CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE 1980s: THE MOVIE ASSAULT ON ROMANISM CONTINUES

The Legion Dies with Hardly a Whimper

By 1980 the NCOMP, the once all-powerful Legion of Decency, was finished. Hardly any Roman Catholics were in favour of it anymore, and even the bishops saw no reason for its continued existence. Conservative Roman Catholics had long since given up on it, once it had become liberal, and liberal Roman Catholics just saw no point to it. And so it was that Jesuit priest Patrick J. Sullivan announced that the NCOMP would not be publishing any more reviews after September 1980. “What had started with such a fury in 1934 died in 1980 with hardly a whimper of protest.” ⁵²¹

For decades Rome had, through the Legion, exerted a massive influence over Hollywood. Film-makers were too afraid to cross it, for it threatened to condemn any film it did not like, and so they readily bowed and scraped to it, making the cuts and alterations which it demanded so as to bring every film into line with what Rome wanted. It was much, much more than a Roman Catholic rating organisation; it was a powerful censoring body. Sullivan lamented the loss of Legion power in its heyday with these words: “As everyone knows, Catholics had ‘clout’ in those days and because of that clout, motion pictures were a family entertainment.” ⁵²² He was right about Roman Catholic clout: it had been immensely powerful. But as time went by that clout over Hollywood was eroded.

Not only did Roman Catholics, in large numbers, ignore Legion fulminations against movies from the very inception of the Legion itself, but in time Jesuit intellectuals, reading the signs of the times in society and realising that Rome’s attitude to the movies would have to change if it wanted to keep its hold on its own people, exerted their powerful influence over the Legion and swung it away from its original stance to a more liberalised, “tolerant” one. ft became a battle between the older, more traditionalist Roman Catholics, epitomised by Martin Quigley, and the newer, liberal Roman Catholics, led by Jesuits such as John Courtney Murray and Patrick J. Sullivan. And the Jesuits won. But their victory was not theirs alone: Roman Catholics in general simply refused to follow the dictates of the Legion, and flocked to see the very movies it condemned. ⁵²³ America’s moral values, if values they could be called, had permeated American Romanism. This was something the hierarchy of Rome came to realise, and to understand that it would have to “go with the flow” in order to hold on to American Roman Catholics.

How Protestant “Fundamentalism” Replaced the Legion of Decency

Some years after the NCOMP died, American Protestant organisations came to the fore as the new watchdogs of the movie industry. One was the American Family Association. Another, and by far the most well known and most influential, was the Christian Film and Television Commission, headed by Ted Baehr. Baehr’s organisation had many similarities with the old Legion of Decency. For example, it asked those who supported it to take an oath of decency; and it issued Movieguide, which it touted as being a “family [it originally said “biblical”] guide to movies and entertainment.” Like the old Legion, Baehr also sought to persuade movie and TV executives to adopt regulations that were very much like that old Jesuit creation, the Production Code. ⁵²⁴

Also, Baehr created a movie classification system. But he classified movies not just according to their morality, but also their artistic merits. This naturally created many problems and hypocritical stances for him, when a movie was rated highly for its artistic merit but condemned for its moral tone. As we pointed out in the Introduction to this book, there is something extremely hypocritical about certain men, professing to be Christians, setting themselves up as movie reviewers, carefully watching all kinds of immoral movies themselves, and then turning around and warning other professing Christians not to watch those movies as they are morally objectionable! If a movie should be shunned by Christians, then it should be shunned by “Christian reviewers” as well. They do not occupy a higher plane than other men, able to resist the temptations others face. There is simply no excuse for going to watch morally objectionable films, not even so as to be able to tell others not to do so!

