The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution

FOREWORD

In1976alawyerbythenameofLeoPfeffercametoPhiladelphiaandgavea
talkinwhichheboastedthattheEnlightenment,orwhathecalledsecular
humanism,hadtriumphedinitsculturewarwiththeCatholicChurch,itsmain
opponent.Whatismore,Pfefferwascorrectinhisopinion.Thecultureof
Americahadchangedradicallybythistime.Theonlyquestionthatremained
waswhetherthevictorywouldbeapermanentoneornot.Well,weCatholics
knowtheanswertothatquestion,don’twe?WeliveinaguaranteedChurch,one
thatisvouchedforbyalmightyGod,hisIncarnateSon,andtheHolySpirit.But
wedoknowalsothattherewillbegreattrialsthatweshallhavetoface,justas
ourforebearsintheFaithhadtodo.Thesemaybelong-standingandcausemany
tobelosttothesameFaith.ButGodisinchargeanditiscertainthathisholy
Churchwillwinthroughinthecourseoftime.

Dr.E.MichaelJoneshasbeenintheforefrontoftheongoingdebate

concerningtheculturewarsbetweentheChurchandtheEnlightenment,andin
thisbookhetellsthestoryrelatingtothisasithappenedoverapproximatelythe
lastsixtyyears,drawingsomeimportantconclusions.Hebeginsbyanalyzingthe
fundamentalnatureofthatsecularhumanismthathasbecomesopowerfulduring
thisperiod.Pfeffer’saccountisundoubtedlythemostaccurate.Pfeffergoesso
farastonamenamesandhasnohesitationindoingso.Afterallheplayeda
leadingroleintherelevantlitigationthatbroughtaboutthesechanges.Andfrom
thetimeofhisgrowinguphedevelopedahatredfortheCatholicChurchand
determinedtoactagainstitineverywayhecould.

Thebookalsooutlinestheearlierculturewars,knownofcourseasthe

Kulturkampf,whichtookplaceinGermanyinthelatenineteenthcentury.This
givesusanopportunitytocomparetheeffectofdifferentsocialstructureson
differentsocietiesandgivesusafocusthroughwhichtoexaminethe
contemporarycase.

ThebattleinAmericawasfoughtoverthreeareas:schoolsandeducation;

obscenity,inparticularinrespectofmovies;and(mostimportantofall)the
familyandsexuality,focusingparticularlyoncontraceptionandabortion.

OneofthemostsignificantcharacterswasJohnCardinalKrol,onetime

ArchbishopofPhiladelphia,whooccupiedseveralpositionsofgreat
significanceinrespectofthesubjectofthisbook.Dr.Jonesisthebiographerof
CardinalKrolandsohashadaccesstoaconsiderableamountofdocumentation
relatingtothesetopics.

Thegeneralintroductioncontainedinchapteroneconcludeswithan

examinationofthesignificanceofthelawandthecourtsinthecontextofthe
eventscovered,andthedifferentlegaltheoriesofNaturalLawandLegal
Positivismespousedbytherespectivesidestotheconflict.

ChaptertwoofthebooklooksatcertainmattersstemmingfromtheSecond

VaticanCouncil,whichtookplacefrom1962to1965.Itnotesthehighpointof
Catholicinfluence.ItthenreviewsthestateoftheChurchatthetimeofthedeath
ofPopePiusXIIandthedesireforaCouncilarguedforeven,contrarytothe
mythologythathasgrownup,byso-calledconservativeCardinalssuchas
CardinalOttaviani,headoftheHolyOffice,andCardinalRuffini.Itthenshows
howthepreparatorydocumentsdraftedbeforetheCouncilwerebasedonatrue
recognitionoftheproblemsfacingtheChurch.Thesedocumentsweretobe
rejectedbytheCouncilFathers.However,asDr.Joneshasshownonseveral
occasions,thedocumentsfinallypromulgatedbytheCouncilmustbeacceptedas
theycomewithintheauthorityoftheChurch.Ofcourse,theymustbeacceptedin
thelightofTradition,andthisisverydifferentfromthefrequentlymade
statementsbyliberalprogressivessupportingaso-called“spiritofVaticanII,”
whichinmanycaseswasfarawayfromtheintentionsoftheCouncilFathers
themselves.

Chaptersthreeandfourexaminethemainsourcesoftheattempted

subversionoftheChurchatthistimeandlater.ChapterthreedealswithWilhelm
Reich.ReichwasaJewishFreudianCommunistwhowasoneoftheleading
theoristsoftheNewLeft’suseofsexualrevolutionasaformofcovertpolitical
andsocialcontrol.HismainopponentwastheCatholicChurch.Reich
discoveredearlyonafundamentalpointthatbecametheconstantthemeofhis
writings.ThiswasthatdebatingtheexistenceofGodwithaseminariangot
nowhereintermsoftherevolution.However,if,tousehisexample,the
seminarianbecameinvolvedinsexualactivity,thentheideaofGodwould
evaporatefromhismind.Thatwasthetheoryofsexualrevolution,articulatedby
Reichduringthe1930sandpromotedbyhisAmericandisciplesduringthe‘50s
and‘60s.Therevolutionarypraxiswasalsobasedonpsychology,applied
psychologyoftheRogeriansort.Chapterfourdealswiththis.CarlRogerswas
themanwhodestroyedtheImmaculateHeartnunsofLosAngelesbyusing
psychologyasthevalidatorofappetite.Anothersubversiveinfluence,alsotaken
upinchapterfour,wasAbrahamMaslowwhodidsimilarwork,withsimilar
consequences,atotherreligiousorders.BeingtakeninbyReich,Rogers,and
Maslow,theCatholicChurchwentalongwaytowardsabandoningtraditional
sexualdisciplineinitsreligiousordersbecausethedominantcultureofcontrol

throughappetitesaidthatitwouldimprovereligiouslife.Instead,thereleaseof
moralcontroldestroyedreligiouslife,whichhasledsometothinkthatthe
destructionwasintentional.Chapterfourgoesontodealwithaparticularly
notableexampleofthis,thecaseofFr.EugeneKennedy.

