed the revisions.

Miscegenation would no longer be banned. If treated “within the careful limits of good taste”, inter-racial romance and marriage would now be permitted. Liquor, too, could be portrayed “within the careful limits of good taste”. Furthermore, certain words and phrases which had been forbidden previously were now permitted, including the words “hell” and “damn”, if their use was “governed by the discretion and the prudent advice of the Code Administration”.

TV Nudges Hollywood to “Spice Up” Movies

When, in 1955, Otto Preminger submitted the script for a film named The Man with the Golden Arm, a story about drug addiction, to the PCA, Shurlock rejected it. In addition to the drug theme, the film had suicide as a plot device, women in a strip bar, and was too violent. But Preminger ignored the PCA and made the film.

Shurlock rejected the finished movie. Legion reviewers from the IFCA were divided over it, with some saying it should be condemned but the majority opting for a mere “B” rating. Audiences flocked to see it. By this time drug themes were a regular part of many TV programmes, so audiences were not offended by the drug theme of this Hollywood film. Television, in fact, had far more liberty than the film industry, and this was one of the reasons why film-makers were becoming increasingly willing to challenge the PCA, the Legion, and the MPAA: if they did not make their movies more “spicy”, they argued, they would lose revenues as people would simply stay at home and watch TV.

Morals Plummet and the Legion’s Authority Wanes Still Further

Despite the Supreme Court’s 1952 ruling, the movie industry itself continued to enforce its Production Code for some years. But younger Americans in those post-war years were no longer simply accepting the values and norms of earlier generations. Morality itself was undergoing change, with previous standards now questioned and even increasingly jettisoned. The moral climate was deteriorating, things that had once been frowned upon were now being openly flaunted more and more, and the earlier standards were being mocked. The 1950s and even more so the 1960s experienced a social revolution that would completely alter the western world. As Bob Dylan, the voice of an entire generation of rebellious young people, was to later put it in a song, “The times they are a-changin.’” Indeed they were.

The Legion of Decency continued to fulminate against what it deemed to be objectionable movies after the Supreme Court’s 1952 ruling, the archbishop of Los Angeles called on priests in 1955 to warn young people about the dangers of immoral films, the American bishops announced plans to revitalise a campaign for morality in movies, and the pope of Rome himself, Pius XII, called on Italian film-makers to make moral films; ³⁸¹ but it was a different era and it was like trying to stem an unstoppable tide. The public, including a large section of the Roman Catholic public, no longer wanted to be dictated to by a moral watchdog. Morally, people had sunk to a new low in America and the western world, and were now wanting entertainment that was very far removed from that of previous generations.

Martin Quigley, devout Papist that he was, had fought for years through the Legion to keep movies “clean” according to Rome’s view of morality. In 1950 he was awarded the papal Medal of St. Gregory for his work in the Legion. He was extremely influential over Hollywood, the close friend of cardinals and priests. And yet by 1956 he was forced to concede, in a letter to the cardinal, Spellman, that “The Legion of Decency… is able no longer to exert its previous practical influence.” ³⁸² Indeed, Roman Catholics, like other Americans, were now “motorized and mobile, and had only to drive to an adjacent city to avoid a glowering parish priest at the comer Bijou. The battalions of obedient parishioners who once fell out of line at the ticket window had dispersed – gone to the suburbs, still observing the faith but refusing to genuflect on command.” ³⁸³ The American spirit of liberty of thought and independence had come into conflict with the Roman Catholic spirit of rigidity and top-down authoritarianism, and the latter was taking some serious body blows.

And then came a bombshell. And it was dropped by a Jesuit priest, no less.

Rome’s Policy Shift: the Jesuits Come Out Against Censorship

John Courtney Murray, a leading Jesuit theologian and intellectual, published an article on censorship in 1956 in which he questioned whether Roman Catholic adults were in fact obligated to follow the restrictions placed on the media by their religious leaders. He stated that censorship in a democracy was an infringement on freedom of expression and a dangerous one at that, and that only pornography should be restricted or banned. Without naming it, he even criticised the Legion of Decency’s power and influence. Boycotting a theatre, he argued, made Roman Catholics look ridiculous. He argued that they should be free to make up their own minds about what was obscene and what was not, and even appealed to Rome’s Canon Law, stating that Canon 1399, which established the categories of books which Papists were forbidden to read, appeared to suppose that ordinary Papists could decide for themselves. ³⁸⁴

But what had happened? Why had this Jesuit priest written such an article? Why had he even been permitted to by his superiors? What was afoot?

What must be understood is the nature of the Jesuit Order. The Jesuits, those fanatical agents of the Papacy, have also always been the intellectual vanguard of the Papal institution. Their goals are very long-term, their methods often extremely radical and even at variance with usual or traditional Papist policy. They are also far more lenient with Roman Catholics when it comes to sinful practices. For this reason they have often been intensely hated by other Romish religious orders. But they persist in pursuing their goals in their own way, and are not afraid to stand on many toes within the Papal hierarchy. They well know that they have far more power than any other religious order. Plus they have the ear of the pope of Rome, or, if a particular pope’s ear is not open to them, they have no scruples about removing him by an “accelerated demise”. History is replete with examples. ³⁸⁵

The truth is that “Murray’s article, published ‘with ecclesiastical approval,’ signalled an internal shift developing within the Catholic church over the role of movies.” ³⁸⁶ Let the reader keep in mind what was stated in the chapter on the Jesuit use of the dramatic arts centuries ago: how they lowered the perceived moral standards of the time and introduced elements and themes considered “borderline”, so as to keep their hold on their audiences. We wrote that it would become clear that the lessons the Jesuits learned centuries ago when producing their theatrical plays would be applied by them to the movie industry. This is precisely what was now happening. A number of intellectually “progressive” Jesuits had surveyed the Hollywood scene, and come to the conclusion that if Rome was to have any influence on the film industry in the world that was taking shape in the 1950s, an entirely different tactic would have to be pursued. The traditional methods, as epitomised by the Legion of Decency, would no longer work; that was self-evident. The world had passed the Legion by. It was a relic of an earlier time. Anew world required new methods, and the Jesuits believed they had the solution. The solution was not boycotts, pickets, fulminations about mortal sin, threats against theatre owners, and so on. No; the solution was far more subtle. And the fact that Murray’s article had been published “with ecclesiastical approval” showed that the new Jesuit tactic had won the approval of the Romish hierarchy.

