CHAPTER THREE
PROTESTANTS, ROMAN CATHOLICS AND FILM CENSORSHIP IN THE EARLY YEARS

Despite the fact that Jewish-Americans of Eastern European origin created the film studios and ran them, the actual control of the industry, of what movies would be made, etc., was in the hands of the Roman Catholic “Church” for decades. But why? Why was it that the movie industry came to be controlled by Roman Catholics? Why was it that “Catholic characters, spaces, and rituals have been stock features in popular films since the silent picture era”? ⁴⁸ How was it possible that in Protestant America, the Roman Catholic religion came to dominate the movie industry? The following explanation, written by Colleen McDannell, editor of the book Catholics in the Movies, is very accurate:

“An intensely visual religion with a well-defined ritual and authority system, Catholicism lends itself to the drama and pageantry – the iconography – of film. Moviegoers watch as Catholic visionaries interact with the supernatural, priests counsel their flocks, reformers fight for social justice, and bishops wield authoritarian power. As the religion of many immigrants [to the United States], Catholic characters represent outsider status as well as the ‘American way of life. ’ Rather than being marginal to American popular culture, Catholic people, places, and rituals are central. At the movies, Catholicism – rather than Protestantism – is the American religion.” ⁴⁹ Later she wrote: “in the world of the movies, religion is Catholic.” ⁵⁰

This is very true. But then also there is the more sinister reason: a deliberate purpose behind Roman Catholic control of the industry, the reason for which has been set out already in this book, and the evidence for which will be given in the pages to follow.

Striving to Break Down Early Protestant Opposition to the Movies

In the early years of the twentieth century, it was Protestants, even more than Roman Catholics, who influenced the content of movies. They sought to uphold moral values, desiring that such things as crime and punishment, class, ethnicity, family and romance, would be portrayed in a way that would do so. American Protestants of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were also for the most part still very aware of the dangers posed by Popery to Protestantism, and to America itself. They knew that the “Church” of Rome was bent on subjugating the United States to itself, and for this reason they were deeply suspicious of large-scale Roman Catholic immigration into the country. They rightly saw this as a Papal plan to eventually take control of America through sheer force of numbers. Protestant books of the period were strong in their condemnation of Popery and of its sinister plans. ⁵¹

And as a consequence of all this, early moviemakers portrayed the Protestant settlement house in a good light, as a place where the Irish Roman Catholic criminal could be converted or rehabilitated. Roman Catholicism itself was portrayed in a bad light, as a religion which played a part in the social problems of the day. Priests were depicted as men who did not condemn alcohol, etc. Roman Catholicism was portrayed as a religion of the Dark Ages, a time when freedom of religion and other freedoms had been cruelly suppressed. ⁵²

And in these things they were very right. Romanism was most definitely a religion opposed to religious and other freedoms, and it still is. This is part of its very nature. At that time in America the Protestantism of many was still very strong, and they well knew the dangers of Popery. America, after all, had been founded by people fleeing Papal persecution and tyranny in Europe. Unlike today, the early twentieth century was still a time when Protestants had a good knowledge of these things, and viewed Popery as abhorrent and contrary not only to the Bible, but to the very principles on which America had been established.

But all this was to change. For in the early twentieth century, which was the infancy of this new American phenomenon known as the movie industry, the very time when movies as a form of entertainment were coming into their own, the United States was experiencing a large-scale influx of immigrants from southern, central and eastern Europe. Large numbers of these immigrants, coming as they did from that part of the Old World, were Roman Catholics – and also, large numbers were Jews. These immigrants were poor, working-class folk struggling to make better lives for themselves in this new country, and they took to the movies because it was an inexpensive form of entertainment for them. Their English was usually very limited, but it did not matter because this was the silent movie era, where the story was conveyed to the audience via such things as facial expressions, body language, etc., and was generally fairly easy to follow. It did not take long for moviemakers to begin making films that would particularly appeal to those large Roman Catholic audiences. Despite the fact that almost all films released in the 1910s and 1920s have been lost because of nitrate decomposition or because of combustion of the cellulose film stock, it is possible to glean, from reviews of the time, newspaper advertisements, trade magazines and publicity images, “a tantalizing sense of a large number of motion pictures featuring Catholic characters and settings” (emphasis added). ⁵³

