CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ‘GOLDEN AGE’ 1930s AND 1940s: ROME TRIUMPHANT IN HOLLYWOOD

The Portrayal of Irish Papist Immigrant Life in Movies of This Era

The so-called “Golden Age” of Hollywood was the 1930s and first half of the 1940s. During this time, Roman Catholic characters in films were frequently made out to be immigrants from the “old country” (Europe and specifically, Papist Ireland), as opposed to Protestant Americans who were generally born in America. Movies were made in which Irish Papists lived in what was called the “old neighbourhood” (Roman Catholic ghettoes in large American cities) where everyday life was dominated by the “Church”: priests, schools, and songs were all decidedly Papist. ²³³

To a large extent this was very true: at that time the USA was a “Protestant” country, where Roman Catholics were often viewed as outsiders; foreigners. And many of them literally were, for they were recent immigrants. Irish Roman Catholics tended to be poorer than native-born Protestant Americans, and because they were immigrant communities they behaved like immigrant communities the world over: they tended to live in the same neighbourhood, and to stick together closely. And this way of life was played up in the movies of the time. American cities prior to World War Two were racially-mixed places: there were various immigrant groups from Europe, there were black Americans, white Americans, Asians, etc. This racial mix was a tense one, and inevitably gangs were formed along racial lines. And Hollywood, in the silent movie era and then in the “Golden Age”, cast the Irish and later the Italian Roman Catholics in the roles of criminal lords, with the Roman Catholic religion itself often being associated with violence. ²³⁴

Why was this, if Hollywood was so Roman Catholic, and Irish Romanists were already making movies by 1924? One reason was because this was the reality of that era. But another major reason was because movies, at the end of the day, are still about making money for the moviemakers, and the fact was that at that time, huge numbers of moviegoers lived in the Roman Catholic ghettoes of American cities. By 1930, 20% of the entire population of the United States was Papist; and where were they concentrated? In cities. Specifically, the cities of the eastern U.S. Throughout the twentieth century, in fact, over half of the citizens of Boston and Chicago were Roman Catholics. ²³⁵ Very naturally, then, Papist moviemakers catered for this large moviegoing audience. Even the Jewish studio owners and moviemakers realised the lucrative importance of doing so. Jews and Papists were the ones who ran the vaudeville houses, which in time became the nickelodeons (small converted storefront theatres which charged a nickel for admission) and then the movie theatres. Thus the movies of that time were produced by Jewish and Papist immigrants and their children, and they were produced for predominantly Papist immigrants and their children; and such movies would be ones in which those Papist audiences saw some relationship between their everyday lives and what they viewed at the movies. Hence the emphasis on Irish Roman Catholicism, and the connection between that and the criminal underworld of the large American cities. These themes appealed to the Roman Catholic audiences precisely because these were the very realities that dominated their lives as struggling immigrant communities: their “Church” and the criminal underworld of their ghettoes, and the close relationship between the two.

The Irish in America, during Hollywood’s “Golden Age”, dominated the screen portrayals of American Romanism. “The Irish were Hollywood’s Catholics par excellence, full of whiskey and faith, and prone to fighting, politics, and vocations.” ²³⁶ At the time, and for a long time afterwards, American Romanism was in large measure Irish- American Romanism. Even when, at a later period, they no longer exercised such great dominion over American Romanism, they were still perceived to exercise it, in the popular mind. To many Americans, and even to many people outside America with any knowledge of American Romanism, “Irish” and “Roman Catholic” are virtually synonymous – because for such a long time this was undoubtedly true.

And Hollywood capitalised on this, with so many movies portraying Irish Romanists over the decades: to name just a few, The Lad from Ireland (1910), Rory O’More (1911), The Gypsies of Old Ireland (1917), Cecilia of the Pink Roses (1918), Knights of the Eucharist (1922), Little Old New York (1923), The Lights of Old Broadway (1925), In Old Chicago (1938), right up to The Song of Bernadette in 1943, Going My Way in 1944 and others that followed (and which will be examined below in due course).

George Bernard Shaw Exposes Papist Control of Hollywood

In 1936 the famous Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw – a man unfriendly to any religion – exposed the Papist control of Hollywood. And it shook Protestant Americans. Shaw’s play, St. Joan, was to become a Hollywood movie, but an organisation he called “Azione Cattolica” (Catholic Action) intervened to prevent it. He slammed the work of the Hays Office as “meddling by amateur busybodies who do not care that the work of censorship requires any qualification beyond Catholic baptism.” He also said that “very few inhabitants of the United States, Catholic or Protestant, lay or secular, have the least suspicion that an irresponsible Catholic society has assumed public control of their artistic recreations.”

These accusations were indignantly denied by Hays himself, of course. Later, in an interview, Shaw said that before the furore over St. Joan erupted, “not one American in 50,000 had the faintest suspicion that the film art for which his country is famous was, in effect, under a Catholic censorship, which was bound as such to operate as a doctrinal censorship as well as a common-decency censorship.” ²³⁷

And Meanwhile, Communist Influence in Hollywood was Growing…

In Europe, Jews had supported Communism from its very earliest days. And in America, for a long time already, Jewish intellectuals had formed a very large minority within the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). From 1935 onwards their numbers and influence within the Party grew even greater, for the CPUSA joined with other leftist organisations in what was called the Popular Front, and it actively wooed Jews into membership. It was estimated, by a top Communist, that during the 1930s and 1940s something like 50% of the CPUSA membership was Jewish, and of the Party leaders a large minority were Jews – a minority that at times became a majority. ²³⁸

And Jews were just as influential over the CPUSA’s Hollywood branch. A fairly reliable estimate would be that there the membership was well over half, perhaps as much as two-thirds of the Party.

Why was it that so many Jews were attracted to Communism? It was a liking for the assimilationist policies of Communism, the idea of a classless society, which appealed to Jews who had been underdogs in so many societies for so many centuries. They wanted to destroy what they perceived as the “Christian” society which had rejected them for so long, persecuted them, and still kept them down. And then too, as Nazism rose in strength and threatened Jews throughout Europe, Communism was seen as the only force powerful enough to squash Hitler.

And this Jewish-dominated CPUSA realised the massive potential of Hollywood as a vehicle for promoting Communism. With this in mind, two of its members, V.J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence, were sent to Hollywood to work for this very goal. Jerome was the chairman of the CPUSA’s Cultural Commission. He eloquently sought to persuade Hollywood writers of their unique value to the Communist movement. His words were like music to the ears of these writers – many of whom were Jewish. Hollywood writers were portrayed as industrial workers, just like the other industrial workers the Communists were stirring up. And it worked: “by the time Jerome departed for the East after nine months of agitating in Hollywood, the Party had a firm hold in the film community; estimates ranged as high as three hundred members during the decade from 1936 to 1946 – nearly half of them writers.” ²³⁹ A Jewish screenwriter, John Howard Lawson, was now in charge of the Hollywood branch of the Communist Party. Hollywood was being Communised – primarily by Jewish Communists.

In Hollywood in 1936, various radical activists wanting to use Marxism to oppose Nazism formed the Hollywood League Against Nazism, which was renamed the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League. This organisation gave every indication of being a Communist front, working hard to promote leftwing causes, especially condemning the German Nazis, but also supporting the leftwing closet Communist, Franklin D. Roosevelt. It published Hollywood Now every two weeks, and sponsored two weekly radio programmes.

The Threat of Nazism to the Hollywood Jewish Elite

As Hitler’s power increased and his hatred of Jews became more and more evident, the Jewish elite in Hollywood found themselves in a spot. These first-generation Hollywood Jews – the big-name studio bosses who had built Hollywood – had tried their whole lives long to turn their backs on their Jewish roots, culture, and religion. But now Hitler was threatening their people.

As seen previously, Louis B. Mayer was a friend of the influential newspaper man (and Roman Catholic), William Randolph Hearst. Mayer asked Hearst to talk to Hitler, and this Hearst did, after which he reported to Mayer that all was well. This reassured Mayer. Many Jewish moguls simply took the position of Adolph Zukor of Paramount: he said Hollywood should stay away from making movies of political significance and stick to entertainment alone. They desperately wanted to be seen as Americans first and only as Jews second – if at all. They had spent their lives doing all they could to assimilate as Americans and play down or ignore their Jewishness. And if they were now seen to be openly opposing Nazism, they feared this would simply draw attention to themselves as Jews, and thus (in the eyes of many Americans) as foreigners controlling this huge industry of Hollywood. In addition, as was pointed out by Hy Kraft, a screenwriter working for the Anti-Nazi League, “It was a matter of business. The motion picture companies had large interests in Europe for distribution of their pictures.” ²⁴⁰ So they did not want to offend the Nazis in Europe for fear of losing money, or perhaps even their business interests there.

It was only when the elite Hollywood Jews began to feel threatened by Nazis in Hollywood itself, and when the Nazis closed down their distribution offices in Germany (in the case of Warner Brothers, the Nazis murdered their representative in Germany), that they were galvanised into action against Nazism.

The Los Angeles Nazi Bund was targeting the Jews of Hollywood, through its periodicals and via radio. A meeting of Jewish film executives was called on 13 March 1934 to see what they could do to counter the Nazi attacks on them. There was fear at the meeting, but also anger. Louis B. Mayer called for retaliation, and a committee was formed to raise funds to counter the Nazi onslaught against them. All the major Jewish studios were represented: MGM, Columbia, Twentieth Century, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Fox, and RKO. This committee later became the Community Relations Committee (CRC).

The committee’s work, however, was defensive; the Jewish movie executives were not prepared to become as radical as the Jewish Communist writers of Hollywood, who were far more aggressive in combatting Nazism. The Jewish Marxists’ Hollywood Anti- Nazi League was not only opposed by the Nazis, but by the Jewish Hollywood elite as well. The CRC tried very hard to persuade the Anti-Nazi League to change its name to the Hollywood Anti-Nazi, Anti-Communist League!