ChapterfivedealswiththebattlesthattheChurchhadtofightwiththe

variousmediaauthorities,notablyHollywood.Ittellsthestoryofthesagaofthe
HollywoodProductionCodeandtheLegionofDecency,throughwhichthe
CatholicChurchworkedtoprotectthefaithful,andpeoplegenerally,from
obscenemoviesturnedoutbythemediaagencies.Sadly,afterseveralyearsof
relativesuccess,theChurchfinallylostthisbattlewiththeforcesofsecularism.

TheseopponentsoftheCatholicChurchwerenotCatholicsthemselves.

However,Dr.Joneshasshowninnumerousbooksandarticlestheexistenceofa
fifthcolumnwithintheChurchitself.MuchofthisinvolvestheUniversityof
NotreDameanditspresidentformanyyears,Fr.TheodoreHesburgh.Thebook
dealswiththisinchapterssixandseven.Thekeymovesofthedissidentswere
a)theremovaloftheuniversityfromtheoversightoftheCatholicChurchandthe
placingofitunderthedirectionofalayboardoftrustees;b)theattemptsofFr.
Hesburgh,incollaborationwiththeRockefellers,tobringtheChurch’steaching
onbirthcontrolintolinewiththenewsexualconsensustheRockefellerswere
forging;andc)theLando’LakesmeetingwhichratifiedHesburgh’salienationof
Churchpropertyfollowed,inamatterofweeks,bythebishops’cavinginonthe
caseofCharlesCurranatCatholicUniversity,acasealsoinvolvingsexual
standards.BecauseofDr.Jones’particularknowledgeofthesituationatthe
UniversityofNotreDame,thebookexaminesinsomedetailthecollapseof
Catholicstandardsthere.Chaptersixoutlinesthecampaignruntherebythe
RockefellersandPlannedParenthood,aidedandabettedbyFr.Hesburgh,to
subverttheChurch’steachingoncontraception.Chapterseventakesthecaseof
thelateFr.RichardMcBrienasrepresentativeoftheseveraltheological
dissidentsatthistime,andlooksathismaligninfluence.Thisisfollowedbyan
accountofthenotoriousLando’Lakesstatement,anotherproductionofFr.
Hesburgh.

Theessenceisthequestionofpoliticalcontrolinrespectofmoralandin

particularsexualissues,anditischaracterizedbyDr.Jonesinthefollowing
trenchantstatement:

Ingeneral,thistakeovermeantthattheCatholicChurchwashenceforthtoadoptthe
sexualmoralstandardsofthedominantculture.Thatmeantcondoningcontraceptionand
abortion.Italsomeantcondoninghomosexuality,especiallyatseminaries.Ingeneral,the
messagewasquitesimple.Itwassayyestoappetite.Andthatmeant,soonerorlater,
pedophiliabecausetherewasnowaytolimitthechainreactionsayingyestoappetiteput

inmotiononceitgotstarted.SoifCarlRogerswasultimatelyresponsibleforthe
lesbianismwhichdestroyedtheImmaculateHeartOrder,he,asthesymbolforthenew
permissivepsychology,wasresponsibleforhomosexualbehaviorwithchildrenaswell.
TheessenceofKulturkampfistoobscurethisfactbyblamingthevictim,whichistosay
theCatholicChurchwhichwassoavidtoimplementthecommandsofthecultureof
controlthroughappetite.

Chaptereighttakesupwhathasbecomeinrecentyearsanimportanttheme

whichhassomeanalogieswiththepast.TheheresyofAmericanismwas
condemnedbyPopeLeoXIIIinhisencyclicalTestemBenevolentiaeNostrae.
However,shadesofthismentalityhaveariseninrecentyearsandmaybe
characterizedasthenewAmericanism.Itsessenceisanattempttoreconcilethe
ChurchandmodernitybyseeingAmericaassomesortofidealstate.Thisis,of
course,completelycontrarytoCatholicteachinganddoomedtofailure.

Finally,inchapternine,thebookconsidersthequestion“Wherenowinthe

Church?”Dr.Jonesconsidersfirstwhatarenottheproperresponsestothe
presentcrisisintheChurch.Underthisheadingheplacesbothliberalismandthe
formoftraditionalismrepresentedbytheSocietyofSt.PiusX.Healso
castigatesthewaythatdialoguewithotherbodieshastakentheplaceofunity
withintheChurch.Hearguesthatthepolicyofdialogueisfruitless,illustrating
thisbyreferencetoseveralexamples,mostnotablytheCatholic-Jewish
dialogue.Hegoesontosaythattheideaofreligiousliberty,withitsinevitable
political“horse-trading”,hasbeenequallydestructiveasdialogue.Theeffectof
allofthisiseasytosee.Dr.Jonesexpressesitasfollows:

TheChurchfindsherselfdefenselessagainstherenemies,largelybecauseChurchleaders
haveconvincedthemselvesthattheydon’thaveanyenemiesanymoreintheageof
interreligiousdialogue.TheenemiesofallmankindwhomSt.Paultalksaboutinhisepistle
totheThessalonianshavebeenmiraculouslyturnedinto“elderbrothers”inanactof
wishfulthinkingthatbecomesmoredeterminedinthefaceofeveryJewish-ledassaulton
theChurch.ThemostrecentexampleofthiscameinOctoberwhenthesynodofbishops
invitedarabbitoaddressthataugustbodyforthefirsttimeinhistory.Therabbipromptly
tookthishistoricalmomentasanopportunitytoharanguethebishopsforbeing
insufficientlyzealousintheirsupportofIsrael.Atapressconferenceafterhisspeech,the
samerabbiusedtheforumwhichthebishopshadprovidedhimtoattackthememoryof
PopePiusXII.Bynowthissortof“dialogue”hasbecomedepressinglyfamiliar.So
familiarthatonehastowonderjustwhatthebishopswerethinkingwhentheyextended
theinvitation.Weren’ttheypayingattentionduringthe“celebrations”ofthe40th
anniversaryofNostraAetateafewyearsbackwhenthechiefrabbiofIsrael,Yona
Metzger,laidtheresponsibilityfortheHolocaustatthefeetoftheCatholicChurchandits
“2000-yearhistoryofanti-Semitism?”