In addition to immigrant Roman Catholics, however, it did not take long for native-born Americans to start to flock to the movies, and it was estimated that by 1920 half of all Americans were attending the movies once a week. So from Rome’s point of view, it was a powerful new medium with which to reshape Protestant America, leading it inexorably Romeward. But how did this come about, especially considering the conservative nature of much of American Protestantism at that time, which saw real danger in the mesmerising power of the movies and frequently viewed the movie industry with deep suspicion? It came about by movie producers labouring to present moviegoing as a respectable entertainment. Their efforts towards this objective included making religious and “biblical” films. Such films helped to break down Protestant Americans’ objections to the movie industry. ⁵⁴

Thus Roman Catholic influence over the movie industry was already quite strong in the early years, during the infancy of film-making. And this influence just grew and grew in the following decades.

Protestants Call for Film Censorship

The movie industry began when what was known as the Progressive reform movement was at its height in the United States. These reformers fought against such injustices as child labour, poor urban living conditions, poverty, corruption in government, prostitution and drunkenness, etc. And they viewed the new movie industry as a real danger to American youth. They saw correctly that films were a more powerful means of communication – and ^{indoctrination} – than any other, and that impressionable youngsters would be powerfully and negatively influenced by what they saw at the movies. On the other hand, they also believed that precisely because there had never been such a powerful means of communication as movies before, they could exert a vast amount of good on people, especially children, if they could teach and reinforce values such as good citizenship, the importance of hard work, good morals, and the superiority of Anglo-Saxon ideals. In today’s world many might smile at the thought of that last one; but for Americans of western European and particularly British extraction in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Anglo-Saxon culture was far superior to any other. And certainly their world was one where the Anglo-Saxon culture and civilisation dominated. It is certainly true that movies have the potential to achieve a vast amount of good. There were many in those very early years of the twentieth century who believed, for example, that decent picture shows might replace the use of alcohol as recreation for the poor working classes.

It did not take long, however, for those who believed that movies could be a powerful force for good to be bitterly disappointed in their hope. It very soon became all too apparent that even way back then, during the infancy of the motion picture industry, the depravity of man was such that he much preferred films of a questionable moral character to those which contained moral themes.

And so it was that a formidable grouping of individuals and institutions began to array themselves against the evil influence of the movies in their very early years: Protestant ministers, social workers, Progressive reformers, police, politicians, women’s clubs, civic organisations. All stated that movies were exerting a baneful influence on young minds by glorifying criminals, romanticising illicit love affairs, etc. They stated that movies were altering traditional values. ⁵⁵ In all this they were certainly correct. And, because they saw that the motion picture as a form of entertainment was here to stay, they figured that there was only one solution: government censorship. This, then, is what they began to demand.

The concern was real; the desire to do something about the problem was admirable; but as we shall see, government censorship was not the solution then, and has never been the solution.

The 1915 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Censorship

Although in the infancy of the movie industry it was mainly Protestants who worked for reform, and then government censorship, the “Church” of Rome was not silent. For example, as early as 1907 the Michigan Catholic accused the movie industry of seeking to destroy the souls of children, and the Catholic Messenger in Worcester, Massachusetts, called movie houses “the devil’s lights” and “a chamber of horrors”. During the next few years this publication continued to criticise the industry, and, as one manager of a Worcester movie house put it, “If you played a movie that wasn’t fit to be seen, they [the Roman Catholic priests] would crucify you by saying ‘don’t go to see it.’” ⁵⁶

And various important Roman Catholic publications, such as the Boston Pilot newspaper and the Jesuit magazine America, as well as the Federation of Catholic Societies, at various times threw their weight behind federal censorship of the movies.

The first film censorship law ever created was in Chicago in November 1907. According to the law, exhibitors had to obtain a permit from the superintendent of police before showing a film; and permits would be denied to any film deemed to be immoral or obscene. The police lost no time in enforcing the new law, refusing to issue permits for two westerns. And when the film-makers went to court to try to get the law overturned, they lost. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the city had a right to ensure movies were decent and moral, because the low admission price to the movies meant that children and the lower classes could attend.

The next year, various New York religious leaders, including Roman Catholics, were at the head of increasing opposition to the effect of movies on children. They influenced New York’s mayor to close all movie houses in late December; but this time the court sided with the film-makers, and the movie houses were re-opened.