Here was a strange spectacle indeed: the rich Hollywood Jewish executives at odds with the Hollywood Jewish writers and others, because of opposing positions. The executives were opposed not only to Nazism, but to Communism, but they just could not seem to understand that the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League was comprised of liberals, Socialists and Communists who only opposed Nazism, not Communism!

In early 1936, Jewish executives and writers again got together to thrash out what kind of response they should make to what Hitler was doing; but the meeting, which went on into the early hours of the morning, broke down into serious squabbling between the different factions. The older, conservative Jewish executives wanted to remain quiet about Hitler, whereas the younger, leftwing and Communist Jewish writers wanted a far more militant stance against him. But as the year progressed, even a number of the conservative Jewish executives began to start speaking out against Nazism, albeit timidly at first. Louis B. Mayer now called on the USA to join with Britain in opposing Germany.

Finally, some four hundred movers and shakers within the movie industry gathered together to commit themselves to openly warring against any cause that was threatening the United States. It may have meant Communism especially, but it meant Fascism as well. They were being careful to emphasise that both Stalin and Hitler must be condemned.

The Legion’s Desire for Papists to Replace Jews as Directors and Screenwriters

The Legion of Decency, for some time after it first began, entertained the hope that Roman Catholic directors and screenwriters would replace the Jewish ones, thereby influencing films for “good” (as Rome understood the word). The bishop, Cantwell, was certainly in favour of it, telling the bishop McNicholas that such work was at that time “largely in the hands of Jews and people without any faith”. In 1936 some Roman Catholic colleges gave consideration to starting screenwriting courses, and the Jesuit publication, America, called on Roman Catholics to compete with the “heretics, pagans and infidels” who were churning out the movies. It stated that “priests and nuns… Catholic husbands and wives… altar boys and first communion girls” would provide “sure-fire dramatic material. A Catholic wedding, with a white veiled bride, is intensely more dramatic than a ten minute marriage before a Justice of the Peace, wearing a sign-on-the-dotted- line look, chewing a cigar, and surveying a shot-gun in the comer.” But as one researcher dryly remarked in response to this, “the market for films about altar boys and first communion girls was obviously limited.” ²⁴¹ Quite. The heart of man naturally runs in the direction of excitement and thrills, especially those of a sexual or violent nature. Pro-Papist films would only appeal to Papists, and not even to all of them; films with violence and sex appealed to all unregenerate people.

Breen Crams Papist Ethics “Down the Throat of the Jews”

Joe Breen himself viewed his role as something of a divine calling. Jesuit priest Gerard B. Donnelly, visiting the Breen Office in 1936, reported as follows, as he listened to Breen’s fulminations: “Anybody else in the job would be too polite, wouldn’t fight, wouldn’t curse; the studios would mistake politeness for weakness and ride roughshod over the Code. But he [Breen] could fight, he could yell louder than [Jack] Warner or [Sam] Goldwyn; he was the one man who could thrust morality down their gullets. The hand of God had been there.” Neither Breen nor Donnelly, apparently, saw the contradiction in a cussing, swearing Papist lecturing others about morality! Romish morality has never been averse to swearing, among other things. Donnelly went on, making use of Breen’s own words about himself, about “the horrible state of affairs that would be in existence if he [Breen], a Catholic, were not sitting at the bottle neck, the rotten filth that would be in the pictures. And more than that – the hand of God (he said) had been in this whole thing.”

Yes, Breen believed his job was a calling; a divine vocation. And his religious leaders believed it too. They loved having Breen there, for Hollywood was in the palms of their hands as a result, even though Jews ran the studios. Hollywood belonged to Rome. Donnelly wrote of Breen, “He was the one man in the country who could cram decent ethics down the throat of the Jews, make them like it, and keep their respect.” ²⁴²

The House Committee on Un-American Activities

Back in 1934, a Jewish-American in New York, Samuel Dickstein, introduced a resolution for the creation of a committee to investigate Nazism in the United States. The bill was passed, and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) came into being. But many viewed it as a “Jewish bill” and German-Americans picketed the last session of the committee with signs saying things like “Heil Hitler” and “Down with Dickstein.” In 1937 he again introduced a bill for the creation of another such committee. This time, however, he was trumped by a Texas Democrat named Martin Dies, who submitted a resolution for the creation of his own HUAC. Dies became its chairman. He was viewed by many Jews as anti-Semitic, and with good reason, for despite his denials he certainly associated openly with certain pro-Nazis. For example, the first investigator for the HUAC was a speaker for the Nazi Bund. And then there were others who were decidedly anti-Semitic and yet who collaborated with the HUAC, such as Joseph R Kemp, the publisher of a Fascist magazine; William Dudley Pelley, head of the pro-Nazi Silver Shirts; and James Colescott, Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Thus, although the original HUAC was created for the investigation of Nazism within America, this second HUAC had no such interest. Its interest was in investigating Communism in America, not Nazism. Of course, both Nazism and Communism were anti-American, but sadly Jews – so many of whom were pro-Communist – only wanted the HUAC to investigate Nazism because of its threat to Jews, and the HUAC Gentiles – so many of whom were pro-Nazi – only wanted the HUAC to investigate Communism. It is a tragic fact that in that era, and so often afterwards as well, many who were anti-Communist were pro-Nazi, and vice versa.

We will hear more of the HUAC.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938): Never Let the Facts Get in the Way

This film by Michael Curtiz, and starring Errol Flynn, was immensely popular at the time and was passed by the Breen Office – and yet the Roman Catholicism in the film (such as there was) was reduced to little more than slapstick humour and was never taken seriously. For example, Friar Tuck made people laugh but certainly did not engender real, deep respect for Romanism, and in other ways the Romish religion was not treated seriously in the film. It would appear that the film passed the Breen Office scrutiny because it did not attack Romanism outright. After all, as everyone who knows the story of Robin Hood is well aware, many of the villains in the story are the greedy, fat, pompous, persecuting bishops of Rome and other Popish leaders. This fact was well known to screenwriter Roland Leigh as well, but he did not want to offend with the film and stated: “Undoubtedly in medieval times the church took unwarranted liberties with its power and influence. Equally undoubtedly we have no desire to offend either the Catholic or Protestant church of today… a tactful compromise will have to be arrived at.” ²⁴³ So: in the usual Hollywood fashion, never mind the facts, never mind the historical setting, throw these out if they offend modem movie audiences. Why let the facts stand in the way of a good story? And so, instead of Robin Hood opposing the greed and oppression of the Romish hierarchy of his day (which would offend Roman Catholic film audiences), almost the only nod to Roman Catholicism in the film was Friar Tuck’s jovial behaviour. Breen could pass it. History had been safely set aside, and audiences would not be misled by the truth. This was the legacy of the Breen Office and of the Legion of Decency: to avoid giving offence to Roman Catholics, including ignoring the truth about their bloodthirsty, greedy religion.

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938): the Prototype for the Movie Priest-Hero

This film, starring Irish-American Pat O’Brien as a priest, was a triumph for Rome. After its success, Hollywood producers knew that in the Roman Catholic priest they had found a new movie hero for the times. A hero, moreover, who would certainly make Joe Breen as happy as could be.

This film was the prototype for many other images of urban Roman Catholics and their lifestyles. It was about a fighting priest who challenged underworld vice. Despite the fact that the producer, director and writer were all Jews, it was a strongly pro-Papist film through and through, and the Romanism of the film was maintained by the two Irish-American actors, Pat O’Brien and James Cagney, both of whom had been raised as Romanists, and who, in Cagney’s words, “knew the ceremonial forms [of Romanism] and very well did we know them”, ²⁴⁴ and insisted on the authenticity of Roman Catholic ritual in the film.

Boys Town (1938): a Fighting Irish Priest at the Centre

This film was a great success, depicting a fighting Irish Romish priest, played by Spencer Tracy, who depicted real-life Romish priest Edward J. Flanagan, a personal friend of his. In fact, when he won an Academy Award for this part, Tracy gave the Oscar to Flanagan with this inscription: “To Father Edward J. Flanagan, whose great human qualities, kindly simplicity and inspiring courage were strong enough to shine through my humble efforts.” ²⁴⁵

U.S. Romanism: Anti-Communist, Pro-Nazi, Pro-Fascist

In the United States, the Roman Catholic hierarchy was solidly behind Franco in Spain, behind Hitler in Germany, and Mussolini in Italy, and just as solidly anti-Communist. In fact, at their annual meeting in 1936 the American bishops voted to make a study of U.S. Communism so as to combat it. The hierarchy felt that Nazism and Fascism could be used to combat Communism, which was in line with the Vatican’s support for Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, who were all Roman Catholics and were serving the Vatican’s interests. Various influential Roman Catholics warned of the growing Communist menace in Hollywood. Quigley warned McNicholas after the 1936 meeting of bishops that American Communists were seeking to harness Hollywood to serve their interests, and that the Legion would have a real battle on its hands. A few years later he stated that Communism was now so strong in Hollywood that the fight against “Red propaganda would make the battle for decency [the reason the Legion had come into being in the first place] seem a skirmish.” ²⁴⁶

In 1936 Joe Breen stated that he could see there was a very definite attempt to get Communist propaganda into an increasing number of Hollywood films. Even allowing for the likelihood that Breen may have seen more than was actually there, it cannot be denied that the Communist movement saw the immense power of movies, and was seeking to harness that power. And priest Daly issued a similar warning. Then in 1938 John J. McClafferty reported at length to McNicholas on what he perceived to be the growing Communist take-over of Hollywood.