Dr.JonesisclearthatmenoftheChurchhavefailedinanumberofareas,

innotpreachingthegospelandintheirpastoralapproachtocertainissues,most
notablysexualmatters.Healsoseesclearlythethreatthathascomefromthe
Church’straditionalenemies,expressedbySt.Augustinetobe“heretics,Jews

andheathens,”andtheChurch’sconstantfoe,modernity.But,forapersonto
reacttothisbyleavingtheChurchindisgust,assomehavedone,isnosolution.
AsDr.Jonesexpressesit,“tojumpshipmeansinstantdeath”andinrealitythe
solutionislaidoutbeforeus,intheformofthestoryofOurLordcalmingthe
storm,asrecountedtousinSt.Mark’sGospel.Dr.Jonesshowshowthe
problemsintheChurchtodayarenotmerelytheresultofthemachinationsofour
enemies.Sadly,inaddition,asheexpressesit,“theChurch,ofherownvolition,
hasadoptedthecategoriesofitsoppressorsinthenameofdialogue”whenin
reality“unityintheChurchisnotsomeoptionalfeature”but“goestothevery
heartofChrist’sconceptionoftheChurch.”Whatisneededisastrongfaithon
thepartofindividualsandareturntotrueevangelizationbytheChurch.

Afriendofmineoncesaidthatwhileseveralwritersexpressedaccurately

specificaspectsoftheencounterbetweentheChurchandmodernity,what
markedtheworkofE.MichaelJoneswasthathesawclearerthananyoneelse
thebigpicture,theoverallthemeencompassingparticularactionsandevents.
Forthatreasonprimarily,inadditiontohisdetailedanalysisofthespecifics,
thisbookshouldberequiredreadingforCatholicstoday.

JohnBeaumont
Leeds,England

St.HilaryofPoitiers
January13,2016

CHAPTERONE

TheChurchandtheEnlightenment

LeoPfefferDeclaresVictory

InOctober1976,aspartofPhiladelphia’scelebrationofthebicentennialofthe
DeclarationofIndependence,alawprofessorbythenameofLeoPfeffer
presentedapapertotheSocietyfortheScientificStudyofReligion.Thetitleof
thetalkgivessomeindicationthatPfefferhadcometoPhiladelphiatogloat.It
wascalled“IssuesthatDivide:TheTriumphofSecularHumanism,”andit
providedacatalogueoftherevolutionarychangesthathadtransformed
Americancultureduringthepriorfifteenyears.Duringthatperiod,Americahad
quitesimplyreviseditsculture.IfAmericawereacomputer,onecouldsaythat
thedefaultsettingshadbeenchanged.Atthebeginningoftheseventhdecadeof
thetwentiethcentury,thecultureofthecountrywasbasedonapan-Protestant
readingofChristianitywhoseassumptionsfavored,inimperfectformalbeit,a
roughapproximationofthemorallaw.Bytheendofthedecade,thedefault
settingshadbeenchangedinfavorofaculturethatwasindividualistic,
rationalistic,andhedonistic,especiallyinmatterssexual.Itwasnotjustthat
people’sbehaviorhadchanged;thosechangeshadbeeninscribedbothinthe
cultureandintheConstitution,oratleasthowitwasinterpreted,intherulesthat
governedpeople’slives,andLeoPfefferwasoneofthemainagentsofthat
change.

WhoWasLeoPfeffer?

ButwhowasLeoPfeffer,andwhywashesodisposedtoviewtheeventsof
thosefifteenyearswithsuchsatisfaction?AtthetimeofhistalkinPhiladelphia,
PfefferwasprofessorofconstitutionallawandchairmanoftheDepartmentof
PoliticalScienceatLongIslandUniversityinBrooklyn,NewYork.The
credentialsseemedhardlydistinguished.Inaprofessionwhereprestigeexistsin
inverseproportiontotheamountoftimeanacademicspendsintheclassroom,
ProfessorPfefferhadwhatseemedtobeadistinctlyunglamorousjoint
appointmentinanundistinguishedstateschool.

Alookattheawardshehadgarnered,however,givesabetterindication

ofhisaccomplishmentsandthechangeshewasinstrumentalinbringingabout.
BorninHungaryonChristmasDayin1910,PfefferarrivedintheUnitedStates
attheageoftwo,wasnaturalizedacitizenin1917,andmarriedin1937.Atthe
timeofhisspeechinPhiladelphiain1976,Pfefferhadreceivedawardsfrom

Americans[formerlyProtestantsandOtherAmericans]UnitedfortheSeparation
ofChurchandState,theMinnesotaJewishCommunityCouncil,theNewYork
UnitarianUniversalistChurch,theBrooklynCivilLibertiesUnion,theHorace
MannLeague,theUnitarian-UniversalistAssociation,theAmericanJewish
Congress,andtheCommitteeforPublicEducationandReligiousLiberty.

AtthetimeofhistalkhewasSpecialCounseltotheAmericanJewish

Congress,aswellascounselfortheReligiousCoalitionforAbortionRights,
andamemberoftheadvisorycommitteeontheNationalProjectforFilmandthe
Humanities.HewouldlaterreceiveanawardfromtheAmericanJewish
Congressin1980andtheHumanistoftheYearAwardin1988.Pfeffer’s
biographyreadslikearoadmapoftherevolutionarychangesthathadswept
throughAmericansociety.IfPfefferhadcometotalkaboutthe“triumphof
secularhumanism,”hewaswell-qualified.Hehadbeenintimatelyinvolvedin
virtuallyallofthebattlesthathadbroughtaboutthattriumph.Beginningwiththe
Schemppv.Abingtondecisionintheearly‘60sandendingwiththeLemonv.
Kurtzmandecisionin1970,Pfefferwasthearchitectofthelegalstrategywhich
removedthelastvestigesofProtestantculturefromthepublicschoolsand
deniedgovernmentfundingtoCatholicschools.Ifhislistenerswanteda
descriptionofhowthetriumphcameabout,Pfeffercouldgiveafirst-hand
account.