Then in 1909 a Progressive reformer named Charles Sprague Smith established the New York Board of Motion Picture Censorship, as demands for stricter censorship grew. The movie industry at the time was based in New York City, and agreed to submit films to this board for review, so as to hopefully prevent government censorship later. But the board was declared ineffective by the Pennsylvania legislature in 1911, which formed its own state censorship board, followed by Kansas and Ohio in 1913. And indeed, the New York board had been hugely controversial, for it was very liberal in deciding which movies were acceptable and which were not. The censors focused primarily on excessive violence in films, while paying little attention to sex scenes. They even passed films which dealt with such issues as birth control, prostitution, and nudity, if they deemed that such scenes were not “crass”, “crude”, or “commercial.”

In 1916 the board was renamed the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (NBR), and by then various other municipal and state censorship boards had come into being. These boards sought to remove any depictions in the movies of changing moral standards. They sought to limit scenes in movies which showed crime, believing such scenes contributed to the increase in juvenile delinquency. They also sought to avoid any depictions of civil strife, government corruption and injustice, or sexual issues. ⁵⁷

But these various censorship boards were not created equal. They often differed on what was “immoral”, “obscene”, “illicit”, “indecent”, etc., etc. This meant that the moviemakers could never be certain which scenes might be condemned in one place, and which scenes might be condemned in another. In Pennsylvania, for example, the censorship board decided that a screen kiss could not last longer than a yard of film strip; but when it came to childbirth scenes, they even forbade a scene depicting a woman knitting clothes for her unborn child, on the following pathetic grounds: “Movies are patronized by thousands of children who believe that babies are brought by the stork, and it would be criminal to undeceive them”! ⁵⁸

The moviemakers, of course, held very different opinions to the ones espoused by censorship boards. Their defence was that movies should have the same constitutional protections of free speech which were given to other forms of communication. The Mutual Film Corporation therefore went to the U.S. Supreme Court about these matters, where it was argued that movies were “part of the press” and thus “increasingly important… in the spreading of knowledge and the molding of public opinion upon every kind of political, educational, religious, economic and social question.” ⁵⁹ The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, and stated: “We feel the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guarantees of free opinion and speech” to theatre, the circus, or the movies because “they may be used for evil.” And: “Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences.” The Court declared that movies were “a business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded… as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion.” ⁶⁰ As such, being commercial enterprises they could be regulated by the states or by the federal government.

Thus, according to this very important 1915 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, known as Mutual Film Corp. v. the Industrial Commission of Ohio, movies were a “business, pure and simple”, and therefore could indeed be regulated. It was deemed constitutional to have state and city censorship boards to regulate movies. “The industry now faced the possibility of a proliferation of censorship boards and death by a thousand cuts.” ⁶¹ And indeed in the aftermath of the ruling, state and municipal censor boards sprung up everywhere.

What can be said of this judgment? It was certainly incorrect of the court to declare that movies were simply a business, and not to be treated as other forms of communication; and in fact, the court contradicted itself by stating that films may be used for evil – a judgment on their morality (or lack thereof). That movies have been the cause of much moral evil, and have contributed immensely to the degrading of society and the overturning of morality, cannot possibly be disputed by any thinking person. The evidence is overwhelming. Freedom of expression and of speech are important, but should always have limitations set on them -relating to the physical lives and the properties of men. Not only the Word of God, but common human experience through the ages demonstrates that unrestrained “freedoms” pose a great danger to individuals and societies. The duty of the State is to ensure the safety of peoples’ lives, bodies and properties from being forcefully violated by others (Rom. 13:1-7).

But the State’s God-given power extends no further than this. And when it attempts to extend its power beyond this, into matters of morality or religion, it goes too far. The moral standards imposed on society will then be those of the men in power; and men in power are not usually godly men. Government officials are, after all, mere men like all others. They have no special wisdom above other men. They are not more qualified than other men to set the moral standards of society, merely by virtue of being elected by a portion of the populace.

Nor should any restriction be placed by the State on matters of religion, of man’s relationship to God (whether the true God or even false ones), because earthly governments only have to do with the maintenance of law and order so as to ensure the safety of the physical lives and wellbeing of men – not with spiritual matters. Spiritual matters are outside the orbit of earthly governments. On matters of religion, it would be well if governments took the attitude of Gallio, the deputy of Achaia, when the Jews accused Paul of worshipping God contrary to the law. Gallio replied: “If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law [religious law], look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:14,15). If one religion incites its members to physically harm the members of another religion, acting against this is certainly the duty of the government; but that is all. If one religion, say, makes a movie that is deemed blasphemous by another religion, this is not a matter for the government to interfere in, for it is solely a religious matter.