The Jesuits were at the forefront of this new tactic. There was Murray; there was John G. Ford, a professor of Romish theology; Harold C. Gardiner, the author of The Catholic Viewpoint on Censorship; and Gerald Kelly, another professor of theology. All were priests, and all were Jesuit priests. Another priest was Francis J. Connell. He was not a Jesuit, but he was with them in this internal shift taking place.

These men did not necessarily oppose all censorship. In all likelihood they would not have been in favour of the unrestrained violence, sex, nudity and profanity that is so common in movies today. They believed, however, that censorship at the time was too oppressive. They did not necessarily believe the Legion should be disbanded, but rather that at the very least it should undergo a major overhaul. They believed that Roman Catholics would not necessarily be morally defiled by watching films which dealt with such subjects as adultery, divorce, crime, etc. Perhaps most importantly, they believed that the old tactics employed by the Legion made the Roman Catholic “Church” look foolish and old-fashioned. In the modem world, the Jesuits believed, this was not the way to promote Romanism or to combat Protestantism. Such methods belonged to the Dark Ages. It was time to change.

The arguments were not in fact new. Back in 1946 Francis J. Connell, one of the intellectual theologian-priests mentioned above, stated that Romanists were not strictly obligated to follow the Legion’s decisions. John G. Ford, one of the Jesuits theologians mentioned above, wrote that no Romish ecclesiastical law made the Legion’s classifications binding on all American Romanists. He pointed out that most Romanists – including himself – did not understand how something could be a mortal sin in one diocese but not in another. “There is no universal obligation,” he wrote, “binding Catholics in the United States under pain of sin to stay away from pictures classified as condemned by the Legion of Decency.” ³⁸⁷ Then in 1957 the Jesuit Murray, assisted by the Jesuit Kelly, published his views as well.

Naturally enough, this policy change was not welcomed by the old guard, such as Spellman, Little and Quigley, who continued to support the Legion’s position. Quigley, incensed at Murray’s article, branded the Jesuit’s view as being of the “Left”. In this he was right, for these “progressive” Jesuits were leftist in their stance. Quigley wrote frantically to Spellman, lamenting the declining influence of the Legion and the fact that large numbers of Papists no longer abode by the Legion’s classifications. He pointed out that even in his own diocese, under his own nose so to speak, a Jesuit priest named Joseph M. Moffitt had, in a sermon, asserted that the Legion pledge, taken by Papists annually, was voluntary, and that it was not a sin to go and see a movie that had been condemned by the Legion.

Baby Doll (1956): the Roman Catholic Machine Fights Back

In late 1956 the film Baby Doll was released. Described by Time magazine as “just possibly the dirtiest American-made motion picture that has ever been legally exhibited”, ³⁸⁸ it was about the marriage of a teenaged girl to a middle-aged man. The PCA was unhappy with the script and called for changes. When Jack Vizzard saw the film he was not satisfied, but director Elia Kazan finally convinced him that nothing could be cut from the film without damaging the story, and so a seal of approval was granted.

The Legion, however, was not so accommodating, and condemned the film as “morally repellent”, “grievously offensive”, “replete with sordid details, Freudian symbolism and undertones of perversion.” ³⁸⁹

Knowing how this film could weaken the Legion’s influence, Little called for local Legion directors to fight the film with everything they had. Quigley and Little got Spellman, known as “America’s Pope”, to condemn the film from his pulpit, reading a statement that had been prepared for him by Quigley, and describing the film as revolting, immoral, corrupting, evil, and (for good measure) unpatriotic as well – being, as he put it, possibly a greater threat to America than international Communism was. ³⁹⁰ On previous occasions when he had condemned films, Spellman had written a letter to be read by all priests during their Sunday masses, but this time he personally condemned it from his pulpit in St Patrick’s Cathedral. This was designed to impress Roman Catholics with just how seriously he viewed the whole matter.

This strong condemnation by Spellman was a triumph for Quigley, who thereby sent a clear message to those priests who were questioning the Legion’s authority that he was prepared to fight tooth and nail for the Legion to remain conservative, and take a firm stand against immoral movies.

Spellman (or rather, Quigley) was actually right in the sense that the Communists were using, and have continued to use, the movie industry to destroy the morals of the West; so that in very large measure, Hollywood is at least as great a threat as external Communist forces. This one movie, taken on its own, would not have been as serious a threat as he made out, but certainly, taken as a whole, Hollywood’s baneful influence was doing incalculable damage to the people of America and indeed, of the West in general. Especially when one bears in mind that Hollywood studios were riddled with Communists or Communist sympathisers. But without in any way condoning the film’s overt sexuality, labelling the film “unpatriotic” was without basis. It was a terrible movie for various reasons, but this was not one of them.

Spellman also lambasted the PCA, posing the question as to whether it had fallen into decay and collapse. It had once faithfully served Rome’s interests in Hollywood, but this was no longer something that could be taken for granted. He warned Roman Catholics in New York that if they went to see Baby Doll it would be “under pain of sin.” The Papal machine went into action. A number of bishops supported Spellman’s stance. Behind the scenes, the Legion leaned on theatre owners and distributors. One Papist theatre chain owner, Joseph P. Kennedy, whose son John would one day become the first Papist U.S. president, forbade his theatres from showing the movie. Some cities banned the movie entirely. The powerful Papist organisation, the Knights of Columbus, picketed at some venues, and the Catholic War Veterans took up the cause as well. Papist publications condemned the film in very strong terms. One British Jesuit priest named J.A.V. Burke, director of the Catholic Film Institute in Britain, lost his post as a result of Spellman’s mighty influence for saying that Baby Doll could be viewed by adults even though it was repellant. A British cardinal removed him from his position. As Burke himself put it: “the long arm of clerical vengeance reached across the Atlantic”. ³⁹¹

The movie’s director, Elia Kazan, fought back. “In this country, judgments on matters of thought and taste are not handed down ironclad from an unchallenged authority,” he told Spellman. “People see for themselves and finally judge for themselves. This is as it should be. It’s our tradition and our practice.” ³⁹² Kazan himself would not have dared to even say such things to a cardinal of Rome a mere two decades earlier. But he was less than truthful when he said it was American tradition and practice to see and judge for themselves, because he well kn ew that for decades Hollywood itself had bowed in submission to the will of the Romish hierarchy, editing its films to meet Roman Catholic requirements.