In 1939 the film Confessions of a Nazi Spy was released, just before the outbreak of the Second World War. The film dealt with the Nazi threat to the United States; but a Breen staff member, Karl Lischka, attempted to delay production, stating it was unfair to depict Hitler as “a screaming madman and a bloodthirsty persecutor”, considering his “unchallenged political and social achievements”. Breen himself gave the film a seal because it was based on a true spy case, but priest McClafferty labelled it as Communist propaganda. And the Jesuit publication, America, a month before the attack on Pearl Harbour, stated that Hollywood was promoting Communism. Occasionally some Romanist would admit that Hitler was also doing evil things, but seldom if ever was it stated to be as evil as Communism. For example, in the IFCA’s Quarterly Bulletin the question was posed: “Have you ever noticed in motion pictures the present tendency to deplore Hitlerism and all its concomitant atrocities, and to gloss over or even to make light of the work of Stalin?” The message was clear: Hitlerism may have been bad, but Stalinism also was, and much worse.

These Roman Catholics were not simply pro-Nazi because they were anti-Communist, although that was of course a major part of it; but it must be remembered that they were pro-Nazi because Roman Catholicism was pro-Nazi.

Thus two extremely powerful forces were at work in Hollywood at this time: Communism, which was most certainly seeking to use Hollywood to promote its agenda, and was even succeeding to some extent; and Romanism, which at that time was firmly anti-Communist, and was doing its best to combat Communism, even if it meant supporting Nazism.

Blockade (1938): Papist Anger at a Perceived Communist Film

This film, inspired by the Spanish civil war, caused an outcry from American Roman Catholics. It had been written by John Howard Lawson and directed by William Dieterle, two men whom priest McClafferty had stated were leading leftists in Hollywood. Breen had declared that the script would only be approved by him if there was absolutely nothing in the movie tying the story to either side in the Spanish civil war. The last thing Rome wanted was a film depicting its hero, Franco, in a bad light. And so, to get past the censors, the film’s hero fights in an army without a name, against an enemy that is never identified. But even such radical steps were not enough. Despite the precautions, Life magazine declared that those who read the newspapers “will see in Blockade a stem indictment of General Franco’s war, a passionate polemic for the humble Spaniards fighting for Republican Spain.” All this horrified the Papist censors of the PCA and the Legion, with Will Hays (a non-Papist himself) telling priest McClafferty that he always remembered the words of the pope, Pius XI, spoken to him (Hays) in a private papal audience. Pius had said it was Hays’ responsibility to keep Communist propaganda from being depicted in films, and he had shown Hays a communication from Stalin to Communist Party leaders worldwide, ordering them to take control of the movie industries wherever possible. ²⁴⁷ Nevertheless, even though Hays believed Breen had erred in granting a seal to the film, he felt that if the Legion attempted to prevent the showing of it, this would be even worse.

After Martin Quigley had met with the producer, Walter Wagner, Wagner agreed to add a foreword to the film. This foreword, written by Quigley himself, stated: “This story of love and adventure is not intended to treat with or take sides in the conflict of ideas involved in the present Spanish crisis.” The Legion, however, felt that this was not strong enough. But what could be done? The Legion had been formed to protect Rome’s moral values, not deal with political issues, and if it condemned the film it would certainly give the impression that it was overstepping its boundaries – an impression it certainly did not want to give, even though it desperately wanted to extend its power. So in the end, it classified the film in its “special” category, with the following words of explanation: “Many people will regard this picture as containing foreign political propaganda in favour of one side in the present unfortunate struggle in Spain.” This was at McClafferty’s suggestion. Of course, Rome did not view the Spanish conflict as “unfortunate” at all, and it most certainly favoured one side in the conflict! The hypocrisy here was probably lost on most if not all of the Legion’s members. Their “Church” always had double standards.

Roman Catholic priests and organisations came out with guns blazing against the movie for what they called its pro-Red, anti- Christian (meaning anti-Romanist) message. There were picket lines in several cities. The film studios got a fright, but they were ultimately victorious in this particular battle because the film was not deemed morally objectionable, only politically so, and thus the Legion’s hands were tied to a large extent.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities Turns Its Attention on Jewish Hollywood

In May 1939, Martin Dies, the anti-Jewish, anti-Communist head of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, began to cast his and the committee’s eyes towards the Jews controlling Hollywood. “It was apparent,” he said, “that un-Americanism had made more progress in California and on the West Coast than in any other part of the country.” And: “I told the producers we had reliable information that a number of film actors and screen writers and a few producers either were members of the Communist Party, followed the Communist line, or were used as dupes, and that there was evidence that the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League was under the control of Communists.” ²⁴⁸ In this he was certainly correct, as we have seen previously. It is just such a pity that in combatting the dreadful menace of Communism and its efforts to infiltrate Hollywood so as to use that powerful medium for Red propaganda purposes, the HUAC did not show the same zeal, or even interest, in combatting that other dreadful menace, Nazism. As shown previously, various HUAC collaborators were decidedly pro- Nazi and against the Jews just because they were Jews, rather than being solely against Jews who were Communists. This meant that the HUAC investigations into Hollywood took on the decided appearance of being an anti-Jewish witch-hunt. The HUAC did not make a clear distinction between Jews who were Communists in Hollywood, and Jews in general.

There is the possibility, also, that the older Jewish producers, who, as shown previously, were often anti-Communist, had actually invited Dies and his committee to come to Hollywood to investigate the radical leftwingers within the Hollywood writers’ fraternity, and even to help destroy the Screen Writers Guild. For it will be remembered that Hollywood’s writers were often decidedly pro-Communist. If this is indeed what they had done, little did the producers realise that Dies would not be content with merely investigating the writers, but the entire Hollywood industry for Communist subversion.

In July 1940 the HUAC work began. A former Communist, John L. Leech, told Dies in closed session that Hollywood was a major centre of Communist subversion, and he gave Dies a list of 42 members, sympathisers and contributors to the Communist Party. These had to face Dies and answer for themselves. But after a month Dies declared that it was all over. The whole thing just seemed to fizzle out, at least for the time being.

Then the Second World War touched America, and the menace of Communism receded somewhat into the background as attention was focused on the menace of Nazism. But the HUAC would be revived after the war, as will be seen.

The Hollywood Jews Support the War Against Nazism

Warner Brothers decided to make anti-Nazi movies, even though Harry Warner had reservations about doing so, being concerned that such movies would be interpreted by non-Jews as having been made by Jews just because they were Jews. When Europe went to war, however, the Warners wired President Roosevelt that “personally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” ²⁴⁹

The Hollywood Jews were worried, and they had reason to be. There were many in America itself who sided with Hitler and hated the Jews. In late 1940 the Papist Joseph P. Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to England but a man suspected of being pro-Nazi, went to Hollywood and at a meeting he requested, addressed the Jewish executives. He called on them to remain neutral, for Britain had not won the war yet. He very forcefully told them that anti-Nazi films should not be made, that anti-Semitism was on the increase in Britain, and that there were those who were blaming the Jews for the war. In America itself, a large percentage of the population deeply distrusted Jews, and furthermore there were those who felt that their control over Hollywood was being used to push America into the war. Movies, in a word, were being used for pro-war propaganda purposes, which infuriated those Americans who were opposed to getting involved in the conflict in Europe. A Senate sub-committee was appointed to investigate, and the Hollywood Jews had to appear before it.

But they came out with guns blazing, defending themselves – and they had the support of the president himself. The sub-committee adjourned to consider the information that had been gathered, but then Pearl Harbour was attacked and America was brought into the war anyway.

The Office of War Information (OWI) Steps into Hollywood

With the outbreak of World War Two, the Breen Office was forced, against its will, to make certain changes; certain capitulations to the times. Will Hays and Joe Breen wanted Hollywood, even in war time, to provide nothing but entertainment, and not to be used for war propaganda. Nor would the Production Code Administration’s standards be lowered in the least to permit more profanity, etc. The Office of War Information (OWI), however, saw things differently.

The United States’ Roosevelt Administration realised that Hollywood could be a powerful ally in winning over Americans to the idea of entering into the Second World War. So the federal government created the OWI, its purpose being to use film, radio and the press to build public understanding of and support for the war; i.e. to coordinate wartime propaganda across the civilian media. Movies, of course, were ideal tools for this, and Elmer Davis, the director of the OWI, set it out very well when he stated that the “easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.” ²⁵⁰ The OWI established a special unit called the Motion Picture Bureau for this purpose, and published a booklet entitled Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry. This manual wanted film-makers to ask, regarding each film, “Will This Picture Help Win the War?” The OWI wanted moviemakers to present the war as a “people’s war”, with America united against Fascism and in alliance with Russia, Britain and China. This meant that Hollywood effectively now had not one but two supervisory agencies – the PCA and the OWI – and not one but two guidebooks – the Production Code and the Information Manual. The manual became in effect a second Hollywood code during the war years, with Hollywood producers being asked to submit their scripts to the OWI for examination. It was inevitable that there would be a clash.

Joseph Breen had long opposed any propaganda in films, censoring those which contained political content deemed to be such. The OWI, however, believed that the PCA’s Code “lulled the home front” and “impeded the war effort”. To the OWI, the PCA was fiddling while Rome burned, arguing over morality in pictures when it should have been employed in the service of the war effort.

During those years, then, Breen and the PCA were often pretty much limited to moral issues, whereas the OWI controlled the political content of the movies.