Thus this court judgment was far from ideal, and far from sensible; indeed, it was even self-contradictory. It granted permission for direct government intervention, via censorship boards, in matters of morality and by extension in matters of religion; matters beyond the God- ordained powers of the government. And government intervention, indeed, interference, in such matters is always a very slippery slope and can even be a very dangerous thing, as history amply reveals.

Intolerance (1916): An Influential Early Silent Film Depicting Roman Catholicism

In 1916 the silent movie, Intolerance, was released, “which remains one of the most intriguing portraits of Catholics in cinema history.” ⁶²

It was the work of David Wark Griffith. Although he was a Freemason, with Ku Klux Klan sympathies, and although the film was not an entirely pro-Roman Catholic one, for Griffith depicted Roman Catholic religious intolerance as well, yet even so in his film he “was celebrating Catholic virtue and exposing Protestant pretense and hypocrisy.” ⁶³ It depicted (among many other themes) Roman Catholic persecution of Huguenots; but it also depicted what he considered the persecution of Roman Catholics, with Protestants depicted unfavourably, as oppressors and puritanical destroyers of such earthly pleasures as dancing and drinking.

The film followed certain stereotypes that would come out in one Hollywood film after another in the years to come: Roman Catholics as immigrants to America, struggling to be assimilated, and living in crime-infested ghettoes; Roman Catholic girls fighting against the strict sexual moral standards of their parents; etc. ⁶⁴

Furthermore, its theme of class warfare, with immoral employers exploiting decent workers, convinced Vladimir Lenin in Russia that Griffith was a Communist. Lenin invited Griffith to manage the Soviet film industry, and Soviet film-makers viewed Intolerance as a cinematic lesson in how to use film to promote revolution. The immoral, oppressive employers were depicted as Protestant hypocrites, and the innocent workers were Roman Catholics, so the film appealed to Communists and Papists alike. It foreshadowed the coming alliance, decades later, between Romanism and Communism for their mutual advancement. ⁶⁵

Joan the Woman (1916): Roman Catholics Furious with Cecil B. DeMille

When Hollywood religious-epic maker, Cecil B. DeMille, released his Joan the Woman in 1916, a film about Joan of Arc, Roman Catholics were furious. He made the film, as he himself admitted, as a “call to a modem crusade”, meaning World War I. It was designed to be a pro- Allies film. But because he depicted the priests of Rome as villains, cruel and vain, Roman Catholics were seething, and this anger caused DeMille to suggest to his distributors, “rather desperately”, that they circulate two versions – “In the strong Catholic communities, those scenes relating to the Catholic church might best be spared; while in Protestant portions of the country, it might be desirable to retain such scenes.” ⁶⁶ This certainly reveals two undeniable facts: that at that time there was a clear distinction between Protestants and Romanists, with many Protestants being very aware of the evils of Rome; and that, when it came to historical movies, the movie industry – even then – could usually not be trusted to depict history as it really happened, but rather so as to suit the sensibilities of the audiences. Bottom line: people who look to Hollywood for accurate historical portrayals of history are simply not going to find them.

And DeMille played fast and loose with historical fact in another way, too: he added a love interest for Joan in the story. As authors Les and Barbara Keyser state in their book, Hollywood and the Catholic Church, “DeMille’s creed, which became Hollywood’s gospel”, was that “history and the Bible could justify almost any debauchery and licentiousness. Moral purpose overwhelmed, DeMille and Hollywood thought, any need for restraint, since the end always justifies the means.” ⁶⁷

Rome’s Opposition to Two Films for World War One Soldiers

The American Social Hygiene Association developed two educational films, entitled Fit to Fight and End of the Road, aimed at the armed forces of the First World War and at young women living near military camps, respectively. The first was about venereal diseases. Protests against the film were strong, coming from both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Romish priest John J. Burke, of the Roman Catholic institution’s National War Council, attempted to prevent it from being released, but failed. He then called for titillating scenes in the film to be cut, and some of them (but not all) were eliminated or shortened. As for the second film, Burke was just as much opposed to it as the first, because of how it made illicit sex alluring. Some scenes were cut to satisfy him, but the war ended soon afterwards and the military had no further interest in the film anyway.