Others came out against the Legion’s stance on the film as well. The leftist American Civil Liberties Union said the Legion’s boycott was “contrary to the spirit of free expression in the First Amendment.” A number of New York Protestant ministers spoke out against the campaign, saying it was “the efforts of a minority group to impose its wishes on the city.” One wonders if they actually approved of the film. Even some Roman Catholics, who had imbibed more of the spirit of Americanism than their “Church” would have approved of, criticised the Legion’s campaign. One of these was John Cogley, writing in Commonweal. He believed Spellman had the right to issue the warning he did, but what troubled him was what he termed the use of “naked economic pressure”. This, he said, was similar to the coercive methods used by the Inquisition (which was Roman Catholic, be it noted!), and said that the “Church” should only use moral suasion to change people’s hearts. This sounded decidedly un-Papist, and it was. What is more, he was right. Such criticism did not go unnoticed by the Legion and its supporters. Quigley wrote: “The greatest hurt we are suffering is what is written and spoken by various persons who identify themselves as Catholics.” ³⁹³

The Spellman/Quigley condemnation of Baby Doll had the effect of making Roman Catholics want to see it even more. As Kazan said, “It took Cardinal Spellman to make it famous.” ³⁹⁴ Famous, perhaps, but not quite the financial success for which he had hoped; for although it made money, this concerted Papist condemnation did cause the movie to make less money than it would otherwise have done. Kazan was forced to admit that Spellman’s “attack hurt us… I never made a profit.” ³⁹⁵ And Ben Kalmenson, Warner Brothers’ executive vice-president, told Quigley after receiving a huge number of letters from people opposed to the film, “It was a terrible experience for our company, and we never want to go through it again.” ³⁹⁶ Even though other factors were at play – notably the fact that the film simply was not a “great” film, even by worldly standards – these things showed that, even in 1956, Roman Catholic influence and power over which movies should or should not be seen was still considerable. And in fact eight years were to go by before any other Hollywood studio took on the Legion like that again.

Tea and Sympathy (1956): Popish Prelate vs. Popish Publisher

In 1956 a film containing the themes of adultery and homosexuality was released, entitled Tea and Sympathy. It was based on a hit Broadway play of the same name. The PCA and the Legion fought hard to squash it, but in the end were unsuccessful. MGM studios obtained the rights to make the movie version of the play, although it decided to tone down the filmed version. The screenplay indeed contained toned-down homosexuality and a somewhat softened stance on the seduction of boys by grown women. But Geoffrey Shurlock and his assistant Jack Vizzard made it clear that a seal could not be obtained from the PCA for the film. The homosexual theme made it necessary for the PCA to automatically reject it, and the added theme of adultery between a married woman and a schoolboy made it doubly unacceptable.

MGM decided to challenge the PCA decision, calling for the MPAA board of directors to examine the script. The board told MGM and the PCA to work out a compromise, enabling the movie to be made and satisfying the PCA so that a seal could be issued. After some months of changes Shurlock felt satisfied.

It was another matter, however, with the Legion of Decency, which had no intention of approving such a film. But the days when such noises from the Legion would have made moviemakers quake in their boots were over, and MGM made the film. The female Legion reviewers from the IFCA, as well as priest Little and his new assistant, priest Paul Hayes, viewed the film. The IFCA women were not at all happy with it, not because of the homosexual theme but because of the adultery in it. Further changes were demanded by Little, but despite a number of alterations being made, the Legion was poised to condemn the film.

At a yet further screening of the film by Legion officials, Little also invited almost 40 prominent Roman Catholics, including fifteen priests, to pass judgment on Tea and Sympathy. Some of the priests were professors of Roman Catholic moral theology, and not all of them supported the Legion. After they had seen the film, Martin Quigley argued that it must be condemned, but not all agreed with him, including a number of the priests. In the end only four priests voted to condemn it, and eleven of them said it deserved either a “B” or an “A2” (unobjectionable for adults) rating. A Romish bishop, William A. Scully, who had been among those who reviewed the film, was the one who took the final decision: he decided that the changes that had been made, disguising the homosexuality and showing remorse for the adultery committed, meant that the film could be given a “B” rating.

The movie, when released, was a box-office hit. But Martin Quigley was a very unhappy man. Scully, the bishop, had over-ruled him. Quigley, however, was not giving up. He wanted the Legion to continue to be the conservative moral watchdog of Hollywood. He had an enemy, though, in Scully, who, along with Little, knew that Quigley was viewed in Hollywood as speaking for the Legion; in fact, he was viewed as pretty much being the Legion. Scully commanded Little “to break down the reputation [of Quigley] in the motion picture industry of being ‘the Legion of Decency.’” ³⁹⁷ Yes, the false “Church” of Rome is full of ambitious, jealous men, with their own power politics being played out behind the scenes as they jostle for positions and fame and respect. These are not Christian men, motivated by Christian principles!

And so, “The fight over Tea and Sympathy marked the beginning of a curious contest between the Catholic hierarchy and a Catholic layman over what subjects movies would be allowed to present. A significant issue in their growing disagreement over what was acceptable entertainment was which of the two men would control the Legion of Decency: the prelate [Scully] or the publisher [Quigley].” ³⁹⁸

The Code Amended Further

In 1956 the MPAA committee met to consider ways to again modernise the Code. One of those on the committee was Daniel O’Shea, president of RKO studios. He was a devout Romanist, and acted as a mole for the Legion, reporting on the committee’s activities to Little and Quigley (Quigley served as a special consultant to the committee), to keep them abreast of what was being decided. He warned the Legion, for example, of Shurlock’s attempts to liberalise the Code. ³⁹⁹

In December, after half a year of deliberation, the committee liberalised the Code somewhat. According to Eric Johnston, when he announced that the Code had been revised, it demonstrated that the Code was “intended to be – and has been – a flexible living document – not a dead hand laid on artistic and creative endeavor.” ⁴⁰⁰ Certain words that had been deemed profane and had been forbidden were now removed from the list, and a more relaxed stance was adopted towards themes of abortion, drugs, prostitution, scenes with excessive alcohol consumption, etc. The criterion was that such themes had to be handled “in good taste.” But such things as nudity, sexual perversion, comic bedroom scenes, open-mouth kissing, and venereal disease remained off-limits. As for miscegenation, it was simply not mentioned at all in this revision.