A pastor does not say to his flock, “Stay here while I go into that brothel to see what it’s like, and then I can let you know whether you should go in or not.” What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

That Baehr was very influenced by the old Production Code, and by the work of the Legion, was obvious. And despite having a very undeserved reputation as something of a Protestant fundamentalist, he was more than willing to seek the assistance of Roman Catholics for his work, thereby showing his true ecumenical colours. In 1992, for example, he asked Romish cardinal, Roger Mahony, to work with him in seeking to get the industry to set up a regulatory system, as in the past. Mahony, initially sympathetic to the idea, changed his mind when it was criticised by Hollywood leaders. He decided that he preferred the idea of Hollywood producers voluntarily cutting back on the amount of sex and violence in their films. And he stated that it was not for him to dictate which films Roman Catholics could see and which they could not, but that this must be left to their own consciences. A very American-sounding response, though far from biblical and, furthermore, very hypocritical too, given Rome’s antipathy towards Americanism and towards the idea of its subjects following their own consciences in anything else.

And so a most extraordinary situation had developed: that of Roman Catholics sounding like liberal, amoral upholders of individual liberty of conscience, and Protestant ‘fundamentalists ” sounding like old- style, authoritarian Roman Catholic priests!

Don’t Go in the House (1980): Hollywood Keeps Up Its War Against Romanism

In this Gothic tragedy, once again Romanism comes in for a beating. An Italian Roman Catholic man leaves his wife for other women, and she, a devout Romanist but unstable, believes that their son Donny must have the demons of lust burned out of him, so she holds his arms over her kitchen stove and severely burns him. Donny becomes a twisted soul, sexually abusing and torturing women with a blowtorch. When he goes to steal “holy water” from a Roman Catholic “church”, the priest is ineffectual in helping the demon-possessed Donny, who later uses his blowtorch on the priest, symbol of a “Church” which is powerless to help him.

True Confessions (1981): Irish-American Romanists Depicted as Depraved

True Confessions is a film about a policeman investigating prominent Roman Catholic “laymen” for the brutal rape and murder of a young girl. In addition, the cop’s brother is an Irish-American monsignor, the chancellor of the archdiocese of Los Angeles, and involved in corruption with the Roman Catholics under investigation. The scandal that erupts destroys the priestly brother.

This movie deliberately and ruthlessly attacks and pulls down the kind of Irish-American Romanism portrayed in the much older Going My Way. Instead of the happy-go-lucky lightness of Going My Way, True Confessions is full of Irish-American Roman Catholic corruption and perversion – and indeed Hollywood was definitely now portraying Irish-Americans this way. It was not the huge commercial success that Going My Way had been, but that is not the point: the film reflected “a revolution in the representation of Irish Catholic America on film and in television since the 1960s…. Depicted for thirty or forty years as pictures of innocence, guardians of morality, and/or exemplars of patriotism in movies like Going My Way, Irish American Catholics were now showing up largely as cynical cops, corrupt politicians, nationalist zealots, or hypocritical priests.” And, “because Irish Americans have long dominated and continue to dominate the Catholic church in America, True Confessions stands at a critical point in movie representations of the American Catholic church.” ⁵²⁵

The movie was based on a book by John Gregory Dunne, who also wrote the screenplay. Dunne was an Irish-American Romanist himself, who believed that Irish America could only properly be understood through its religion. In this he was correct, for Roman Catholicism has dominated and defined Irish-Americans through the decades. He believed that the Roman Catholic institution “is the root of Irish American corruption and repression.” ⁵²⁶ And he pulled no punches in getting this message across in the movie. Andrew Greeley, a Roman Catholic, said angrily of the movie that the “Irish characters in it, civil and ecclesiastical, are without exception, venal, corrupt, obsessed, sick, hypocritical and disgusting.” ⁵²⁷ The Roman Catholic hierarchy in the United States must have been fuming! How times had changed for them.

Not only does the film deal with corruption in the Roman Catholic “Church”, but also with sexual sin. For example, a monsignor is found dead and naked in a brothel; the married Roman Catholic men in the film all have girlfriends or prostitutes on the side; etc. The film shows supposedly “respectable” Roman Catholics involved in all kinds of sexual sins.