Fit to Fight was updated and renamed Fit to Win, and shown to the general public, along with End of the Road. A major trade journal, the Exhibitor’s Herald, was totally against the films. This was because it was owned by Martin Quigley, a Roman Catholic. We shall soon be paying much more attention to Quigley. Priest Burke, meanwhile, continued to oppose the films strongly. His National War Council called on Roman Catholic societies across the United States to come out fighting against the two films. In New York, where Burke had a lot of clout, he influenced Commissioner John F. Gilbert to come out with guns blazing against the films. And although a U.S. District Court judge allowed Fit to Win to be shown in New York at first despite Gilbert’s opposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals found in favour of Gilbert. This was a victory for the Roman Catholic National War Council, and it was followed by End of the Road being banned from being shown in Pennsylvania, and then the National Board of Review and the Public Flealth Service withdrawing approval of the film. “The [Catholic] War Council’s campaign against these films marked the [Roman Catholic] church’s first significant success in combating films it found objectionable…. the War Council… became the National Catholic Welfare Council [NCWC] in September 1919.” ⁶⁸ Rome’s ability to play a more powerful role in national affairs was now strengthened considerably.

Early Romish Attempts to Clean Up the Industry

The Romish bishops in America well knew the immense influence the movies were exerting over their own flocks, and knew that something had to be done. The NCWC Bulletin stated: “The influence of motion pictures upon the lives of our people is greater than the combined influence of all our churches, schools, and ethical organizations.” ⁶⁹ The result was that Roman Catholics turned on the Flollywood Jews. In Columbia, the official organ of the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, author Karl K. Kitchens wrote that the film industry was controlled by “foreign-bom Jews of the lowest sort”, men willing to “glorify crime and make heroes of seducers and heroines of prostitutes for a dollar.” Another writer, Pat Scanlan, the editor of the Brooklyn Tablet, called the Jewish film-makers “alien ex-buttonhole makers and pressers”. ⁷⁰ Such men were right about Jewish control of the industry and even about the immoral movies they made, but much of this attitude was driven more by the traditional and centuries-old Roman Catholic anti-Semitism than anything else.

Many Papists, priests included, called for state censorship of the movie industry. But there were also more liberal-minded Roman Catholics who opposed censorship legislation. In 1919 the Motion Picture Committee was formed, a Roman Catholic outfit under the leadership of Charles McMahon, who reported directly to priest John J. Burke. He was instructed to work with film producers to get them to remove indecent movies.

Will Hays and the Hays Office

Things went from bad to worse for film-makers. In March 1921 the major studios adopted their own code, kn own as the “Thirteen Points”, in an attempt to prove that they would do their own house-cleaning and improve the moral quality of films, which they hoped would cause the states to refrain from passing censorship legislation; but it failed. What is more, in that same year Hollywood was rocked by a series of scandals which served to confirm, to decent citizens, that this was a morally rotten industry, even in its infancy. “Famous directors turned up dead, matinee idols shot heroin (and each other), and doeeyed ingenues were rousted from sordid love nests. In the most lurid incident, the corpulent comedian Fatty Arbuckle was accused of the brutal rape and murder of a party girl named Virginia Rappe at a drunken weekend orgy. Arbuckle’s three trials solidified Hollywood’s reputation as a sun-drenched Sodom luring Midwest farm girls to a fate worse than waitressing.” ⁷¹ “Arbuckle’s popularity with children added to the notoriety of the case, and although he was acquitted at his third trial (the two previous ones ending in hung juries), many people continued to believe that Rappe’s ruptured bladder was caused not by periadenitis, as the defense claimed, but by the comedian’s great weight as he forced himself on her…. Despite the actor’s final acquittal, public outrage forced the industry to withdraw his films from exhibition.” ⁷²

The next scandal that year was the murder of director William Desmond Taylor, who, it was rumoured, also used drugs and was romantically connected to not one, but two actresses. And a year later actor Wallace Reid died of a drug overdose in a sanatorium. Hollywood was now, in the eyes of millions, nothing but a cesspool of iniquity, “the Sodom of the West”. ⁷³ The film-makers realised something had to be done to save Hollywood’s reputation or they would be out of business. And something was – at least to their satisfaction.