In one area, that of “National Feelings”, the Code was made more restrictive than before, in that it stated no picture would be granted a seal that tended to incite bigotry or hatred among peoples of different races, religions or national origins, and that offensive words were to be avoided.

Independent film-makers simply ignored the PCA and the Legion, and the limits were constantly tested and pushed.

Storm Center (1956): the Legion’s Big Blunder

Powerful it certainly was; but the Legion was struggling. It objected to the movie Rebel Without a Cause, with its youthful questioning of authority, and to the movie And God Created Woman, with its overt sexuality. But despite its protests people filled theatres to see both of them.

Then came a big blunder on the Legion’s part. It opposed a movie called Storm Center, which contained neither sex nor violence but which was about a librarian falsely accused of being a Communist sympathiser for refusing to remove a pro-Communist book from the library. The PCA was satisfied with it, but the Legion said it was leftist propaganda and placed it in its “Separate” category because, as the Legion’s assistant director, priest Paul Hayes, explained, it was a film that was morally acceptable but harmful on philosophical or dogmatic grounds, confusing liberty with unrestricted freedom. This argument was foolish, because pro-Communist books need to be read, analysed and exposed by the opponents of Communism. Communism can only be defeated if the public understands it, and knows how to answer it. And the same goes for any false ideology, and any false religion as well.

Besides, the Legion’s classification system was created for the purpose of condemning immorality in films, not political propaganda. Thus whenever the Legion attempted to condemn a film for its political message, it ran into trouble.

In the movie the librarian refuses to remove a pro-Communist book from the shelves when the city council orders her to do so, because freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. She is accused of being a Communist, the town turns against her, and the library is burned to the ground. In the end it is clear she was not a Communist sympathiser.

Communists did in fact seek to get their propagandistic literature onto library bookshelves, for the purpose of sowing the seeds of Communism among the people. But again it must be said, in order for such literature to be answered and exposed for the evil it is, people must be aware of what Communism is, how it works, what arguments it uses, etc. And how can this be done if it is impossible to obtain the information? The problem was that the Legion did have some grounds for concern. Julian Blaustein, the film’s producer, had been investigated by the California Senate Tenney Committee for leftist connections (as the Legion discovered). ⁴⁰¹ It was indeed possible that the film was an attempt, by leftists and/or Communists, to send out the message that people who wanted to censor Communist literature were fanatical narrow-minded idiots. This would be entirely in keeping with Communist tactics: a subtle, deceptive attempt, by means of a very powerful, visual medium, to indoctrinate people into Communism is certainly not the same thing as a straightforward handbook of Communist principles. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, well knowing the immense propagandistic power of films, made great use of them to spread their poison – a fact pointed out by Roman Catholic publications in America, which denounced Storm Center as the same kind of propaganda. In this, at least, they may have been right.

Little was supported in his decision to place the film in the “Separate” category by most Romanist publications. Commonweal, however, criticised the decision because the Legion had no mandate to condemn films for their political content. And the Legion decision was also condemned by the Motion Picture Industry Council. Also, the MPAA’s Community Relations Department supported the film. It was clear that many felt the Legion had become way too arrogant. But Jack Vizzard believed that the Legion was the same – it was Hollywood which was constantly pushing the boundaries that caused the friction. In this of course he was right. Hollywood was constantly pushing the boundaries, trying to get away with more and more, whereas the Legion was seeking (albeit more broadly than before) to uphold Roman Catholic standards of morality and politics.

Rome’s New, Liberal Approach to Movies: the 1957 OCIC Conference

The Legion continued to fight against the increasing liberalisation of the movies, but the Roman Catholic institution itself was beginning to liberalise, and the Legion was becoming an embarrassing relic of an earlier, more authoritarian and conservative “Church” to those driving this liberalisation. As their education had improved over what their parents and grandparents had enjoyed, large numbers of Roman Catholics were questioning their “Church’s” stance on many issues, and they felt that an organisation such as the Legion of Decency was treating them like children and idiots.

The Jesuit Order, in particular, was driving the liberalisation of the Papal institution, in order to make it more relevant in a rapidly changing world. Jesuit priest, John Courtney Murray, the religion editor of America, was advocating the doctrine that no minority religious institution (and the Papal institution was a minority religion within the United States) could impose its own standards on those of other religious institutions in a pluralistic society. This doctrine was resisted by other priests, such as Francis Connell, dean of the School of Sacred Technology at Catholic University, who stated that as the Roman Catholic “Church” was the only true Church on earth, its sacred duty was to compel all citizens to obey its moral standards even though it was a minority religion within the U.S. He told priest Little that the apostles themselves, despite being a minority group, “had the right to tell any Ruler of the Earth… that he must abolish any type of theatrical production they deemed harmful to morality.” ⁴⁰² Precisely which part of the Bible this priest pulled his doctrine out of, we are not told, and not surprisingly, for it is simply not found anywhere in the Scriptures.

More and more voices were being heard, from within the Roman Catholic community itself, against the Legion and its work. This situation was very shocking to Martin Quigley, who had worked for so many years in the Legion’s defence.

Even the Legion’s annual pledge came under fire, with priests themselves criticising it. Things were looking increasingly bleak for the Legion’s work. According to Quigley, ever-growing numbers of priests were actually telling their flocks that the pledge was optional. Roman Catholics were attending condemned films in growing numbers, and many priests were claiming it was not a sin to do so. Quigley was a deeply troubled man.