The fact that hundreds of Hollywood executives and other Hollywood people had been commissioned to make training and propaganda movies for the war was something that did not sit well with the U.S. Congress; and in early 1943 another Senate committee was established to investigate. But it did not come to any firm conclusion. The truth is that during the war Hollywood’s Jews produced many films showing up Nazism as evil and the Allies’ cause as just. But the Jewish moviemakers were not doing this solely because they were Jews and Nazism was anti-Jewish; they wanted to make these films to show all Americans how patriotic, how American, they (the Hollywood Jews) really were. As two examples: Jack Warner said, “I want all our films to sell America ‘long’ not ‘short.’ My brothers and I are examples of what this country does for its citizens. There were no silver spoons in our mouths when we were born. If anything, they were shovels. But we were free to climb as high as our energy and brains could take us.” And the president of Paramount, Barney Balaban, said, “We, the industry, recognize the need for informing people in foreign lands about the things that have made America a great country.” And he added, “We are prepared to take a loss in revenue if necessary.” ²⁵¹

Breen’s decided antipathy to the American government using Hollywood for propagandists, pro-American films during World War Two sprung, without question, from his Roman Catholicism. The pope of Rome at the time, Pius XII, was pro-Nazi and anti-Communist, ²⁵² but many Roman Catholics were unaware of his pro-Nazi position. Breen was anti-Nazi and anti-Communist; and America’s close relations with Soviet Russia and with Stalin (via pro-Socialist President Roosevelt) filled him with concern. America and Russia may have been allies against their common enemy Nazism, but Breen did not view this as a good thing. In this he was certainly right. And what is more, he saw that Hollywood itself had become to such a large extent decidedly pro- Communist. As we have seen, Hollywood was dominated by Jews, and many Jews were Communists. “Hollywood films such as Mission to Moscow (1943), a starry-eyed whitewash of Stalinism, and Song of Russia (1944), an anthem to the noble heart of Mother Russia, were celluloid testimony to the affection between Hollywood and Moscow, something that before the war would have been unimaginable, and would be so again soon after.” ²⁵³ Hollywood had immense power to influence public opinion, and always has had. The evidence is seen in western society today, where leftist causes and pro-Marxist positions, promoted by Hollywood, are now fashionable and have been for decades. Breen, like many Papists of his generation, rightly saw the danger of Communism and its subversive tactics against the West, even while they could not see the dangers of their own Roman Catholic religion.

So Breen was firmly against the OWI, saying in an interview that it had “set out to use the screen to propagandize for selfish if not sinister purposes.” He added that the OWI personnel was dominated by “the short haired women and long haired men type.” When the interviewer asked what he meant by that, he replied, “Pink ”. ²⁵⁴

When Mission to Moscow was released in 1943, the difficulty for the Papist censors was that it contained no morally objectionable scenes, so they could not condemn it, even though it portrayed Stalin in a good light and was thus extremely objectionable, politically, to the Legion. President Roosevelt, arch-Socialist that he was, had encouraged the making of the film precisely because he believed it would improve relations between the USA and USSR. The strongest action the Legion could take was to give it a rating of “A2”, meaning “suitable for adults”. There was no question that the film was Red propaganda, and plenty of angry letters from Roman Catholics to priest McClafferty of the Legion made this point clear, but there was nothing more he could have done. The Legion was created to condemn morally objectionable films, not politically objectionable ones.

But of course, the Legion of Decency was extremely opposed to any pro-Red films, and longed for more to be done about them. The film, For Whom the Bell Tolls, about the Spanish civil war, was one which caused great concern to the Papist censors. “The Spanish consul in San Francisco had even asked the church to suppress the film, but Quigley warned McClafferty that any attempt to oppose it on anything other than moral grounds would be ‘political dynamite.”’ ²⁵⁵ After Breen had worked the film over, so that it no longer mentioned Franco or the Republican forces, the Legion gave it a “B” classification for various moral reasons.

How World War Two Changed Hollywood – and American Morals

At this time the film studios once again started to push the limits, with racier dialogue and sexier scenes. It caused Will Hays to meet with the studio bosses in 1940 to express the Legion’s increasing concerns. One such film, which the Legion condemned, was My Darling Daughter (1939), a film about premarital sex. Breen only approved it after Warner Brothers agreed that there would be no hint of any illicit sex in the film, even though this was what the Broadway play, which the film was based on, was about. Breen may have approved it but the Legion was horrified, especially at the sexual dialogue and the implication of a trial marriage. It condemned the film. Warner eliminated the offensive scenes and lines, and the Legion then gave it a “B” classification.

Another film, This Thing Called Love (1941), was an opportunity for Hollywood writers to again attempt to introduce some suggestive lines and “sexiness” into a film, with another “trial marriage” theme. Breen’s PCA eventually passed it (reluctantly), the Legion very naturally condemned it, Columbia studio made the cuts, and the Legion then passed it with a “B” classification.

The Legion believed that Hollywood was attempting to destroy morality in America, via its treatment of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. What deeply troubled the Legion, too, was that it often felt it had to condemn a film which Breen and his PCA had approved. Breen himself, however, devout Papist that he was, was troubled as well. Complaining about Hollywood moral standards to Count Enrico Galeazzi, an influential Roman Catholic, Breen branded the USA a “nation of pagans”, and said that most Americans had by this time sunk so low that they no longer even professed a watered-down Protestant “Christianity”. ²⁵⁶ He believed a solution was for the bishops in Roman Catholic countries of Europe to lead boycotts of immoral movies. This would never have worked, however, because European Papist nations did not have their own versions of the Legion of Decency. Breen spoke to Quigley about doing what they could to deal strongly with films which treated divorce and remarriage sinfully, but Quigley, despite agreeing with Breen, felt that if the Code was amended in this way it would cause a backlash against the Roman Catholic “Church”. ²⁵⁷

Also in 1941, the film Two-Faced Woman was released. It was about a woman who, fearing she was losing her husband to another woman, posed as her twin sister to get her husband to fall in love with what he thought was a “sexier” version of his wife. It contained passionate love scenes and racy dialogue. The film was passed by the PCA, but the Legion was incensed and said it would be condemned if changes were not made. In addition, the powerful archbishop of New York, Francis Spellman, condemned the film in a letter that was read out at all masses in his diocese, calling it a “near occasion of sin”. In some places the film was banned, in others cuts were ordered. Many people were angered that the Romish “Church” had such power over what people could or could not see. The American Civil Liberties Union even got involved. This was the first time there was such a widespread public condemnation of the “Church” of Rome’s power over the movies, and it caused Romish leaders to go on the offensive. Martin Quigley even accused one periodical of acting like the Ku Klux Klan in its criticism of the Legion. Pressure continued to mount against the film, until MGM said it was withdrawing it pending discussions with the Legion. After the studio eliminated various scenes and much dialogue, the Legion classified it as a “B” and it was again released.

World War Two was to change the morals of Americans. The Legion, of course, was deeply concerned that the movies were playing a major part in lowering morality – as indeed they were. Breen recognised this, writing to priest McClafferty in 1944, “it would appear that there has been a near approach to what looks like a complete breakdown in the moral structure of the nation.” ²⁵⁸ Yet at the same time Breen, working as he did for the film industry, came to the conclusion that with the changing morality in society he would have to accept, to some extent, the changing morality of the movies.

Language in the movies became harsher and cruder, for example, yet more socially acceptable. But in this area the Breen Office continued to apply the same standards for language in films as it had before the war. This annoyed and angered the OWL It felt that if a film showed the Americans and the Allied forces in a good light, the Breen Office should turn a deaf ear to swear words and blasphemy. The need for such films in a time of war over-rode all other considerations, including those of decency and morality, it believed. The true Christian of course would state categorically that no circumstances justify a lowering of morality.

One such film was In Which We Serve (1942), a British film seen as patriotic and thus helpful to the wartime effort. But it contained certain expletives, considered mild by the public in those days, which caused the PCA to censor it. Another film it censored for the same reason was We Are the Marines (1942). This brought down upon the Breen Office a flood of criticism from many quarters. But Breen stood firm, stating, “the motion picture screen would do a very definite disservice to the growing boys and girls of America if we were to accustom them to harsh vulgarities, or worse, in screen dialogue.” ²⁵⁹

The PCA emerged victorious in this matter; but then, having won its point that the use of such words would be permitted at the sole discretion of the PCA when used by military men, it turned around and relaxed the provisions of the Code in the case of these two wartime films, because of the nature of the scenes in which certain words were used. Yet when the movie Air Force (1943) was submitted to the PCA, Breen insisted that an expletive which by then was considered mild be deleted; but as he also knew that the air force was on the film’s side and that public opinion would be on the air force’s side, he exercised the “sole discretion” granted to him and permitted the words to remain!

Breen, and even occasionally the Legion of Decency, applied double standards to their movie reviews. For example, when the movie Miracle of Morgan s Creek was released in 1943, it was okayed by the Breen Office and given a “B” rating by the Legion, the latter doing so because the movie was “very funny”. And yet this movie was about a young woman who becomes pregnant while drunk by a man she cannot remember afterwards. This hypocritical standard was very confusing to people, and the film generated a lot of angry letters from a concerned public.

Breen had changed, to some extent, with the times. For example, back in 1935 a film called Double Indemnity had not been granted the seal, because of the “general low tone and sordid flavor of the story”, and the fact that it contained an “adulterous sex relationship”; but in 1944 he approved a new script of the film, stating that “details of crime have become more common” in the intervening years “and adultery is no longer quite as objectionable.” ²⁶⁰ Breen, the Roman Catholic, was in fact serving two masters: Rome and Hollywood. And he was finding it a difficult juggling act. The Legion, on the other hand, usually (though not always) served only one master: Rome. This explains why in general, Legion standards were higher than Breen’s, but (as seen above) not always by much.

This again goes to show the subjective nature of this kind of censorship, when the Bible is not the standard.