Of course, many Roman Catholics did not want to admit it when the film was made and many do not want to admit it now, but the sad truth is that the Roman Catholic institution, in the United States no less than anywhere else, is indeed deeply involved in these very sins and crimes, and always has been. ⁵²⁸ The evidence has always been there, through the centuries, a vast accumulation of evidence, but tragically most Roman Catholics have chosen to ignore it or pretend it is not true, and their ecclesiastical leaders have done their best to brush it under an increasingly lumpy carpet. It was only in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the scandal broke worldwide about the vast scale of priestly sexual abuse of children, that finally there was large-scale Roman Catholic admission that, after all, their “Church” was a cesspool of sexual iniquity. Most continue to remain Roman Catholics, however.

Thus, what the film depicted about the corruption and immorality within the Papal institution was not inaccurate. Not at all. This does not mean the film is a decent one for Christians to watch, of course; they do not need to go to vile Hollywood to learn the truth about Roman Catholicism. But these things are brought out here merely to show that Hollywood was now happy to openly attack Roman Catholicism – the very religion that had once been dubbed Hollywood’s religion. Again, Rome’s own wickedness, hypocrisy, oppression, etc., had led to a reaction, a backlash; and it was a violent one.

It is true that the main priest-character in the film eventually is free of all the filth he had once been embroiled in, ending his days as a simple country priest. As one critic said, “Implicit in the film’s conception is that there is a pure Catholicism tucked away somewhere waiting for [the priest] to return to it.” ⁵²⁹ But this does not take away from the film’s over-riding emphasis on the sleazy, hypocritical nature of American Roman Catholicism. It simply reveals (if it reveals anything at all) that Dunne, who had been raised Romanist, still hoped that out there somewhere, there was a “decent” Roman Catholicism. But as far as he was concerned, the Romish institution in the United States was, overwhelmingly, a cesspool. And this is what he sought to bring out in the story.

Absence of Malice (1981): Another Dark Portrait of Romanism

As quoted previously, “Most contemporary portraits of ethnic Catholicism are dark portraits of stunted lives, compulsive guilt, and abiding despair” ⁵³⁰ (this from a 1984 publication). And this film was certainly no exception: it was about an Irish-American Roman Catholic man and a disgraced Roman Catholic woman who commits suicide.

The Verdict (1982): Yet Another Celluloid Assault on Romanism

In this film, a drunken Irish-American Romanist attorney takes on a Roman Catholic hospital, a prejudiced Irish-American Romanist judge, and the Romish archdiocese of Boston. The film depicts Romanists in a very poor light: “its clergymen are modem day Machiavellis shunting down corridors of power and sequestered in limousines”. The bishop in the film is unscrupulous, caring nothing at all about people but an awful lot about money, and knowing how to use it to his advantage by bribery and buying people off. Of course, this is not an inaccurate portrayal at all. This is precisely how the hierarchy of the “Church” of Rome operates. This does not, however, make the film a decent film which true Christians should see – not at all; the truth about the Roman Catholic institution is fully documented in print, and such truth never needs to be learned from a fictional story in a movie containing filthy language and other unacceptable material for a true Christian.

Amityville II: the Possession (1982): Another Horror Film Assault on Roman Catholicism

This film was perhaps the best-known imitation of The Exorcist. The family at the centre of the film consisted of an Italian-American brute, his devout Papist wife, and their children who hate him. Once again depraved sex, including incest, features prominently in the film, and the message that comes through is that Roman Catholic girls are often the loosest, morally, of any, and yet riddled with deep guilt at all times.

This theme is typical of Hollywood in the post-Code, post-Legion years, when Romanism became fair game in movies. Sadly, there is much truth in the stereotypes, in the sense that Romanism inculcates deep guilt in its adherents, even while it encourages a lax morality via its confessionals, its supposed celibate priesthood which so many Papists know is nothing but a joke, etc. In Amityville II there is incest and confession to a priest, but no peace is experienced by the guilty one as a result.