In January 1957 a Roman Catholic gathering took place at a Jesuit school in Cuba, for the purpose of studying cinema as an international mode of communication. It was organised by the Office Catholique International du Cinema (OCIC), which was created as far back as 1928, and delegates from 31 countries in Europe and the Americas attended. It was very interested in the subject of the classification of films.

The pope of Rome, Pius XII, sent a monsignor as his representative to the conference; and a message from Pius was read out in which he spoke of the cinema as “a privileged instrument” that could elevate men if used properly. He also wanted to see Roman Catholics appreciate film s even more, via instruction from their ecclesiastical leaders. ⁴⁰³ Indeed, the OCIC wanted to see Roman Catholics actually study movies in Romanist colleges, universities and seminaries; to attend good ones; etc.

One can see from this a real sign of the changed attitude of the Romish hierarchy, from the pope of Rome down, to the whole subject of movies. Men like Quigley represented the old school, but, devout Papist though he was, his “Church” was passing him by. A new approach was in the air. Indeed, Quigley was aware of it and although he had been invited to attend by the Legion’s monsignor, Thomas Little, who was there along with the Legion’s Mary Looram, he did not do so, believing that the OCIC had been taken over by leftists who did not uphold the morals he believed in. In this suspicion he was not far off the mark: the OCIC had supported and praised movies that contained sexual themes, etc. Clearly, although it was a Roman Catholic organisation, it reflected the changed stance of many within Rome towards such subjects in films and in society in general.

What had happened?

Rome, seeing the power of the film industry worldwide, was now prepared to overlook certain moral matters in movies if by doing so a wider, greater objective could be achieved. Not being a true Christian church, Rome, seeing that the morals of the world had changed, realised that in order for it to have influence it would have to lower its own standards along with the rest of the world, turning a blind eye to such things if by so doing it could retain an influence over its multiplied millions of subjects. In this it followed the world, because, unlike the true people of God, it is a part of the world, not separate from it. It was also following Jesuitism in this matter. The true Christian Church uses nothing but the preaching of the Gospel to win converts; the false “Church” of Rome, however, has to attract the worldly by worldly methods. Thus, while it preached morality, fidelity in marriage, the sin of abortion, etc., it felt that in matters of entertainment it would allow its people to indulge in such things, thereby keeping them happy and enabling Rome to focus on matters it considered more important to the “big picture” it always kept in view.

Instead of criticising or condemning movies that did not come up to its own official moral position, Rome’s new tactic was to rather praise the ones that did, and to be far more liberal in its outlook on the immoral ones. Quigley knew this was going to be the new approach, and he was dead set against it. So he stayed away.

In the very first session of the OCIC meeting, it became crystal-clear that a new brand of priest was loose on the world. Thomas Little gave a presentation in which he described the relationship between the PCA and the Legion of Decency, and said that this relationship meant there was a voice for morality and compensating moral values in American movies. But when he finished there was much anger among the delegates, and a Belgian Dominican priest laid into him, lashing out at his comments. Then Mary Looram, long-time chairwoman of the Motion Picture Department of the IFCA and head of the Legion’s reviewing staff, tried to defend the Legion, but did such a poor job of it that she was publicly derided by the audience. According to Jack Vizzard of the PCA, the meeting concluded that the Legion was “too legalistic and negative”. As for Little, he resigned as chairman of the sub-committee the very day after his presentation.

Considering that this conference had been held under the authority of the Roman pope himself, the public attacks on the American Legion of Decency, by Romish delegates from other Romish countries, confirmed that Rome was now advocating a more liberal approach to the movie industry. And after the conference was over, it was also clear that Rome’s new, more “broad-minded” approach was understood in American Roman Catholic circles as well. The archbishop, William A. Scully, chairman of the Episcopal Committee on Motion Pictures, although calling on Romanists to still support the Legion, nevertheless emphasised that it was not a censoring body, and praised the Cuba conference for the suggestion that Papists should actually study films.

And meanwhile, Jesuits continued to work for a greater liberalisation of what Roman Catholics could see in the theatres. Two of the “progressive” Jesuit priests, Gerald A. Kelly and John Ford, in an article published in September 1957, said that there were no official “Church” documents stating that viewing a particular category of film was a mortal sin. Individual priests and cardinals may have said so, but there was no official policy. In general, the priests said, it was best to refrain from watching films rated as “B” or “C”, but there may be exceptions, and thus to claim that all condemned films were almost always an occasion for mortal sin was being too strict. They even criticised the bishops who had originally founded the Legion of Decency.

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957): Another Pro-Papist War Film

Even though the times were definitely changing, Hollywood still brought out war movies from time to time that exalted Roman Catholicism. In this particular film, very loosely based on a true story, a devout nun and a U.S. marine are lost on a Pacific atoll, and come to see the similarities between her love for her religion and his love for the Marine Corps. The marine assures the nun that Roman Catholics are “good marines, the best”, which makes the nun very happy; and she blesses his fight against the Japanese and assures him that God protects His soldiers.

The film’s director, John Huston, planned all along to make this film a very virtuous one, insofar as the nun’s virginity and her commitment to her religion were concerned. The marine tells her he loves her and asks her not to take her final vows, but she refuses, and he accepts this. And he never forces himself on her. The film strongly promoted Romanism, and the supposed virtue and holiness of a nun’s life.

A Farewell to Arms (1957): Another Firm Nod Towards Priestly Virtue and Courage

This film was the second screen version of a book by Ernest Hemingway. In the first, released way back in 1932, a young couple’s marriage vows are blessed by a Romish priest-chaplain, and in the film’s last scene they go to heaven. All this, of course, was to please the PCA and the Legion of Decency, for Hemingway, a convert to Romanism himself, did not have these things in his story. In the second film version, released in 1957, yet another scene is added that Hemingway did not have: the martyrdom of a priest and a statement of the greatness of the Romish religion. When, during the war, a hospital has to be evacuated, the doctor, who has been opposed to what the priest-chaplain represents, is under orders to leave even though he (like the priest) does not want to, and now for the first time he is impressed by the priest and his religion, for the priest is staying. He says to the priest, “I am ordered by the military to leave, but you have much better orders to remain, Father. I salute your commanding officer.” The priest and his patients are shown singing the Ave Maria as they die in the attack on the hospital. ⁴⁰⁴ It was thus yet another war film in which the Papal institution was depicted as the great moral good – even though this very Papal institution had given its immense backing to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. Such is the power of Hollywood to distort the truth; to rewrite it, in fact.