In March 1922 the movie industry itself created the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), as well as another, alligned organisation, the Association of Motion Picture Producers (AMPP). These were formed ostensibly to establish and maintain “the highest possible moral and artistic standards of motion picture production.” In other words, they were meant to be self-regulating in-house bodies, designed to prevent outside (state) censorship from occurring. The thinking was that if the studios censored themselves, there would be no danger of state or municipal censorship.

The studio owners’ choice for the man at the helm of the MPPDA was William Harrison (Will) Hays, a lawyer who was postmaster-general in President Harding’s cabinet and the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hays was a conservative Republican, a staunch Presbyterian who never smoked or drank, who was strongly against any State interference in business, and the Hollywood film-makers thought he would be ideal for the job because he was from outside the industry and would also oppose censorship. His office in New York City became known as the “Hays Office”. He set to work with a will, fighting against censorship legislation and federal regulation of the movie industry, but also cleaning up the industry’s image. “The old careless, helter skelter days are over,” he told the public. “The chieftains of the motion picture now realize their responsibilities as custodians of not only one of the greatest industries in the world but of possibly the most potent instrument in the world for moral influence and education, and certainly one of the most universal mediums of artistic expression.” ⁷⁴ In truth, the studio chieftains had not undergone a sudden mass conversion, they were no more moral than they had been before – they merely wanted to avoid state censorship at all costs as this would eat into their bottom line. Those Jewish studio chieftains were very wily when they chose Hays, for they knew that American morality was still very much defined by American Protestantism, and if they wanted to make millions out of American moviegoers they needed someone in charge of movie morality who would put the people at ease.

Even though various Roman Catholic men’s and women’s groups supported a censorship bill in Massachusetts, some prominent Roman Catholics came to Hays’ assistance in the anti-censorship campaign. One was Joseph P. Kennedy, father of future U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who offered his assistance, and another was William Randolph Hearst, whose newspaper, Boston American, offered a prize of $1000 to the winner of an essay competition on “Why Massachusetts should not have political censorship.” Meanwhile, the Romish hierarchy in America remained silent on the issue, knowing that its silence would be interpreted as an opposition to government censorship; and it was. And in a referendum in 1922, the voters in heavily Roman Catholic Massachusetts voted against the state censorship bill.

Hays had the powerful “Church” of Rome on his side; but very few Protestant churches supported him. They were far more opposed to films per se than Roman Catholics were, and were in fact Hays’ main opposition. Hays therefore sought out ever more Roman Catholic support and approval for his work, such as that of the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae (IFCA). This organisation was very much at the forefront of Roman Catholic involvement in Hollywood at this time, and most Hollywood producers were more than willing to make any cuts or changes it recommended if this would mean an IFCA approval for the film. And proposed cuts and changes were not limited to moral matters only, but included any negative depictions of Roman Catholicism. Hollywood was being edited by Roman Catholics, with the Protestant Will Hays playing along; and this angered Protestants. “Hollywood’s courting of Catholic interests made some Protestants wonder if their concerns were being overlooked. The Texas 100% American charged Hays with playing into the hands of the Catholic hierarchy, while the editor of the National Republic asked him to explain ‘why it is that when a Protestant minister… is shown on screen, nine times out of ten, he is portrayed as a sap or a sissy.’” ⁷⁵ These charges were true. The Churchman, a Protestant journal, said that Hays was a “seller of swill and an office boy” for Hollywood producers, men who were turning American society into a “brothel house.” ⁷⁶

Hays became very friendly with New York’s cardinal, Patrick Hayes, and thus Hayes supported Hays: the cardinal supported the MPPDA president whenever he was being criticised for his work by Protestants and the Protestant press. The cardinal went so far as to declare, in 1929, that Will Hays’ work enabled the movies “to stand out like a shining light of great potential goodness in America.” ⁷⁷ Well, Rome’s idea of “shining lights” and “goodness” has always differed widely from the biblical teaching. Hollywood was already, by this time, pushing the boundaries of morality as far as they could be pushed in that era, and Hays and the MPPD A were cleaning up certain aspects of certain films, but nothing more.