ThefactthathewasinPhiladelphiaforthetalkwassignificant,too.The

nation’sbicentennialcelebrationhadjusttakenplaceinthatcity.Ithadbeena
lacklusteraffair,inmanywaystheperfectmirrorofacountrystillstaggering
underthechangesthatPfefferhadwrought,butalsoacountrystillunderthe
shadowoftheWatergatescandalandnottoosurethatitwasinthemoodto
celebrateanything.OneofthetermsthatPfefferusedsynonymouslywithsecular
humanismwasdeism,whichallowedPfeffertosituatehisrevolutionarychanges
inthecontextofthecountry’sfounding.TheFoundingFathers,accordingtoa
viewPfefferpropoundedthroughouthislatercareer,weresecularhumanists
whodeliberatelyexcludedmentionofGodfromtheConstitution.

Itwasanattempttoreadapoliticalphilosophybackintohistorythat

excludedalotofmaterial.Washington’sfarewelladdresscomesmost
immediatelytomind.“Ofallthedispositionsandhabits,whichleadtopolitical
prosperity,”opinedthefatherofourcountry,“Religionandmoralityare
indispensablesupports...Reasonandexperiencebothforbidustoexpectthat
nationalmoralitycanprevailinexclusionofreligiousprinciple.”

IfPfefferwasgoingtosituatethebeginningsofhisrevolutioninthe

Philadelphiaoftwohundredyearsearlier,hiswasgoingtobeaselective

readingofhistory.Buttherewereotherreasonswhyhisappearancein
Philadelphiatoannouncethe“triumphofsecularhumanism”wassignificant.
Withthecandorofavictorwhohadnothingmoretofearfromhisopponents,
Pfefferwasnevervagueaboutwhomhehadbeenfightingallthoseyears.

TheChurchandtheCulturalRevolution

Thetermculturalrevolutionhasbecomeashibbolethdividingthepolitical
tribesintheUnitedStates.Theconservativesdefineitvaguely,oftentimesso
vaguelythatitcomesacrossasaneffectwithoutacause.Theliberals,because
theywerethevictorsinthestruggle,claim,fortacticalpurposesperhaps,thatthe
termitselfisafigmentoftheconservatives’perfervidandoverheated
imagination.Conservatives,theliberalsseemtosay,justfailedtogettheirpoint
ofviewacrosseffectivelyinanyoftheinstitutionswhichreallycountinthis
country,andnow,likesorelosers,theyareclaimingtobethevictimsofsome
shadowyconspiracywhichtheycan’tevendescribecogently.

Pfeffer,however,takesadifferenttack.Notonlydoesheclaimvictoryina

strugglewhichhisfellowhumanistsareembarrassedtoadmitexisted,healso
namesnames.Pfeffertellsusallexactlywhotheenemywasinthe,fromhis
perspectiveatleast,successfullyconcludedculturalwarsintheUnitedStates.
NotforPfeffertheshadowyopponentbehindthescenes.NotforPfeffervague
accusationsagainstgroupsdefinedvaguelyas“theEstablishment.”Notfor
PfefferthestrawmanheroicsoffellowrevolutionaryandSupremeCourtJustice
WilliamO.Douglas,whoinhis1969polemicPointsofRebellionannounced:

Wemustrealizethattoday’sEstablishmentisthenewGeorgeIII.Whetheritwillcontinue
toadheretohistactics,wedonotknow.Ifitdoes,theredress,honoredintradition,isalso
revolution.

No,PfefferwasmorespecificandmorefrankthanDouglasandhisliberal

epigoni.ForPfeffer,theenemywas,quitesimply,theCatholicChurch.Ina
memoirwhichappearedayearbeforehistalkinPhiladelphia(publishedwith
mordantironyintheliberalCatholicmagazineCommonweal),Pfefferwentto
somelengthtoexplainhisanimusagainsttheCatholicChurch.“Ididnotlikeit,”
Pfefferwrote,

becauseitwasmonolithicandauthoritarianandbigandfrighteninglypowerful.Iwas
repelledbytheideathatanyhumanbeingcouldclaiminfallibilityinanyarea,muchlessin
theuniverseoffaithandmorals,andrepelledevenmorebythearroganceofcondemning
toeternaldamnationthosewhodidnotbelieveit.

TheChurchwhichPfeffergrewuphating(ifthatisnottoostrongaword)

wastheChurchhegottoknowasaJewishimmigrantinNewYorkCity.During
thetimePfefferwasgrowingupandgettingstartedinthelegalprofession,the
CatholicChurchwas,inhisopinion,“oneifnotthesinglemostpowerful

politicalforceinthenation.”Itwasatime,when,tousehisownwords,

PiusXIandPiusXIIreignedovertheCatholicworldandCardinalSpellmanruledinthe
UnitedStates.Itwasthepre-JohnXXIII-VaticanIIera,anditwasduringthisperiodthat
myfeelingstowardstheCatholicChurchwereformed.

IntheCommonwealmemoir,Pfefferreferstohisdaughter’sthreatwhen

shedidn’tgetherwayto“marryaCatholicarmyofficerfromAlabama,”
becausethatparticularconfigurationofCatholicism,themilitary,andtheSouth
embodiedallthatPfefferdidnotlikeaboutAmerica.AtanotherpointPfeffer
talkedabouttheimpressionCatholicschoolsmadeonhimasayoungman:

Ioftensawchildrenlinedupinseparateclassesastheymarchedin.Allthechildrenwere
white;eachgroupwasmonosexual;alltheboysworedarkbluetrousersandwhiteshirts,
allthegirlsdarkbluejumpersandwhiteblouses;alltheteacherswerewhiteandworethe
samenuns’habits.