Thus, even during the protracted and slow death-throes of the PCA and the Legion, and consequently of Romish censorship of Hollywood, there were still films exalting Romanism. And there would be for years to come.

The Papal Encyclical Miranda Prorsus

At this point it would be very profitable to pause and examine the papal encyclical entitled Miranda Prorsus, which laid out (albeit in couched language) the new approach the Vatican was now pursuing to make use of films, TV and radio for achieving its goals. It was released by the pope of Rome, Pius XII, in September 1957.

In it, Pius called the motion picture one of the “most important discoveries of our times”, which had the potential to be “a worthy instrument by which men can be guided toward salvation.” He stated that it was “essential that the minds and inclinations of the spectators be rightly trained and educated” to understand the film-makers’ art form, and called on Roman Catholics to study the cinema in Romish schools and universities. ⁴⁰⁵

Pius was certainly not advocating that the Legion of Decency be dismantled; far from it. He made it clear that the Legion should continue to classify movies according to Romish moral standards, and that Papists should not attend immoral films. But even so the encyclical was very different from the one issued back in 1936 by his predecessor, Pius XI, entitled Vigilante Cum, which called for immoral films to be banned.

We will examine some key paragraphs of the 1957 encyclical:

Para. 34 says: “The Catholic Church is keenly desirous that these means [cinema, sound broadcasting and TV] be converted to the spreading and advancement of everything that can be truly called good. Embracing, as she does, the whole of human society within the orbit of her divinely appointed mission, she is directly concerned with the fostering of civilisation among all peoples.”

Right here the game is given away. Rome desires to “convert” these forms of mass media to her own purposes. Furthermore, as far as she is concerned, she has a divine mission to subjugate the entire human race to the feet of the pope of Rome, who is viewed as God on earth, the King of kings, the true ruler of all mankind. As for advancing “good”, Rome means something very different by this word, as she does by others, as expressed in the following paragraph from the encyclical:

Para. 35: “This, then, must be the principal aim of the cinema, sound broadcasting and television: to serve the cause of truth and virtue…”

“Good”, “truth” and “virtue”: wonderful sounding words, but what does Rome mean by them? One would be very mistaken if one assumes she means what the true Christian means by them! The question must be asked: whose “truth” (for example) must be served? The truth of Christ in His holy Word, the Bible? Certainly not, for Rome has never embraced Christ’s truth nor upheld it. She means her own version of “truth”, “virtue”, and “good”.

Para. 51: “These new arts which directly affect the eye and ear may give rise to innumerable benefits or innumerable evils and dangers, according to the use which man makes of them. Realising this, the Church has a duty in this regard which she is at pains to perform. Her task is… concerned… with religion and with the direction and control of morals. To facilitate the proper performance of this task, our predecessor of undying memory, Pius XI, declared and proclaimed that ‘it will be necessary that in each country the Bishops set up a permanent national reviewing office in order to be able to promote good motion pictures, classifying the others, and bring this judgment to the knowledge of priests and faithful.’ He added, too, that it was essential that all Catholic initiative relating to the cinema be directed towards an honourable end. In several countries the Bishops, bearing these directives in mind, have set up offices of this kind…”

Note the words: “control of morals”. Rome desires to control the morals of the whole world, for in her judgment the entire world must be Romanist. Working always towards this end, she knows the immense value of the mass media to enable her to achieve this aim. Roman Catholics are duty-bound to obey their pope in all matters of (Papist) faith and morals; and he directs every sphere of life for them, from birth to the grave. “Catholic freedom is restricted solely to the choice of methods to be used for implementing Catholic social policies and directives. In principle it is identical to Communist freedom. Significantly, both systems have the same aim and both use the same methods”. ⁴⁰⁶ Indeed so: both employ such methods as opposition to freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

Para. 52: “We desire that the offices referred to be set up without delay in every country where they do not already exist. They are to be entrusted to men who are experienced in these arts, under the guidance of a priest especially chosen by the Bishops…. At the same time we urge that the faithful, and particularly those who are militant in the cause of Catholic Action, be suitably instructed, so that they may appreciate the need for giving to these offices their willing, united and effective support.”

The pope of Rome’s explicit mention of Catholic Action in this paragraph must not go unnoticed.

Let us next consider para. 76 of this encyclical:

“To Catholic film directors and producers we issue a paternal injunction not to allow films to be made which are at variance with the faith and Christian [i.e. Roman Catholic] moral standards. Should this happen – which God forbid – then it is for the Bishops to rebuke them and, if necessary, to impose upon them appropriate sanctions.”

We have already seen how in the United States, the Legion of Decency exercised precisely the kind of power desired by the Roman pope in this paragraph, for decades. The era following the encyclical’s release in 1957 was marked by a number of high-profile, pro-Papist films emanating from Hollywood. This continued till almost the end of the 1960s. Unfortunately for Rome, however, this encyclical came a little too late to have the great effect the Papal hierarchy hoped it would. Certainly it did have a huge effect, but not to the extent it was hoped. And the reason for this, as we have seen and shall yet see, is that the western world, and American Roman Catholicism with it, had changed in those post-war years, rising up against authority and the beliefs and morals of earlier generations, and there was a swing away from authoritarianism, even by young Roman Catholics. For now, let us continue examining this document, for it clearly sets out the papal agenda, even if, when it came to Hollywood, it only had a brief period of real application in the years that followed, as the “Golden Age” came to an end.

Para. 96 reads: “Meanwhile we are constrained, Venerable Brethren, to exhort you paternally to make every effort proportionate to the needs and resources of your respective dioceses to increase and render more effective the number of programmes which deal with Catholic interests.”

And how to achieve this aim? Obviously by increasing the number of Roman Catholics working in the media, who would then control the flow of information, the type of entertainment seen, etc., etc.