Hollywood’s Strong Roman Catholic-Jewish Alliance at This Time

In the late 1930s and into the 1940s the Legion was extremely powerful, and moviemakers were not prepared to antagonise it, so they made films that painted the Roman Catholic religion in a very good light. One pro-Papist film after another was released by Hollywood, including some extremely successful ones: for example, Boys Town (1938), Angels with Dirty Faces (1938), The Fighting 69th (1940), Knute Rockne, All American (1940), The Song of Bernadette (1943), Going My Way (1944), and The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945). It was a period of Romanist advancement on a number of fronts in the United States, and a confident and powerful Romish hierarchy was going all out to Romanise America. And one of the ways it was doing so was through its huge influence over Hollywood. ²⁶¹

In Hollywood there was thus a working alliance between Roman Catholics and Jews. But what did these two groups stand to gain by their strange alliance? Each group stood to gain much – and did. “Catholic censors, concerned to insinuate themselves into the heart of Jewish Hollywood, would eventually become themselves industry insiders by shaping production standards in ways that benefited the studios and punished independents and foreign rivals to the American movie industry. Jews would benefit from their efforts through box-office profits and in terms of increased cultural capital. By delivering high-minded and even sacred topics on-screen as antidotes to the charges of vulgarity that were launched against them by Catholics and Protestants, Jews joined Catholics as new participants in the American cultural and moral mainstream.” ²⁶² Together they moulded America’s values and morals through the movies they made. “Catholics and Jews found themselves together in the movie industry and created a set of American values and practices that spoke to their own position as minority communities in what they perceived to be a Protestant America.” ²⁶³

But these two quotations only tell a part of the story. Yes, Jewish studio bosses, etc., stood to gain financially from the alliance, and by making themselves more acceptable in American society thereby. But Roman Catholics did not only gain a foothold in Jewish Hollywood or the position of industry insiders; they also gained immense influence and power over the reshaping of the United States of America in the Vatican’s image. Little did Protestant Americans realise how their lives, their values, their morals and practices would be moulded and formed and manipulated by Roman Catholic and Communist forces (often Jewish-dominated) through the decades. All thanks, to a vast extent, to Hollywood.

And yet voices were beginning to be raised against the Code and its enforcers:

Gone With the Wind (1939) and Rebecca (1940): Rumblings of Discontent Against the Code

Although Roman Catholic domination of Hollywood was almost total in the 1930s and first half of the 1940s, and the major studios submitted to the PCA and the Legion of Decency with barely a whimper, there were occasional but very serious challenges, at least from maverick producers. One of these was David O. Selznick, and another was millionaire Howard Hughes.

Breen was always wary of Selznick, saying he produced more unacceptable material in a year than any two larger studios did. Selznick, for his part, believed that the times had changed and Breen had not changed with them. After Selznick left MGM in 1939 he established his own film company, Selznick International. In that same year he produced Gone With the Wind, cementing his position as one of Hollywood’s “greats.” In that film, actor Clark Gable utters the word, “damn”. This became one of the most infamous utterances in Holly wood history. Joseph Breen, applying the Code firmly, stated that the line had to be cut from the film, although he sympathised with Selznick as the word was not used as a curse in that context; while Selznick, who was strongly opposed to movie censorship, resisted the strict application of the Code to the matter. Selznick also demonstrated that the word appeared in various magazines, including Ladies Home Journal, and had been used in a previous film in a similar way. He filed an appeal with the board of directors of the MPPDA, and eventually he emerged the victor and the line stayed in the film, being permitted by Will Hays. But the Breen Office came in for much criticism over its opposition to the word. Hollywood columnist Jimmie Fidler mocked Breen as “probably the only Irishman in history to be appalled by so mild an expletive”. ²⁶⁴ In truth, however, Breen, who was known to use far stronger language himself, was merely applying the letter of the law so to speak, when he tried to enforce the Code’s position on the use of such words. Selznick, meanwhile, called for a reform of the Code, branding it “dated”.

Martin Quigley believed, with Breen, that Will Hays’ decision had done much damage.

But the scene with the infamous word was not the only one to which Breen objected. In another scene in the film, a wounded man is brought to a brothel for medical attention. Breen did not want the brothel as the location. When one of Selznick’s assistants said to him that brothels were a reality of life, Breen pointed out that bathrooms were a reality as well and he went to one every morning, but that did not mean it should become part of a film. In the end, he allowed the brothel to stay in the film as long as nothing was shown that would make prostitution appear to be pleasant or exciting, so as not to stir lustful emotions in young people. ²⁶⁵

So very subjective! The only censorship there should be is that of the State for the protection of the physical lives and property of its citizens. This is the State’s God-given duty. Any other censorship, whether applied by the State or (as in this case) from religious or other institutions, oversteps that boundary and becomes each man doing what is right in his own eyes, censoring things which do not need to be censored, and not censoring things which should be.

In 1940 Selznick and Alfred Hitchcock (a Roman Catholic) made the film Rebecca, containing adultery, murder, and hints of abortion and lesbianism. Naturally Breen insisted on cuts to anything that smacked of abortion or sexual perversion, but in the novel on which the film was based, the murderer is not punished. This, of course, was also unacceptable to Breen, for he strongly believed that all crimes be punished in movies. To get around the problem, he suggested to Selznick that instead of a murder occurring in the film, the death should rather be an accidental one. Selznick had no choice but to agree if he wanted his film to see the light of day – but he was livid, and considered suing the Hays Office. He said that he would be a Hollywood hero for waging war against “so insane and inane and outmoded a Code as that under which the industry is now struggling.”

The movie, however, was a great success at the box office, and Selznick’s anger abated – for the time being. But he would not disappear. And he would challenge the Code, and thus the Roman Catholic “Church”, a few years later.

The Fighting 69th (1940): Rome’s Army Chaplains Exalted

In 1940 Warner Brothers released one of the most pro-Irish (and thus pro-Papist) films to date, a combat movie entitled The Fighting 69th. This film, “[bjesotted with near-toxic levels of blarney, brogues, and malarkey,” demonstrated the plain raw fact that Irish Romanism “was in full command of the center stage in American culture.” ²⁶⁶ The film was brimming with stereotypical Irish soldiers and an Irish priest-chaplain. This war film promoted Roman Catholicism by “recounting the glorious achievements of the Rainbow Division and its Irish Catholic contingent…. Pat O’Brien was unrelentingly pious and patriotic as Father Francis J. Duffy, the real life chaplain of the unit…. Father Duffy has a formal monument and his own park in the middle of Times Square, but another part of his legacy is Hollywood’s deification of this Irishman as the prototype for all chaplains in its pro war films. There’s a little of Father Duffy in every brave cinematic religious mentor leading his flock to glory and salvation.” ²⁶⁷

Still, even the production of this pro-Papist film was not without objectionable aspects as far as the Legion was concerned. Priest Devlin of the Los Angeles Legion attempted to get Warner Brothers to do something about what he called Duffy’s “religious indifferentism” in the film, i.e. his belief (at least as portrayed in the film) that all religions had merit and were acceptable to God. This of course was certainly not official Roman Catholic doctrine, which held that “outside the Church [of Rome] there is no salvation”. Devlin said that producers always sought to put “expressions of tolerance in the mouth of a character of a priest”, such as “all religions are good, we’re all going to Heaven by different routes”, “it doesn’t matter what your religion is so long as you have some religion.” He added that it was difficult to explain the Roman Catholic teaching of “tolerance” to the producers, and that “the best we can do is to have such expressions removed.” ²⁶⁸

The reason Devlin found it difficult to explain Rome’s teaching on tolerance to movie producers was very simple: Rome had no true teaching on tolerance! Biblical Christianity proclaims very clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and to God the Father, for this is precisely what Christ Himself taught (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

But tolerance is about allowing those of other religions to state their beliefs as well (even if one totally rejects them), and not persecuting those of other religions. The Papal system, of course, throughout history persecuted even unto death those who differed with her in matters of religion! It is not surprising, then, that film producers had an extremely difficult time trying to understand Rome’s view of “tolerance”. It was simply a myth, one shattered by centuries of bloodshed by fanatical Papists.

Breen’s Brief Resignation

Breen wrote to Jesuit priest Daniel Lord expressing his frustration with the Legion of Decency, which wanted more restrictions on films than he did; and in May 1941 he actually resigned as Hollywood censor – and, astoundingly, announced that he was going to be working for RKO studio as general manager. He gave assurances that RKO would conform to the Code. However, not even a year later he was fired, and again became Hollywood censor in 1942. Why was this done? Well, “the industry was unable to find a person on which Martin Quigley, the producers, the Catholic church, and Will Hays could agree. The Legion pressured Hays to agree that any replacement must be a Catholic; but which Catholic?” ²⁶⁹ The movie studios themselves were in favour of Breen’s return, and so it came about that he was re-appointed to his old post. But his brief attempt at moviemaking had publicly humiliated him.