OncePfeffergetsstarted,thereasonsforhisanimusagainsttheCatholic

Churchpourforthinanincreasinglyfrankaswellasanincreasinglyhostile
litanyofoffensesagainsttheliberalWeltanschauung.Pfefferdidnotlikethefact
thattheChurchopposedtheEqualRightsAmendment;heisannoyedthat“among
thechildrenoutsidetheparochialschoolonthewaytomyofficethereareonlya
sprinklingofblackfaces”;hedoesnotlikethefactthattheVaticanstilldefends
papalinfallibilityandHumanaeVitae,the1968encyclicalbanningtheuseof
contraceptives;heevenopposesthepracticeofhavingfirstconfessionbefore
firstcommunion.(“Iknowit’snoneofmybusiness,”headdsasifrealizingthat
hisanimusisgettingoutofcontrolevenbyhisownstandards,“butyouasked
didn’tyou?”).PfefferdislikestheChurchbecauseofitssizeandbecauseofits
unityandbecauseofitsinternalcoherenceandbecauseofitsuniversality.He
dislikesit,inotherwords,becauseofitsclaimtobe“Catholic.”Pfefferdislikes
theCatholicChurchbecauseitisbigandbecauseitis“monolithic,”because
with“monolithity,”hetellsus,“goesauthoritarianism.”

Pfefferhasnothingagainstreligionperse;heonlyopposes“monolithic,”

“authoritarian”religions,i.e.,religionswithenoughclouttohaveasayinhow
theculturegetsorganized.Buteventhatismisstatingthecasesomewhat.As
JamesHitchcockhasnoted,neitherPfeffernortheliberalmediaobjectedin
1973whentheSupremeCourtestablishedasthelawofthelandapolicyon
abortionvirtuallyidenticalwiththepositionoftheUnitedMethodistChurch;nor
didthefactthatJusticeBlackmun,theauthoroftheopinion,washimselfa
Methodistcausethemmuchconcern(Hitchcock,YearsofCrisis:Collected
Essays,1970-1983[1985]).Thereasonismostprobablybecausethemediaby
andlargeagreedwholeheartedlywiththedecision.Whenitcomestothe
separationofchurchandstate,somereligionsaremoreequalthanothers,and

someareclearlymorethreateningthanothersaswell,andinPfeffer’sview
Catholicismstoodaloneinthisregard.

OnemajordifferencebetweentheCatholicChurchandallotherchurches

andsynagogues,accordingtoPfeffer,wasitsunity;anotherwasitsauthority.No
otherdenominationwasasthreateningtotheviewoftheworldPfefferheld
becausenootherdenominationmadethesamemagnitudeofbeliefclaimsonits
adherents.“Thedifference,”accordingtoPfeffer,

isthatthehassidimofonerabbineednotaccept...theinfallibilityofotherrabbis,andthe
overwhelmingmajorityofJews,whoarenothassidimandinfactnotOrthodox,denythe
infallibilityofanyrabbi,andthiswithoutfearofexcommunicationorlossofsalvation.
ThereinlaythebasicdifferencebetweentheCatholicChurchandOrthodoxJudaismor
fundamentalistProtestantism;inthelatterinstances,orthodoxywasjustoneofmany
voicesreflectingthefaith;intheformertherewerenoalternatives.

IftheCatholicChurchhadbeenwillingtodeclarefornicationandabortion

theeighthandninthsacramentsrespectively,itseemsdoubtfulthattheliberals
wouldhavebeenupsetbyherauthoritarianism.Thefactremains,however,that
shewasn’tandthereinliestherealreasonfortheanimusoftheliberalsandthe
casusbelliinourKulturkampf.Duringtheentirepost-WorldWarIIperiodin
theUnitedStates,theCatholicChurchopposedthemainarticleoffaithof
secularhumanism,namely,sexualliberation.Beginningwiththecreationofthe
LegionofDecencyin1933andculminatingintheoppositiontoRoev.Wade
fortyyearslater,theCatholicChurchconsistentlypickedupthebannerofsexual
moralitywhichthemainstreamProtestantdenominationshadletfall.Theone
greatthawintheliberalanimustowardtheChurchcameintheearly‘60sduring
theSecondVaticanCouncilwhenitlookedasiftheChurchmightreachamodus
vivendiwithmodernitybylegitimatizingtheuseofcontraceptives.Thatdream
waslaidtorestin1968whenPopePaulVIslammedthedoorshutonthe
conditiosinequanonofcooperationwiththeliberalregime.WhenHumanae
Vitaehitthestreets,theliberalsbrokeoffrelationsandturnedinsteadtoa
combinationofopenhostilityandfomentingrebellionwithintheranks.Thelull
inthefightingintheliberals’ongoingKulturkampfwiththeCatholicChurch
endedabruptlyin1968.Thereafter,thehostilitieswereoutintheopenagain.

Pfeffer’sanimustowardtheChurchneverchanged,butitdidabate

somewhat,primarilybecausetheChurch’sinfluenceinsocietydiminished,and
becausetheconfusioninitsownranksincreased—innosmallmeasurebecause
ofPfeffer’sactivities.“WhatdoIthinkabouttheChurchtoday?”Pfefferasked
rhetoricallyinthemid‘70s,

Inshort,Istilldonotlikeit,butIdonotlikeitlessthanIdidnotlikeduringthatperiod,and
thereasonisthat,whileitisstillwhatitwasbefore,itisconsiderablylessso,ifyoucan
makeoutwhatImean.

WecanwithouttoomuchdifficultymakeoutwhatPfeffermeans.Theonly

goodChurchwasaconfusedChurch.Themoreitapproachedthedividedand
tentativeconditionofJudaismandtheProtestantdenominations,themorePfeffer
likedit.IftheChurchwaslesspowerfulin1976thanithadbeenunderPope
PiusXIIandCardinalSpellman,LeoPfefferwasinnosmallwayresponsible
forthatdiminutionofpowerandinfluence.