Para.97: “Clearly of great assistance here would be the establishing of training centres and courses of study in those countries where Catholics employ the latest radio equipment and have the added advantage that their day to day experience gives them.”

Was this instruction carried out? If the facts from Australia are anything to go by, it most certainly was: there the Roman Catholic institution owned 50% of the largest programming organisation outside of the United States, and through it Rome had an interest in a radio announcers’ school, concert promotions, and the programming of other stations. ⁴⁰⁷

Television, in particular, which was still fairly new when this encyclical was issued, was of particular importance to the Papacy for spreading its propaganda. In para. 113 the encyclical says:

“We paternally exhort those Catholics who are well qualified by their learning, sound doctrine, and knowledge of these arts, and in particular clerics and members of religious orders and congregations, to turn their attention to this new form of art [TV]. Let them work side by side in support of this cause, so that all the benefits which the past and true progress have contributed to the mind’s development may redound in full measure to the advantage of television.”

How successful was Rome at this? The evidence speaks for itself, as TV programmes were very pro-Papist and pushed the Papist agenda.

Of course, when Pius stated that movies were a noble art which could, potentially, be of benefit to mankind, the growing numbers of American Roman Catholic liberals heard his statement as giving permission now for movies to depict “adult” themes. ⁴⁰⁸ These young Papists were not as intensely loyal to the traditional, ultra-conservative Roman “Church” of their parents: unlike earlier generations of American Papists, many of them were now attending universities, where they were coming under all kinds of influences, via literature, art, etc. This has always been Rome’s dilemma in the United States: how to maintain absolute control over its subjects in a country where freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of access to all kinds of information constantly worked against its purposes. Rome and the USA have always been at odds, for this and many other reasons. The Vatican views the United States as a great prize to be won; but it has never quite been able to use the methods it has employed with such effect in other, less “open” countries. Ironically, the very movie industry which it had used to such great effect in America for decades, was now potentially on the threshold of being one of its greatest threats.

The Legion Outsmarted by the Jesuits; Quigley Cast Aside

Martin Quigley was by now a deeply troubled man. His conservative position on immoral movies had been greatly undermined, even attacked, by the Cuba conference, and by the stance taken on movies by a number of leading liberal Jesuit intellectuals, notably John Courtney Murray, Harold C. Gardiner, John C. Ford, and Gerald Kelly. These men stated that Legion classifications were no more than guidelines for Roman Catholic adults. The Jesuits were very much behind Rome’s new, liberal approach to the movie industry, and Quigley knew it, writing at a later date: “This Jesuit clique, which has dominated the conduct of the Legion office since 1957, is opposed to the condemnation of any motion picture – or any artifact by a Catholic agency – in this ‘pluralistic society.’” ⁴⁰⁹ He also knew that his own previously unassailable position of influence within the Legion was now far from secure. Something had to be done. Quigley felt the best thing to do was to bring a young Jesuit whom he could control into the organisation. He thought this would silence the Jesuit criticism. But he was very wrong. He plainly had no real understanding of Jesuit techniques or intrigue, nor of Jesuit power and loyalty.

The Jesuit priest he chose was Patrick J. Sullivan. He replaced priest Paul Hayes as assistant to priest Little in September 1957. But Sullivan was a Jesuit first and foremost, and would not bow and scrape to Quigley. In fact, he agreed with fellow-Jesuit John Courtney Murray’s belief that Rome could not impose its views on non-Papists. At least, this was what the Jesuits were saying; but they always act to advance Romanism, even when appearing to be more accommodating. Still, to begin with Quigley thought Sullivan was a good appointment. Sullivan told him that he wanted to “sell” the Legion to his brother- Jesuits.

But Sullivan wanted changes at the Legion. And when Miranda Prorsus was released a week after Sullivan came to work at the Legion, the priest saw it as the support he needed to make changes. He was in all likelihood behind the bishops’ new statement on censorship, which declared that “good taste will inevitably narrow the field of what is morally objectionable” in movies.

In November 1957, the Episcopal Committee on Motion Pictures held a meeting to discuss the classification system and the encyclical Miranda Prorsus. It decided to make changes to the Legion’s classifications, and these changes were drafted by Sullivan: the “A2” category would classify films that were acceptable for both adults and adolescents; a new “A3” category was “morally acceptable for adults”, and the Legion could now recommend films it believed were particularly good. The “B” category was for those films which could be morally dangerous for viewers, and the “C” category was for entirely bad and harmful films.

So, for the very first time, Roman Catholics would now actually be encouraged to attend films recommended by the Legion, and adults and adolescents were now permitted far more freedom to choose what they wished to see. The Legion stated that the new “A2” category might now include films that were previously rated “B”; it said that adolescents should not be “excessively protected”; and local priests were told to educate Roman Catholic youth so that they could watch more “mature” films. There was no doubt about it: the liberalisation of Rome’s attitude to Hollywood was now well under way. In this way, as it has ever done, Rome hoped to hold onto its youth.

Another change that was implemented was to greatly weaken the women reviewers of the IFCA, who had been the Legion reviewing staff from as far back as the mid-1930s. These Roman Catholic women were generally more conservative and the new liberalisation required that their influence be diluted: the Legion appointed a board of consultors, consisting of priests and “laymen”, who became very influential. ⁴¹⁰

Quigley was furious at these changes, and realised he had miscalculated in appointing Sullivan, who had “succeeded in imposing a new and different approach to… the Legion’s function”, as he wrote to the archbishop, William A. Scully. He warned Scully that the changes that had been implemented by Sullivan could greatly undermine the influence of the Legion. He also said that Hollywood studios were rejoicing over the changes. In this he was correct. Sullivan, however, was simply carrying out his orders as a Jesuit when he drafted the new classification system, and Scully, as chairman of the ECMP, had approved them all. The American bishops also endorsed them, and had in fact expressed their appreciation of the work of Jesuits Ford and Kelly for contributing towards “a better understanding” of the Legion’s work; i.e. a more liberal approach. ⁴¹¹

Martin Quigley, faithful Papist that he was, was now on the other end of the spectrum from the bishops of Rome with regards to the film industry. No longer was the Legion of Decency’s policy dictated by him. Time had passed him by, his own “Church” had passed him by, and he was cast aside.