Guadalcanal Diary (1943): a Huge Propaganda Boost for Rome’s Supposedly Anti-Nazi Stance

Two decades before the ecumenical movement proper would get off the ground in a big way, Hollywood films of the war era were promoting the concept of Roman Catholic-Protestant “unity”: that it did not matter whether an Allied soldier was Roman Catholic or Protestant – both were Christians and both were fighting on God’s side. In Guadalcanal Diary, within minutes of the film’s beginning it is made clear that there are Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish sailors all fighting side by side; the crew on deck sing the Protestant hymn, “Rock of Ages”; and then the Romish priest celebrates mass. And this was to be standard fare in war film after war film. “Almost every film featured a platoon or squad or barracks with WASPS, ethnic Catholics, and Jews”; but there was something more – a constant glorification of the Romish priest-chaplain, in particular: “The chaplains assigned to these units were frequently Irish Catholic giants with hearts of gold, dazzlingly fine psychological insights, and an encyclopedic grasp of moral theology. Hollywood glorified an almost endless parade of courageous [Papist] chaplains dragging men to safety, hearing last confessions, mending broken hearts, curing battle jitters, and anointing the dead. The heroic padre became a leading icon in Second World War films…. Master sergeants may have aided in teaching the manual of arms, but Irish Catholic priests in uniform were the drill instructors of the soul.” “Father Donnelly in Guadalcanal Diary, one of the most fully developed examples of this convention, can stand as a token of literally dozens of other Hollywood portraits of Catholic chaplains…. wherever the boys were, Father Donnelly or some other surrogate of Catholicism was there. Much was made of the Irish side of their priesthood. Irish chaplains tolerated drinking, dancing, and even wenching well enough; they even countenanced doubts, fears, and tears rather well. What they couldn’t stand, however, was cowardice or indecision; the lukewarm had no place in this holy war.” ²⁷⁰

Was this all just coincidental? By no means. It was a very deliberate strategy of the Romish hierarchy. And in typical Papist fashion, as shown from the quotation just given, various sins were tolerated as long as the Roman Catholic boys continued fighting bravely. Nothing new in this: Rome has always been very willing to overlook all kinds of sins as long as her soldiers have fought her wars so as to obtain the desired results. In the case of Romish American soldiers fighting Nazism, the desired result was to convince Protestant America that Romish soldiers were loyal Americans. It was also to have a back-up strategy in case Hitler lost the war: Rome could then claim to have been against Hitler all the time. Rome always backs both sides in a conflict, so as to cover all bases.

The Song of Bernadette (1943): Jewish Collaboration in Promoting a Papist “Saint”

In 1943 The Song of Bernadette was released and became extremely popular. This was a Roman Catholic epic about a nineteenth-century French peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirous, who claimed to have had visions of the virgin Mary. What was very significant about this movie was that it was a collaborative effort between Roman Catholics and Jews. How did this come about?

The movie was based on a novel, published the year before. But the author was not a Papist, he was a Jew! His name was Franz Werfel, and he had fled Nazi Czechoslovakia. Roman Catholics had sheltered him in Lourdes, which had been the home of Bernadette, and it had a famous Marian shrine where it was claimed that miracles happened. As a result, Werfel made a vow to tell the story of the “miracle” of the shrine of Lourdes. Fie vowed “that I would evermore and everywhere in all I wrote magnify the divine mystery and the holiness of man.” This in itself was a very Popish thing to do, of course, for Papists are fond of performing vows in return for what they believe to be answers to their prayers. This naturally then struck a cord with Papists. Accordingly, soon after he arrived in New York Werfel wrote The Song of Bernadette. It became a bestseller, and both Werfel’s escape from the Nazis and his writing of the novel were viewed by Papists as yet two more of Bernadette’s miracles.

It turns out, however, that Werfel’s authorship of the book was not so miraculous as Papists liked to believe. After all, his wife, who escaped with him, was a devout Papist! Furthermore, she was the widow of the composer Gustav Mahler, who, although bom a Jew, had been baptized as a Roman Catholic in 1897. With such a devout Papist for a wife, doubtless relentlessly whispering about Lourdes “miracles” and other Popish mumbo-jumbo into his ear, Werfel’s reverence for Bernadette was not at all surprising.

And Papists were thrilled to be able to take this book, written by a Jew yet praising a Papist “saint”, and promote it to largely Jewish- controlled Hollywood.

Roman Catholic and Jewish collaboration on the film was prominent from the start. The director was a devout Romish mystic, Henry King. The lead actress, Jennifer Jones (nee Phyllis Isley), had had convent schooling. The film’s musical score was by Alfred Newman, who, although he was a secular Jew, researched Romish choral, convent and liturgical music so as to produce the score. Checking on the accuracy of the movie’s religious details was a Romish priest, Cyrill Fischer, who had himself fled Europe after criticising Hitler and who had become Werfel’s friend, instructing him in detail about Romish rituals. ²⁷¹

This working alliance between Jews and Romanists in the making of this film “illustrates how the ethical concerns and cultural position of Hollywood’s Jews could be articulated through the religious images of Catholics, another minority American religion.” ²⁷² In other words, this film brought Jews and Papists together precisely because they were both religious minorities at the time, and shared a number of common concerns in Protestant America.

Jennifer Jones was praised by the Jesuit magazine, America, as the ideal choice for the lead role. It called her “an exemplary Catholic girl”, who had been “Prefect of her Sodality” and stated that she had “never missed a retreat while in school, and would absolutely not attend movies during Lent.” This gives us a good insight into Rome’s warped sense of what constitutes a “Christian”. But as it turned out, their “exemplary Catholic girl” was not so exemplary after all: her marriage was falling apart and she was having an affair with the married producer, David O. Selznick. ²⁷³

When the film was released, the Roman Catholic hierarchy went all out to see to it that it had massive exposure, including amongst influential leaders in politics and industry. ²⁷⁴ Director King was very happy with this. But an incident that occurred during the making of the film showed just how devout – and naive – this man was. The cinematographer, Arthur Miller, used a spotlight on Jennifer Jones to suggest the aura of sanctity that supposedly surrounded her character. But in an interview Miller said that King, the Papist mystic, did not know of the special spotlight, and actually took the halo which he saw around Jones to be (in Miller’s words) “something spiritual that had crept into the picture from heaven.” ²⁷⁵

And now, as David O. Selznick had done with Gone With the Wind, another maverick producer of this era, millionaire Howard Hughes, decided to challenge the Code and its enforcers. And the challenge he mounted would be a huge one.

The Outlaw (1943): Howard Hughes Challenges the Code

The super-wealthy Howard Hughes was fiercely opposed to the censorship stranglehold over the industry. In 1943 he released his film, The Outlaw, a western about Billy the Kid. “It was condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency for almost a decade, denounced in pulpits from coast to coast, and banned by state and municipal censorship boards – and it broke box-office records wherever it was allowed to play.” ²⁷⁶

For the female lead, Hughes found 19-year-old Ernestine Jane Geraldine Russell, and this movie turned her into the Hollywood star Jane Russell. It also “generated more publicity for an unknown actress (Jane Russell) than any other film in history.” ²⁷⁷ The script was certainly not historically accurate, and was (for its time) full of sexual material, including an implied rape of Russell’s character, a casual sexual relationship between Russell’s character and the two main male characters and no condemnation of it as being wrong, and Russell’s low-cut blouse. In addition the sheriff was killed and the criminal went unpunished. The Production Code Administration not surprisingly condemned the script, ordering Hughes to remove such things from it and saying that Russell’s body must not be exposed.

Now normally, whenever a studio received a PCA condemnation, it would rewrite the script to bring it into line with the Code. But Hughes refused to do so and went ahead with making the movie. After it was completed in 1941 it was reviewed by the PCA, which found it utterly unacceptable and refused to give it the seal of approval until offensive scenes were corrected. But Joseph Breen knew that Howard Hughes would probably not listen to him, and he told his boss Will Hays that Hughes would appeal. Breen said that The Outlaw went beyond any previous film in exposing or emphasising the female form. He sent a letter to every Hollywood studio letting them know that the PCA would not issue a seal of approval to any film which exposed or emphasised a woman’s body. Nevertheless, even without the Code seal, the film was shown – not by studio-affiliated theatres but by independent ones. And it raked in the bucks.

While launching a massive publicity campaign which successfully turned Jane Russell into a “star” even before she had been seen on the screen – billboards and magazine photo spreads were provocative in their exposure of her, all in preparation for the film’s release – Hughes demanded that the MPPDA board of directors hear his case. The end result was that the board upheld the PCA ruling, but told Hughes the seal of approval would be granted if he deleted about twenty-five feet of film (about a minute) in which Jane Russell’s cleavage was exposed. This amounted to something of a victory for Hughes, and Joseph Breen was unhappy about it. Hughes did as required, and the seal was issued. Hughes had in fact stared down the censors and won.

But instead of immediately releasing the film, Hughes stalled. Although the seal had been issued, state censorship boards insisted that more cuts be made to the film, and Twentieth Century-Fox grew nervous about distributing it. Hughes waited two years, releasing the film in 1943.

Breen was fuming, especially because Hughes took delight in rubbing Breen’s nose in the dirt, with such advertising for the film as, “The Picture That Couldn’t be Stopped!” Also, Hughes was claiming his film had been released with no cuts at all, which was untrue.

Roman Catholics wanted to know if their “Church” had approved the movie, and how the Legion of Decency had rated it. But the Legion’s National Office had not reviewed it, so the task was given to its San Francisco branch, which condemned it as immoral. And yet even so, when the film opened the public flocked to see it in huge numbers, and it made a fortune for Hughes. Clearly, Roman Catholics made up a very large proportion of those who went to see it, regardless of what their “Church” or their Legion said about it.

But Hughes again pulled the film, re-releasing it three years later in 1946, believing that it would do well even if he did not have Roman Catholic approval. The Legion condemnation of the film was still in force, but this did not concern him, and to make a point he deliberately opened the film in Chicago, the second most powerful Roman Catholic diocese in the United States and a place of solid support for the Legion of Decency. And he again made the claim that the film was screened “exactly as filmed”. Breen and the MPPDA (which had now been renamed the MPAA – the Motion Picture Association of America) were furious, and Hughes was held in violation of the Advertising Code. Breen demanded that Hughes surrender the film’s certificate of approval issued in 1941. Hughes refused and also sued the MPAA for millions of dollars, claiming it interfered with his ability to market the film, and an injunction prohibited the MPAA from acting against the film until the court had resolved matters. Knowing this would take months, Hughes continued to promote the film in the meantime. When it opened in Chicago, Roman Catholic protesters and picketers made a hue and cry, but the crowds flocked to see it and it did extremely well at the box office. And in a city such as Chicago, so very Papist, there can be no doubt that despite condemnation from the Legion, priests, picketers and protesters, huge numbers of those who went to see the film were Roman Catholics.