The priest who tries to help the family experiences poltergeist activity and bloody hallucinations, and ends up failing to help them at all. They are killed, he views himself as responsible for their deaths, and determines to exorcise the demon, even against the advice of his religious superiors. In the end he himself voluntarily becomes possessed (just like the priest in The Exorcist). This gives the impression that Satan is the victorious one in the film. Indeed, Satan mocks the priest for acting on his own, without the support of his “Church” and disobeying it. The message conveyed by all this is that the “Church” did not protect the priest at all, just as he did not protect the dead family.

Evilspeak (1982): Still Another Anti-Roman Catholic Horror Movie

In this film, an overweight, unpopular cadet, teased mercilessly by his Roman Catholic friends, gets his revenge by unleashing demons which devour them, the Papist chaplain, and others. And in its final scene, pigs from hell run amok through a Romish chapel, desecrating its images, the confessional box, and the tabernacle (where Rome’s mass- wafer is kept). The message being sent to the audience is that “God” (the Roman Catholic god) is powerless even to prevent the desecration of his own holy places.

The Monsignor (1982): Priestly Corruption Portrayed

In this movie, Christopher Reeve played the part of a Romish priest who was a thief and a murderer and who gave Mafia money to the Vatican. He rises to the very top of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Vatican, precisely because of his wicked lifestyle. His bishop mentor advises him to use his faith, brains, and sexual abilities “discreetly.” And this he does, bringing money into the Vatican from the black market, letting a gangster friend wager Vatican money in the world currency market, and seducing a Carmelite postulant.

There really are such priests and always have been (and plenty of them!), and there is a link between the Mafia and the “Church” of Rome and always has been; ⁵³¹ but this was not the kind of image of the Roman Catholic “Church” that the Vatican wanted to see portrayed.

Agnes of God (1985): a Murdering Nun

Things just got worse and worse. In the 1985 film Agnes of God a nun kills her baby. In actual fact, nuns throughout history have at times killed babies, often the offspring of illicit affairs between priests and nuns. This is well documented in literature, with firsthand testimonies from nuns themselves, among others. ⁵³² But Rome certainly did not want such facts brought to light by the far more powerful modem medium of film!

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988): Blasphemy Made by an Italian Roman Catholic

In 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ came out, a film that deeply offended and angered both Roman Catholics and Protestants because it speculated about Jesus’ supposed fantasies, including sexual ones. They picketed outside movie theatres and boycotted the film in their thousands, and there were even threats of violence made. And yet the film was made by an Italian-American Roman Catholic named Martin Scorsese!

The United States Catholic Conference declared the film to be morally objectionable, but, remembering the old Legion protests which so often had had the opposite effect to that desired, it did not actually ask the Roman Catholic faithful to join the protests.

Scorsese had been raised Papist and at one time had considered becoming a priest. In 1972 he read a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, written in 1953, and was so taken with the story that he bought the motion picture rights. Scorsese was later to say, “I’ve always wanted to do a spiritual movie but religion gets in the way.” As far as he was concerned, The Last Temptation of Christ sought to “tear away all the old Hollywood films… and create a Jesus you could talk to and get to know.” ⁵³³ Astoundingly, Protestants and Romanists who were so offended with this film would, a mere sixteen years later, welcome Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ with open arms. And yet The Passion (as will be seen) was as unbiblical as The Last Temptation, though in a different way. It was also even more sickeningly violent. How quickly the masses can be manipulated to change!