Sowhatwasthis“triumphofsecularhumanism”?Itwassimplyoneside

declaringvictoryinaculturalrevolutionwhichhadbegunintheearly‘60s.But
eventhetermculturalrevolutionhastheairoffaitaccompli.Iftherevolution
hadnotbeensuccessful,itisdoubtfulthatanyonewouldhavecalledita
revolution.Onlysuccessfulrevolutionsearnthename.So,totakeastepback
evenfurther,whatPfefferwasdescribingwasthesuccessful(fromhispointof
view)completionofastruggleforthecontroloftheinstrumentsofculture,for
thedeterminationofthesociety’sdefaultsettingswhenitcametocertainissues
deartothesecularhumanistheart.Fromtheperspectiveofastrugglethathasnot
yetbeenconcluded,perhapsthebestdescriptionofwhathappenedinthis
countrythenwouldbetheGermanwordKulturkampf.Whatwewitnessed
duringthoseyearswasastruggleforthecontroloftheinstrumentsofculture
whichwasremarkablysimilartothestruggleinGermanyninetyyearsbefore.
Whatwewitnessedinthe‘60sintheUnitedStateswasAmerica’sKulturkampf.

TheOldandtheNewCultureWars

ThesimilaritiesbetweenwhathappenedinGermanyinthe1870sandinthe
UnitedStatesinthe1960saremorethanmerelysemantic.BoththeGermanand
theAmericanKulturkampfinvolvedaconflictbetweentheEnlightenmentand
theCatholicChurch.LeoPfefferisquitecandid,notonlyabouthisanimosity
towardtheCatholicChurch,butalsoaboutseeinghimselfasalatterdayDeist,
i.e.,asecularhumanistwhotraceshisheritagebacktothetraditionofthe
philosophesandtheFrenchRevolution.InbothGermanyinthe1870sandinthe
UnitedStatesinthe1960s,thestruggleforcontroloftheculturebeganwiththe
questionofwhosevaluescontrolledtheelementaryschools.Inbothinstances,
theCatholicsfoundthemselvesfacingtheoppositionofbothliberalsand
conservatives.InGermany,theheirsofthefailedrevolutionsof1848unitedwith
PrussianJunkersunderwhatwasanominallyProtestant,butactuallyliberal,
agendalegitimatizedas“freeandindependentscience”(diefreien
Wissenschaften).TheunificationofGermanyin1870broughttheGerman
CatholicpopulationsoftheRhinelandandBavariaintounionwithProtestant
PrussiaunderPrussia’sculturalandpoliticalhegemony.Kulturkampfwasthe
Prussians’attempttounifythecultureintheirownfavor,accordingtotheirrules.

ThenewculturewastotakeitstonefromthephilosophiesofKantandHegel,
whichwerebyturnsGerman,Protestant,and“scientific.”WhentheCatholics,
whoseculturewassimplynotaspowerful,demurredatacceptingtheunityof
religion,language,andeducation,whichboththeliberalsandPrussian
conservativesfeltwasnecessaryforthepoliticalunityofthenewly-founded
Germannation,theywereperceivedasanalienelementinthenewempire
whichhadtobeeitherassimilatedorexterminated.

Interestinglyenough,Germanyfounditselfinasimilarsituationafterthe

reunificationof1989.ThepredominantlyCatholicBundesrepublik,founded
afterWorldWarII,suddenlywiththefalloftheBerlinWallandtheCommunist
regimeintheEastfounditselfabsorbedintoacountrythatwaspredominantly
secularandsocialistandatleastnominallyProtestant.(TheSovietssequestered
thetraditionallyProtestantsectionsofGermanywhentheycreatedthenow
defunctGermanDemocraticRepublic.)

InaspeechinBremeninJanuary1993,EduardReuter,CEOofDaimler-

Benz,re-openedtheissueofKulturkampfbywonderingiftherewasaplacefor
CatholicsinthenewlyunifiedGermany.“Underconditionssuchasthese,”
opinedReuter,referringtothenewconfessionalconfigurationinGermanyafter
thereunificationof1989,

itappearstomethatthetimehascometothinkthisquestionrigorouslytoitslogical
conclusion.Thequestion,ofcourse,iswhetheranewGermanrepublicisatallpossibleif
itincludesthetraditionalenemiesoftheReich,namely,the[traditionallyCatholic]
populationsoftheRhineland,andBavariaandeventhePoles.Orisn’titreallythecase
thattheCatholicstateseversincethefoundingoftheFederalRepublichavealwaysbeen
adivisiveelement,onethathasespeciallyattemptedtounderminetheindependentstatus
ofthisproudHanseaticcity?(OffertenZeitung,Nr.4/April1993).

SinceoneofthemainissuesdividingGermanywastheissueofabortion,

itseemedthathistorywasrepeatingitself.JustastheAmericanKulturkampfof
the1960swasacontinuationofwhatwaslaunchedinPrussiainthe1870s,so,
too,theneo-post-1989KulturkampfinGermanyseemedtopossessuncanny
similaritieswithwhathadhappenedinAmericatwenty-someyearsearlier.In
bothinstances,Protestantismwasusedasastalkinghorseforwhatwas
essentiallyasecularhumanistagenda.

JustasthePrussianJunkersalignedthemselveswiththeliberal,humanist

heirsoftheEnlightenmentinGermanyinthe1870s,sotoointheUnitedStatesin
the‘60s,therewasasimilaralliancebetweentheoldlineanti-Catholicismof
groupslikeProtestantsandOthersUnitedfortheSeparationofChurchandState
withliberal,humanist,and,oftentimes,liberalJewishorganizationsandthe
variousleft-wingacolytesofsexualliberation.Insomeinstances,aswiththe

EpiscopalianChurchinPennsylvaniaandtheAmericanFriendsService
CommitteeheadquarteredinPhiladelphia,thelinebetweentheoldandthenew
anti-Catholicismbegintoblur.Whenthemainlinedenominationsbecame
advocatesofcontraception,theetiolatednativismofthe1840swasgivenanew
infusionofvitalitythroughtheadvocacyofsexualliberation.