The film broke records in Los Angeles, and then opened in St. Louis, which was the diocese of Jesuit priest Daniel Lord. Protesters, mainly Roman Catholic children, marched with banners urging people to boycott the film, but when the police department’s Morality Squad decided there was nothing objectionable about it, police chased the child protesters away. Once again The Outlaw broke all box office records. And it did so in many other parts of the country as well.

And then, in 1949, after the film had already grossed over $3 000 000 for Hughes, he resubmitted The Outlaw to the MPAA, and the Code seal was re-issued. And both sides – Hughes and the MPAA – claimed victory.

But it was not all smooth sailing, for Popish pressure was immense. Nationwide, Roman Catholic groups protested against the movie, and did so for several years. Bishops blasted the film as corrupting and destructive of morals. A bishop in Galveston, Texas, called for a year-long boycott of Loew’s theatres in Houston, and in Philadelphia the cardinal, Dennis Dougherty, threatened theatre owner William Goldman with a year-long boycott by Roman Catholics of any of his theatres that showed the movie. Dougherty also forbade Roman Catholics from seeing it, and declared that any newspaper advertising it would be condemned from the pulpit. According to Variety magazine, “roving bands of Catholics” threatened theatre owners. Local officials in heavily Roman Catholic areas supported the Romish leadership’s opposition to the film. Hughes even attempted to bribe priest Devlin, film advisor to Cantwell the bishop, to get the film reclassified.

The Legion’s priest McClafferty suggested the changes that would need to be made to the film before the Legion could reconsider, and Hughes agreed to comply with at least some of these. But William Scully, the bishop of Albany, when approached by McClafferty, said that the film should be pulled from circulation for some time and then re-issued once the cuts and changes had been made. Hughes then said he would revise the film’s ending, and publicly state that he had made changes to the film at the Legion’s request, in exchange for a lifting of the Legion’s condemnation. He also said that in future, all his films would first have to receive Legion approval before he would release them. But the Episcopal Committee decided not to negotiate further with him.

Hughes then approached Martin Quigley and asked for his advice on what should be changed in the film to make it receive Legion approval. Quigley told him, and Hughes accepted and made most of the changes Quigley recommended. But this time Hughes warned Quigley that if the Legion still refused to reclassify his film, he would use advertisements in the press to charge the Roman Catholic “Church” with acting as an extra-legal national censorship board.

Quigley accepted the new version of the film and approached the Legion, which for various reasons very reluctantly agreed to re open negotiations with Hughes. Hughes, for his part, said he would substitute the new verison for the old; he eliminated the idea of rape in one scene; he shortened a bedroom scene; and he added an epilogue which was meant to convey the message that crime does not pay. The Legion, still reluctantly, reclassified it with a “B” rating in 1949. But a number of Romish leaders were very unhappy with the decision.

It was now obvious that times were slowly beginning to change. No longer would a film necessarily bomb at the box office if it did not have a PCA seal of approval, or if it had been condemned by the Legion of Decency. Howard Hughes had proved that a film-maker could ignore both the Legion and Joseph Breen himself, and still make a popular film. “The Outlaw demonstrated that there was a huge market for movies that stepped outside the restrictive codes that had determined movie content for close to two decades…. Howard Hughes proved that the public would go to movies rejected by the PCA and the Legion.” ²⁷⁸

The immense success of this movie showed two things. First, that the moral standards of the American public in general were deteriorating rapidly from what they had been; and second, that despite intense resistance from the Romish hierarchy, the Legion of Decency, etc., Roman Catholics were no longer as subservient to their bishops and priests as they had been, no longer as willing to pay attention to what their leaders said when it came to movies. There were priests who did not even know much about the Legion and who did not consult it regarding films. ²⁷⁹ In this sense, Romanists in America were being influenced by the American way of life, which was so opposed to Rome’s authoritarian, rigid, top-down system that for centuries had held so many millions of Papists in subjection in Europe. That kind of authoritarianism was the very opposite of what the American people, as a whole, cherished and sought to defend.

Americans were increasingly interpreting the “liberty” enshrined in their laws as liberty to sin, which was never the intention of the founding fathers of that great nation. America’s moral foundation was under immense strain, and Hollywood was contributing greatly to that. And so the irony is that something that was bad for America as a whole – increasingly unrestrained “liberty” – was at the very same time making it difficult for the Roman Catholic institution to successfully apply the kind of heavy-handed tactics to get its own way that it was able to use so successfully in other parts of the world. Roman Catholic Americans were greatly influenced by the same American spirit that influenced their fellow-countrymen, and increasingly resented any restraints placed upon them, even when such restraints originated from the hierarchy and organs of their “Church”, which they believed was necessary to their salvation. It is a dilemma Rome has always faced in America, and one which drives it to work so tirelessly for the overthrow of America’s freedoms, both the good ones and the bad. If Rome had its way, America would be a religious dictatorship, just as so many countries in Europe have always been.

A war was under way: a war between a rigid, autocratic “Church” and a society in transition, losing its moral foundation and beginning to rebel against the moral standards of previous generations. Which would emerge victorious in the end?

Or would they end up merging, with the “Church” of Rome slackening its rigidity in order to accommodate a changing society and thereby keep its members? We shall see.

Rome’s Almost-Total Domination of Hollywood At This Time

Mavericks like Hughes notwithstanding, at this time Hollywood was under almost-total Roman Catholic domination and influence, via the Breen Office and the Legion of Decency; and one pro-Papist film followed another, which moved the Protestant Digest to say, “A visitor from Mars, popping into a dozen cinemas at random, would be convinced that the United States is a Catholic nation. If Roman Catholic domination of censorship continues, the film screens of most of the world will be flooded with pictures such as Going My Way [1944], The Song of Bernadette [1945], and The Bells of St. Mary’s [1945].” Breen’s biographer, after giving this quote, went further by adding: “The Protestant gripe list was too short. A preacher seeking to rid the screen of meddlesome priests might also have mentioned San Francisco (1936), Angels with Dirty Faces (1938), Boys Town (1938), Knute Rockne, All American (1940), The Fighting 69th (1940), Men of Boys Town (1941), and The Keys of the Kingdom (1944), in addition to dozens of prison and combat films where Catholic priests were the chaplains chosen to take the long walk to the chair with convicted killers or lend spiritual comfort to GIs in foxholes.” Film-makers, he added, “took care not to get [Breen’s] Irish up with a depiction of Catholicism that was anything less than worshipful.” ²⁸⁰

This near-total control was not to last. But for now, and for a good many years to come, the religion of Hollywood was Roman Catholicism.

Going My Way (1944): Making Roman Catholicism Acceptable in Protestant America

In 1944 a movie was made that would do wonders for the acceptance of Romanism in mainstream America. It was called Going My Way, and it starred the popular singer and actor Bing Crosby in the lead role as an Irish Roman Catholic priest, Chuck O’Malley. The film was a smash hit. The Jesuit magazine, America, declared it to be “the freshest, most original material that has recently been brought to life on celluloid.” Life magazine said that Crosby’s performance was “one of the few satisfying interpretations of the priesthood to emerge from Hollywood.” ²⁸¹ And a Romish cardinal said that it did more for the Roman Catholic “Church” than a dozen bishops could have done in a year. ²⁸²

Some Roman Catholics were not happy with the film, but they were in the minority. Priest Paul J. Glenn in Columbus, Ohio, wrote that it was “un-Catholic” and even “anti-Catholic”. One of the worst things in the film, Glenn felt, was when the two priests shared a nightcap and the younger one then sang an Irish lullaby to the older one to lull him to sleep. Glenn said that viewers would conclude “that to be Catholic is to be Irish, and to be Irish is to be a whiskey drinker.” There were those Romanists who agreed with him, but when the pope himself, Pius XII, discussed the film with its director, he said, “Don’t you love that scene where the priest takes a little drink?” ²⁸³ Naturally, the vast majority of Romanists sided with their pope, and the film was a huge hit.

Ironic, is it not, that in the midst of World War Two – a war to such a large extent instigated by the Vatican and its Jesuits ²⁸⁴ – a film about a Popish priest would become such a hit in Protestant America?

Bing Crosby’s mother was a strict Irish Romanist, and his father had converted to Romanism in order to marry her. As a teenager Crosby served as an altar boy and attended a Jesuit-run high school. The film’s director, Leo McCarey, was a Romanist of Irish-French stock. His aunt was a nun who by his own admission influenced him greatly. And the film’s songwriter, Johnny Burke, was also a Papist. It is no wonder that the film was so pro-Papist.

“Going My Way marked a key moment in the cultural history of Catholics in America.” ²⁸⁵ How so? Well, up until then Romish priests had been portrayed in a sombre way, and this was how they were perceived in the popular imagination. But Bing Crosby created a new kind of priest for the screen, one who was jovial, worldly-wise, easy going, very American, even heroic. This priest sang, played the piano, lived in a light and airy rectory with a peaceful garden, went to the movies and played golf. He kn ew all about love and romance and was happy singing about it. He even wore a straw boater hat, perched rakishly on his head! Roman Catholics liked it because there was such a decided contrast, in the film, between O’Malley’s character and the stiff, older priest, who was unable to fit in with the daily life of his parishioners, and who represented the kind of pre-war Romanism which now seemed to them old-fashioned and out of touch. O’Malley’s character represented a new kind of Romanism, and it was immediately popular – and not just with Papists but many Protestants as well, for in so many ways priest O’Malley’s world looked just like that of ordinary Americans, including American Protestants. It was all so familiar, and it revolutionised the way people viewed the Popish priesthood. In so doing, it gave a huge thrust forward to Roman Catholicism in the United States, and in time throughout the Protestant world.