The White Sister (1923): a Staunchly Roman Catholic Film Worries Exhibitors

This was the most popular of many film versions of a 1909 book by Francis Marion Crawford. It was directed by Henry King, himself a Roman Catholic mystic. The story is about a woman who believes the man she was to marry has been killed in battle during the First World War, so she becomes a nun, only to find that he is still alive – and now she must choose. Before he began filming, King met the papal delegate to Washington, who arranged for the Vatican’s chief ceremonial director to show the film company an Italian nun’s traditional “wedding” to Christ (supposedly). And the company was permitted to film a ceremony that had never before been filmed, in which the nun-bride was “married” just before dawn.

As the film was so obviously pro-Roman Catholic, exhibitors were afraid there would be angry reaction from Protestant America. Many refused to show it. The film’s “star”, however (Lillian Gish), stated that the real reason for the exhibitors shying away from it was an economic one: “the big companies who owned the theaters said the public could get religion free on Sundays, so they’re not going to pay for it during the week.” ⁷⁸

When the film opened in New York, it was extremely popular and did very well. Nevertheless, even when it was distributed nationally its overt Romanism was a cause for concern, and theatre owners were instructed to actually let local Protestant ministers know what the film’s theme was and just how pro-Papist it was, hoping that these ministers would then urge their congregations to see it anyway, despite this.

Two Movie “White Lists” Issued by Two Papist Organisations

By 1923 the National Catholic Welfare Council’s Motion Picture Committee had begun issuing lists of approved movies, through the NCWC Bulletin. This was a so-called “white list”, i.e. it only dealt with films it could recommend; all others it ignored. It was believed that publicity given to a bad movie, even negative publicity, would encourage people to go and see it. This list was supervised by Charles McMahon, the chairman of the Motion Picture Committee of the NCWC.

But there was also another “white list” of recommended movies, this one issued by the Motion Picture Bureau of the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae (IFCA). This was headed by Rita McGoldrick, a devout Papist, and she and her staff of volunteer graduates from Roman Catholic schools and colleges were reviewing some 11000 films a year, far more than the NCWC was doing. ⁷⁹

The IFCA grew increasingly influential, as it dawned on studio bosses that by making what amounted at times to just a few changes to their films, they could earn the IFCA’s approval and thus make more money from their films. Both McGoldrick and McMahon opposed government censorship of films, believing the movie industry could be cleaned up by co-operating with the “Church” of Rome, and thus both were firm supporters of Hays and his work. Hays knew that he was backed by the two Romish organisations these two people represented.

The “Don’ts and Be Carefuls”: the First Movie Code

Hays, wanting to influence the movie studios and the content of the films they produced, created the Studio Relations Department (SRD), or Studio Relations Committee (SRC), in 1926. This sought to delete offensive material from films. It produced a code, the first ever for the motion picture industry, containing the most common requirements of censorship boards both at a municipal and state level. The working document of this code was known as the “Don’ts and Be Carefuls”, or the “Do’s and Don’ts.” The “Don’ts” consisted of such things as profanity, nudity, sex perversion, drug trafficking, and white slavery. These were all forbidden. It also urged that such themes as criminal behaviour, sexual relations, and violence be depicted in “good taste”; and it forbade “scenes of actual childbirth”. The “Be Carefuls” consisted of such things as crime methods, rape, and wedding-night scenes. But the studios all interpreted this code as they saw fit, so it was not very effective. Studio bosses argued that if movies were too “clean” no one would go to see them, and if they did not make racy movies, their competitors would. ⁸⁰

All this just proves that unregenerate men will always impose their own ideas of morality on such matters, which are arbitrary and subjective and should not therefore be binding on anyone other than those who voluntarily submit themselves to it. For example, members of the Roman Catholic religion could submit to these measures if this is what their religious leaders demanded, for they were Roman Catholics because they wanted to be and it is universally acknowledged that when a person joins any institution, he voluntarily places himself under the rules of that institution; but the concept of morality which these men had was being forced upon the entire public, so that the film industry was under the iron grip of those who had no right to speak for the entire country on such matters. The subjective nature of what was deemed morally offensive and what was not, was glaring. For example, under the “Don’ts” were such things as profanity, nudity and sexual perversion, and these are most definitely damaging to morals. But also under the “Don’ts” were such things as drug trafficking and white slavery – the mere depiction of which would not damage the morals of anyone, and thus prohibiting their depiction was simply foolish. In fact, people need to know when such things are going on. If a film depicted such things as being wrong and criminal this would have been a good thing.

All these things were preparatory for what was yet to come.