Oneofthebestthumbnailsketchesoftheliberal/conservativealliance

whichCatholicsfacedintheAmericanKulturkampfofthe1960swasthe
alliancebetweenHugoBlackandWilliamO.DouglasontheSupremeCourt.
BlackmadeanameforhimselfinAlabamadefendingamemberoftheKuKlux
KlanwhomurderedaCatholicpriest.SupremeCourtJusticeBlack’ssononce
wroteamemoirinwhichheclaimedthat“theKuKluxKlanandDaddy,sofaras
Icouldtell,onlyhadonethingincommon.HesuspectedtheCatholicChurch.He
usedtoreadallofPaulBlanshard’sbooksexposingpowerabuseintheCatholic
Church.”FellowjuristWilliamO.Douglaswasapractitionerofsexual
liberationaswellasanabsolutistwhenitcametotherighttopurveysmut.
BlackalongwithDouglasprovidedtherationaleontheWarrenandearlyBurger
courtsforengineeringthechangeinAmericanculturefromoneconsonantwitha
pan-ProtestantreadingofChristianitytothesecularhumanistculturewehave
today.Ifthetwogroups—conservativeProtestantsandliberalhumanists—
seemedatoddswitheachother,eachwasabletooverlooktheirdifferencesin
opposingCatholicism.AsJamesHitchcocknotedinYearsofCrisis,

Anti-Catholicism,asexemplifiedinJusticeDouglas’s1973Lemonopinion,bringstogether
strangebedfellowsindeed—conservativeProtestantsandliberalhumanistswhoare
ordinarilyanathematooneanother.

Ineachinstance,theanimusagainsttheCatholicChurchonthepartofthe

mainlineProtestantdenominationsaroseinlargemeasurebecausetheCatholics
werenowdefendingstandardsthattheProtestantsthemselveshaderectedand
thenabandoned.Therewasalullinthehostilitiescoincidingwiththeconvoking
oftheVaticanCouncilintheearly‘60s,butitwasmorealullofanticipation
thananythingelse.TheliberalswantedtoseeiftheCatholicChurchwasgoing
toabandontheteachingswhichweremostrepugnanttomodernsensibilities.
Whenitbecameobviousthattheywerenot,thehostilitiesrenewedwith
increasedvigor.

ThereactionfollowingVaticanIIbringsustoanothersimilaritybetween

GermanyandtheUnitedStates.BoththeGermanKulturkampfofthe1870sand
theAmericanoneofthe1960swerespawnedbyanecumenicalcouncil.The
reactionswere,however,initiallyquitedifferent.TheGermanliberalswere
quiteoutragedbyPiusIX’sSyllabusofErrorsandthedoctrineofinfallibility,

andtheyturnedthatoutrageontheirGermanCatholiccompatriots.Ifsomeone
couldbelievesuchthings,hispatriotismwasinquestion.HisstatusasaGerman
wasindoubt.Hewasquitesimplyunderthesuspicionofsubvertingtheregime.
TheeffectofVaticanIonGermanCatholicswas,however,quitetheopposite.
Afterlanguishingasculturalsecond-classcitizens,GermanCatholicswere
suddenlyre-infusedwithanewsenseofidentityandpurposethatwasboundto
makeitselffeltinthenewlyunifiedcountry,acountrywhoseunificationwasto
takeplaceundertheunspokenaegisofGermanphilosophy,Germanscience,and
PrussianProtestantism.

TheKulturkampfintheUnitedStatesduringthe1960sfollowedonthe

heelsofacouncilaswell,inthiscaseVaticanII.Butitstrajectorywasdifferent.
UnliketheSyllabusofErrors,VaticanIIsoughttobeasirenicaspossibleinits
approachtomodernity.Soirenicwasthecouncil,infact,thatalargesegmentof
theCatholicpopulationfeltthatitsmissionwastoconverttheChurchtothe
categoriesofmodernity.WhenitbecameobviousthattheChurchwasnotgoing
tomodernizetothesatisfactionoftheliberals,theAmericanKulturkampfbegan
inearnest.HumanaeVitaewastheopeningshot,Roev.Wadetheliberals’major
counteroffensive.TheirenicapproachofVaticanIItothemodernworldgavethe
liberalswithintheCatholicChurchtheirmajoropening,anditalsoprovidedthe
secularhumanistswithamajorfootholdinweakeningtheChurch’soppositionto
itsagenda.

WhichbringsustooneofthemajordifferencesbetweentheKulturkampf

in1870andtheonein1960.InPrussia,BismarcktriedtodividetheChurch,but
invain.InAmerica,thesecularhumanistsweremuchmoresuccessfulinfinding
afifthcolumnwithintheChurchtodotheirbidding.Bismarck’sattackonthe
CatholicChurchinErmlandwasafrontalassault.HeexpelledtheJesuitsand
otherreligiousfromGermany(GerardManleyHopkins’poem,TheWreckofthe
Deutschland,isaboutonesuchgroupofnunsseekingrefugeinEngland).When
heattemptedtoforcethebishopofErmland,aCatholicenclaveineastern
Prussia(nowPoland),toacceptanOldCatholicasareligionteacherinthe
BraunsbergGymnasium,theCatholicsheldfirm.AsaresultofCatholicunityin
faceoffrontalassault,theKulturkampfof1870wasamuchmoreviolentfever
which,asaresult,passedmuchmorequickly.