Open Season on the Code

One Hollywood mogul after another was now openly defying the Code, so that Variety magazine conceded in 1957, “It’s open season on Hollywood’s Production Code and the set of morality standards appears the target of brickbats from various directions. There have been pro and con about its functions in the past, of course, but rarely has there been such a concentration of expressions of concern about its values.” ⁴¹² With Breen gone and the Code’s administrators lacking his iron will and style, film-makers increasingly just thumbed their noses at the Code – and got away with it. This included the Roman Catholic, Alfred Hitchcock, who deliberately included endings to his movies, To Catch a Thief (1956) and North by Northwest (1959), which left no doubt in the audiences’ minds of what was happening sexually between their lead characters.

Ben-Hur (1959): the “Religious Epic” Where Religion is Neutered

As was the usual case when Hollywood tackled supposedly “Christian” themes, doctrine was tossed aside and the focus was on more worldly themes, the making of “a good story” rather than any real interest in anything higher. This was the case with William Wyler’s 1959 epic, Ben-Hur. The author of the book on which the film was “based”, General Lew Wallace, wrote in a manner so “Romish” that the book was endorsed by Rome and blessed by the pope, Leo XIII. ⁴¹³ But the film was a different kettle of fish: there was no way it was going to “preach” Romanism. The hero, played by Charlton Heston, does not even make an avowal of “the faith” in the film; there is no implied conversion of the hero to “Christianity”. It was a film that pushed no one religious view, and was so ambiguous about such matters that it appealed to people of many religious persuasions, including Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Essentially it was an ecumenical film, but even more than that, it was so ambiguous that it could be called an inter-religious film, at least insofar as it would not offend members of any religion.

And this is precisely why it is so naive and foolish for professing Christians to assume that such films as Ben-Hur are not only good and inoffensive, but even moral and useful! Rather a film that is an honest rendition of a book, even if it then promotes the same false religion that the book does, than a film which is so inoffensive that it is attractive to all (even naive Evangelicals). At least the makers of the former are honest and up-front about its motives, and true Christians will not be taken in by it. The latter type of film, however, is dangerous precisely because it appears so harmless and attractive. The book, Ben-Hur, has a definite religious message, and it is not one which is acceptable to true Christians; the film has no such message, but how many are induced to go and read the book after watching it, and thus are led from one error into the next?

Furthermore, in films like this one Hollywood actually created gods of its own. “The startling thing about the 1959 Ben-Hur, Donald Spoto correctly intuits in his provocative overview of Camerado: Hollywood and the American Man was the transcendental power of the new superstar. As Ben-Hur, Charlton Heston need not cling to Christianity; the miracles of Hollywood technology have elevated his imposing figure ‘to the ranks of a religious savior.’ Spoto perceptively isolates a cosmic shift. In this 1959 Ben-Hur, Heston need not go to Christ because Heston himself has become Hollywood’s new Messiah, a savior created by the twentieth century’s marvelous dream machine. Charlton Heston has been transfigured, in Sporot’s words, into ‘our deus ex machina, all made up and smiling, come to save us with outstretched arm and dazzling, but somewhat spiritless, glance.’” ⁴¹⁴

Christians have therefore a double motive for avoiding such Hollywood epics.

Suddenly Last Summer (1959): Papist Praise for a Horror Story

In 1959 Suddenly Last Summer appeared, a horror story with themes of homosexuality and cannibalism, produced by Sam Spiegel. The PCA told him sexual perversion was still not permitted in films, but he countered that if the PCA withheld a seal, he would appeal to the MPAA board of directors. The PCA accordingly withheld the seal, and Spiegel accordingly appealed. “If there ever had been a picture that seemed ripe for condemnation, this was it.” ⁴¹⁵ And yet, incredibly, the MPAA granted a certificate! Naturally enough, the Legion’s Thomas Little protested to the MPAA, but the Legion’s new board of consultors was far from being as strict as the old IFCAhad been. Although some condemned it, there was no consensus among the consultors. A priest on the board said Suddenly Last Summer was the finest American film he had ever seen, that no adult would be harmed by watching it, and recommended an “A3” rating. Another priest said it was “powerful” and “excellent”, and yet another described it as “magnificent entertainment”, “thoughtful… adult entertainment.” Another consultor told Little it would be “a mistake to condemn a film of this stature.” It was positively reviewed in the influential Romish publication, Our Sunday Visitor. Other Romish publications gave it positive reviews as well.

Finally, the Legion gave the film a Separate Classification, stating it was “judged to be moral in its theme and treatment” but as the subject matter involved sexual perversion it was intended only for “a serious and mature audience.” ⁴¹⁶

Incredibly, while so many Roman Catholic reviewers were praising it, secular ones often condemned it and even heavily criticised the Legion for giving it the classification it did! One Hollywood gossip columnist even said of the Legion: “it doesn’t seem to be functioning any more.” ⁴¹⁷ How things had changed when a film that included sodomy and cannibalism was now being hailed by the Roman Catholic organisation that would once have condemned such filth outright. “The Legion classification and the supporting reception of the film in the Catholic press shocked many Catholics and industry insiders alike, who did not yet fully appreciate the internal changes that were taking hold of Legion operations and the Catholic attitude toward the movies.” ₄₁₈

It was all too much for Martin Quigley. He protested directly to Spellman, who then arranged for a meeting between Quigley and Scully, mediated by James McNulty, bishop of the archdiocese of Paterson, New Jersey. They met in July 1959, and Quigley spoke of the Jesuit conspiracy to control the Legion. In this, of course, he was absolutely right. Nevertheless, he had made the tactical error of appointing a Jesuit, Sullivan, so that when he protested that Sullivan was under the influence of Jesuit intellectuals Murray, Gardiner and Ford, this claim sounded hollow. McNulty’s report not only stated that Quigley’s charges were groundless, but it also sought to damage Quigley’s reputation by accusing him of trying to indoctrinate Sullivan, of threatening Sullivan with removal if he did not toe Quigley’s line, and of being a thorn in the side of the Legion.