The film was “an imagining of the Catholic parish priest as a sign of modem American cultural vitality. For Catholics Leo McCarey and Bing Crosby… the parish can be nothing other than the backdrop for a tolerant, progressive, sports-loving Catholicism.” ²⁸⁶ Precisely the image of Romanism that the hierarchy wanted to convey! No wonder Romish nun, poet, and president of St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana, Mary Madeleva, wrote to director McCarey, “Going My Way is synonymous with the Catholic way and can become, if it is not already in essence, the American way. You have been rarely intuitive in understanding and expressing this.” ²⁸⁷ How the Popish hierarchy in the USA must have been rejoicing! The film presented a Roman Catholicism far removed from the dark, sordid, secretive, sinister Romanism with which Protestants were familiar. This film’s Romanism was cheery, light, happy, easy-going, fun even. In addition, it showed the Romish priest at the very centre of all aspects of American life, moving effortlessly from working-class neighbourhoods to upper-class circles. “The enclosed and protected sacred spaces of the Catholic tradition – convents, monasteries, cathedrals, shrines – were construed by Protestants to be spaces of entrapment, bondage, and superstition. In those semi-secret places, many nineteenth-century Americans imagined a powerful and corrupt Roman church reigning against the purifying influence of reason and individual freedom.” ²⁸⁸ Sadly, the dark, sinister Romanism was the reality; but such is the power of the movies that a single film could do so much to change Protestant attitudes to this religious system, the very religious system branded in the Bible as “the Great Whore” (Revelation 17), the religion of Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2).

The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945): Sequel to Going My Way

The sequel saw Bing Crosby return as the loveable priest, along with Ingrid Bergman as a beautiful nun. Again there was light-hearted singing, comedy, and the relationship between the two main characters, the priest and the nun, who, although both sworn to vows of chastity, are obviously attracted to each other. Nothing sinful occurs between them – that would never have passed the Romish censors – and the film was another huge hit with audiences. The two films together did wonders for Rome.

The Fighting Sullivans (1944): a Pro-Papist War Film

As mentioned previously, in the midst of World War Two films portraying Roman Catholic Americans as loyal Americans fighting Nazism were very popular. The hierarchy of the “Church” knew well enough that Rome was actually on the side of Hitler and Nazism, but this was not the kind of information they wanted Protestant America to know, and thus men like the immensely influential cardinal, Francis Spellman, assured American Roman Catholic soldiers that they were fighting God’s battles against the Nazis. There was a concerted effort to portray American Papists as loyal patriots.

The Fighting Sullivans was a film aimed at doing just that. It was based on a real Irish-American Roman Catholic family from Iowa whose five sons were killed in combat when the cruiser they were on went down in the South Pacific. Director Lloyd Bacon focused on the Romish sacraments in his film: what are called Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, and Matrimony. This sentimental movie really played up the religion of the five young men, uniting their Romanism to their Americanism and sending the strong message that Romanism in America was on an equal footing with Protestantism and Judaism, and that Roman Catholic lads were just as loyal to America as anyone else.

The tragedy is that these and countless other young Roman Catholic men died fighting a foe that was supported by their own “Church”. Roman Catholic soldiers were fighting Roman Catholic soldiers, and millions were slaughtered on both sides to advance the goals of the Papacy.

The Sign of the Cross (1944): Depicting Papists and Protestants as United Christians Under the Cross

Many of Hollywood’s war films promoted the concept of the unity of Roman Catholic and Protestant soldiers fighting the Nazis, that both were Christians, both were fighting under the cross of Christ, and both were fighting on God’s side. Cecil B. DeMille re-released his film, The Sign of the Cross, in 1944, in which a prologue was added which connected the martyrs who died under Nero Caesar in the first century AD with the “Christian soldiers” dying in the war with Nazism. In the film two chaplains, one a Papist and the other a Protestant, affably chat together and display their unity, and agree that the soldiers, whether Papist or Protestant, are united by the sign of the cross.

The Keys of the Kingdom (1944): Acceptable to Jesuit Advisors After Major Revision

The script for this film was based on a book by A.J. Cronin. It was the story of a liberal priest, Francis Chisolm, who was often at odds with his conservative priestly colleagues. In the book Chisolm was made to say things like, “religious belief is such an accident of birth God can’t have set an exclusive value on it.” And: “there are many gates to heaven. We enter by one, these new [Methodist] preachers by another.” In other words, he believed (contrary to Romish theology) that there were “many ways to God.” His best friend was an atheist who, when he was dying, said that he still could not believe in God, but Chisolm told him that God believed in him.

Chisolm’s beliefs were certainly contrary to the true Gospel, which states categorically that only Christ is the way to heaven (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). But such statements were anathema to the Roman Catholic institution as well, although for a different reason: Rome believed then, as it had for centuries and as it continues to believe to this day, that “outside of the Church [of Rome] there is no salvation.” ²⁸⁹ So when producer David Selznick wanted to turn the book into a movie, he anticipated problems with the Romish hierarchy. He met with priest Devlin to try to work something out, but Devlin was adamant that before the film could be made the script would require massive editing. Not surprisingly, what particularly angered the priest was the priest-character Chisolm’s statements regarding there being many ways to heaven, so contrary to Popish teaching.

When Selznick approached Breen, he got no encouragement from that quarter either. Breen told him that some of the priests in the story might violate the Code’s prohibition against priests being depicted negatively in films, and that Protestants might take umbrage at the treatment of the story’s Methodist missionaries. Other prominent Papists advised Selznick to hire Jesuit priest Wilfred Parsons as the technical consultant on the film, which he did. Another Jesuit, Albert O’Hara, was signed on as an advisor as well.

Parsons’ major headache was with the “broad-mindedness” of the story’s priest-character. He and Selznick clashed over how best to alter these things in a way acceptable to the “Church”. Parsons wanted the character’s words to be so drastically altered that they no longer said anything like what they had originally, and Selznick could not accept that. To make matters worse for Parsons, his Jesuit superior in Washington warned him that neither his name, nor that of the Jesuit Order, could be used as a defence against future criticism that could lead to them being censured. The superior told Parsons that he would have to end his involvement with the production of the film unless he was able to persuade Selznick to “eliminate all indifferentism and off color Catholicism with which Father Chisolm is saturated”. ²⁹⁰

Selznick, meanwhile, had reached the point where he was no longer keen to begin production on the film, so he sold it to Twentieth Century-Fox. Fox agreed to a number of Parsons’ suggested changes. For example, when Chisolm had originally spoken of “many gates to heaven”, this had now been altered to, “Each of us travels his own road to the Kingdom of Heaven. Though I know another’s to be wrong, still I have no right to interfere with his choice.” Parsons was only partially satisfied with this change, feeling it could be misunderstood.

When Parsons learned that the Legion of Decency was considering a “B” rating for the film (objectionable in part), he was very troubled. He managed finally to get the studio to remove the “different roads” line from the film.

He may have feared the worst from the Romish press and others, but when the film was released Romish reaction was far more positive than he thought it would be, with major Romish publications stating that the film was a big improvement over the book. And the Legion actually classified it “A-I” (suitable for general audiences). How ridiculous to be happy over the greatly-altered film version of a story which, in its printed version, remained intact!

God Is My Co-Pilot (1945): Another Pro-Papist War Film

This was yet another war film which strongly promoted the Roman Catholic chaplain. Again, the chaplain was a big Irishman, intensely patriotic, who gets the film’s atheistic pilot-hero to trust in him. The priest preaches to him, and reads him a prayer written by a British pilot killed in the war, a prayer about believing in God and how God gave him strength. And by the end of the film, the hero piously repeats the prayer.

Will Hays Replaced by Eric Johnston, but Joe Breen Still the Real Power

Will Hays resigned in 1945. He was kn own as “the Little General” and “the Presbyterian pope”. He had been at his work since 1922, a period of twenty-three years. But Hollywood no longer felt he was effective.

In his place came Eric Johnston: Republican, anti-Communist, successful businessman – and Episcopalian. His job was to promote the movie industry and to deal with movie censors. And as mentioned previously, the MPPDA was now renamed the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

This change worried the Legion. As one author put it, “Quigley and the church leaders had never really trusted Hays, but he was the devil they knew. The devil they didn’t know was his replacement, Eric Johnston… who, in his first press interview, remarked that the ‘Hays job has to be remodeled and changed.’” ²⁹¹

But Johnston’s Episcopalianism notwithstanding, the “Breen Office” was still predominantly and vehemently Roman Catholic, and promoting a Roman Catholic version of morality. And Hollywood was still astoundingly pro-Papist. The Protestant Digest declared: “For years now, the custom has been to work Catholic churches, sacraments, charitable institutions, hospitals, schools, madonnas, altars, doctrine, and priests into pictures with or without a pretext.” ²⁹²

PCA officer, Eugene “Doc” Dougherty, told Albert Van Schmus, a Congregationalist seeking a job at the PCA in 1949, “You know, I don’t want to discourage you, but in a way you should be a Catholic to be a member of the Code staff.” Later, when he got the job, Van Schmus said of Dougherty, “He was very encouraging, but he said, ‘I have to be honest with you, I think that’s what a member of the staff needs to have. They’ve got to understand that kind of morality.” ²⁹³ Yes, the PCA may have hired non-Roman Catholics, but at heart it was a Roman Catholic organisation through and through, promoting a decidedly Roman Catholic morality.

Breen himself, when Johnston took office, was promoted to vice president of the MPAA. And he retained the same autonomy he had enjoyed under Hays, to preside over the PCA “without any interference or outside influence.”