Conclusion

And so the 1980s ended with Hollywood having cast off the shackles of the once-virtually-almighty Roman Catholic control of the industry, and to a very large extent having declared open season on all things Roman Catholic. Hollywood, from its beginning, was a way for depraved men to express their depravity through a new art from, just as men have done through other art forms through the centuries. Then along came the American Roman Catholic institution, seeking, as it always does, to control every aspect of society and channel everything to its own ends; and thus it came about that two devil-inspired expressions of man’s depravity clashed. One was that depravity which expresses itself via an art form, giving vent to all kinds of immorality by flaunting it on the screen; and the other was that depravity which expresses itself via religion. Let the reader understand very well at this point: both were of Satan. He makes use of any and all means he can to ensnare men’s souls. He knows that some are ensnared by immorality, debauchery, etc., while others are ensnared by false religion.

For decades, religious depravity was dominant over Hollywood. During this time, films were very often cleaner, morally, than they would otherwise have been; but at the same time they promoted a false version of “Christianity”, and thus a spiritual filthiness that is just as destructive to the souls of men as physical filthiness, and often even more so. How many millions of people, attending the movies during that “Golden Age” (so-called) of Hollywood when Rome swept out much of the immorality that the moviemakers would have so loved to retain, were subtly led into a spiritual bondage just as powerful as any physical bondage to lusts of the flesh? There can be absolutely no doubt that Hollywood during this period played an i mm ense part in breaking down Protestants’ resistance to Romanism, changing their attitudes towards all things Roman Catholic, and softening them up for the ecumenical movement which burst on the religious world in the 1960s.

But not only that: because Rome’s own notions of morality are not based on the Bible, this meant that although movies during this period were morally cleaner than they would have been, they were certainly (for the most part) far from the moral standards of the Holy Scriptures. Yet because a supposedly “Christian” censorship system was in place for all those years and the public knew it, they came to believe that Rome’s notions of morality were one and the same with the Bible’s. And in this way the morals of Protestant moviegoers underwent a subtle but very decided shift. Through the powerful medium of film, they began to accept and adopt Rome’s morality for themselves, without even realising it.

And the results are all too evident today. Generations of Protestant moviegoers were indoctrinated in Roman Catholic morality; they have learned their morality from the movies instead of from the Bible. And this has resulted in two things. First, while Romish censorship dominated Hollywood, there was a decided slackening of moral standards throughout the western world, including among Protestants. The point is that although movies of this era were more moral than they would have been if Rome’s censorship had not been applied, they were not moral enough. They were moral according to Rome’s lights, but not biblically moral. They promoted much that earlier generations of Protestants would never have allowed; such as more revealing clothing, “dating” by young people, worldly music, dancing, other forms of worldly entertainment, and much more. Pastors of what would once have been called Bible-believing churches began to permit things which would never before have been permitted, and no longer did they preach against these things. Parents, professing to be Christians, allowed their children to have liberties which went beyond what was biblically justifiable. Churches began to change their outreach programmes for young people, lowering their standards and coming to embrace the utterly unbiblical concept of “entertainment evangelism” to “reach the lost in a way they understand” and to “show them that Christians can have fun too.”

And the second thing this has resulted in has been that when, finally, Roman Catholic censorship of the movie industry came to an end, moviegoers, already softened up to lower moral standards and having become avid moviegoers, readily began to embrace the now- raunchier movies that Hollywood began to spue out. The damage had been done in the decades of Romish censorship: morals had dropped, a hunger for ever-more explicit entertainment had been created, and once the sluice gates were opened there was no shocked retreat by Protestant moviegoers as a whole; rather there was an embracing of the ever-lower standards which very soon became commonplace in movies. And this has continued ever since, so that the vast majority of professing Protestants today comfortably attend even the vilest movies regularly, and relax in front of their TV screens to watch the same filth there. They see nothing wrong with it. They cannot imagine ever not doing what they are doing. It is just a regular part of their lives, and one which they will not give up. They are spiritually blind, unregenerate, worshipping before this entertainment idol with all their hearts.

Thus by the end of the 1980s, Roman Catholic control over Hollywood was over. But then something extraordinary began to happen.