InAmerica,theassaultwasmuchsubtler.Thecarrotofgovernment

funding,publishingcontracts,foundationmoney,andprobonolegalservices
wasprofferedmorereadilythanthestickofgovernmentregulation.Asaresult,
theculturalrevolutionariesinAmericainthe1960sfoundafifthcolumnwithin
theChurchwillingtoaidandabettheirplans.Bysubsidizinganobviously

schismaticgroupliketheOldCatholics,BismarckguaranteedCatholic
solidarity.TherewasnoPrussianCharlesCurran,noPrussianTheodore
Hesburgh.ThestoryoftheculturalrevolutioninAmericainthe1960sisthe
storyoftheCatholicChurchatwarontwofronts.Therewastheenemyoutside
thegates,peoplelikePfefferandtheRockefellers,andtherewerethe
collaboratorswithin,whowereoftentakingthemoneyofthecultural
revolutionariestounderminetheChurch’sposition.Pfeffer,itshouldbe
remembered,publishedthememoirofhiscampaignagainsttheChurchina
Catholicmagazine.HealsoincludedinthesamearticleagroupofCatholicshe
foundcongenialtohiscause.“IvotedforJohnKennedyin1960,”Pfeffertells
theCommonwealreadership,andthengoesontogivealistofliberalCatholics
hecouldalsoconceiveofvotingforinthefuture.Theywouldinclude“Robert
Drinan,JusticeWilliamBrennan,EugeneMcCarthy,SenatorPhillipand/orJane
Hart,DorothyDay,TheodoreHesburgh,andalmostanymemberoftheeditorial
boardofCommonweal,although,”headdswithawrytouch,“Iwouldnot
necessarilywantmydaughtertomarrythem.”

WhenBismarckdeclaredwarontheCatholicChurchinGermany1870,

“theGermanCatholics,”accordingtotheCatholicEncyclopedia,“solong
eliminatedfromthepoliticalandeconomicandeducationallifeoftheirnation,
ralliedtothedefenseofthefaithagainstliberalism.”WhenLeoPfefferdeclared
victoryovertheCatholicChurchintheUnitedStatesin1976,hecouldpublish
hismemoirinaCatholicmagazine.VaticanIIwasanoccasionforliberal
apostasy.Perhapsbecauseitwasamuchmoreblatantlysexualrevolutionthan
theGermanone,theAmericanCatholicliberalswentovertotheothersideinthe
revolutionbodyandsoul—forthemostpart,bodyfirst.

TheBattleAreas

Whichbringsustothevarioustheatersofcombatintheculturalwar.Pfeffer
delineatesthreemajorareasofcontestation.First,asintheKulturkampfin
Germany,therewasthebattleovertheschools.AscounselfortheAmerican
JewishCongress,Pfefferwasthearchitectofatwoprongedcampaignwhich
soughtfirsttorootoutthelastvestigesofProtestantculturefromthepublic
schoolsandsecondlytodenyfundingtonon-publicschools,thegreatmajorityof
whichwereCatholic.PfefferwasthesuccessfullitigantintheSchemppand
Engelcasesintheearly‘60swhichprohibitedprayerinthepublicschools,and
hewastheequallysuccessfullitigantinLemonv.Kurtzmanwhichdeniedpublic
fundingtoparochialschoolsin1970.

Thesecondareaofcontestationhementionsisobscenityingeneraland

filminparticular.AsoneofthesignsofCardinalSpellman’sinordinate

influenceoverAmericanculture,PfeffermentionsthefactthattheRoberto
RosellinifilmTheMiraclewasdeclaredblasphemousinthestateofNewYork
intheearly‘50s.In1952,theNewYorkStateblasphemylawwasstruckdown
bytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofJosephBurstyn,Inc.v.Wilson.Twenty-one
yearslater,togivejustoneindicationoftherevolutionarychangesinmores,two
ofthetopgrossingfilmsof1973wereDeepThroatandTheDevilinMiss
Jones.Bythe1980s,theUnitedStateswassaddledwithapornographyindustry
whosegrossreceiptsrangedanywherefrom$8to$10billionayear.Becauseof
thedecisionsoftheSupremeCourt,thisindustrywasessentiallybeyondthe
reachofthelaw.

In1957,intheRothcase,theSupremeCourtgotintothepornography

businessbyapplyingtheFirstAmendment’sguaranteesoffreedomofspeechto
anti-obscenitylaws.In1964,intheJacobelliscase,theCourtopinedthatit
couldn’tdefineobscenityandgaveusinlieuofdefinitionthefamousdictum,“I
knowitwhenIseeit.”Thereafter,viewingpornographybecamearegular
featureofworkingontheSupremeCourtwithrandylawclerksviewing
pornographicfilmsandcryingoutatparticularlyoutrageousmoments,“Iknowit
whenIseeit”(cf.BobWoodwardandScottArmstrong,TheBrethren:Inside
theSupremeCourt[1979]).“TheSupremeCourtdecisions,”accordingto
Pfeffer,“didnotcausethesexualrevolutionofthe1960sand‘70s;itiscloserto
thetruthtosaythattheyreflectedit.Theydid,however,accorditconstitutional
sanctionandtherebycontributedtoitsacceptability.”

ThefinalareaofculturalrevolutiondelineatedbyPfefferhadtodowith

whoseideaofthefamilywoulddominate.Themajorissueinthe‘60swas
contraception,butthatwassoonreplacedbyabortioninthe‘70s.Intheearly
‘60s,togivesomeindicationofthemagnitudeofthechangewhichtookplace
later,itwasillegalinmanyplacesintheUnitedStatestosellcontraceptives.By
theendofthatdecadethegovernmentwasnotonlynotprohibitingthesaleof
contraceptives;itwasdistributingthemitself.Thetwoinstancesarenotonly
indicationsofthesituationbeforeandaftertherevolution;theyarecausally
relatedaswell.Thelawhadtogobecausetherevolutionarieswanted
governmenttogetintothecontraceptivebusiness.AccordingtoPfeffer,

theanti-contraceptionlawshadtoberemovedfromthebooksbecausetheirpresence
madeitimpossibleforthestatetoencouragecontraception,somethingitnowincreasingly
deemsnecessarytodo.Themiddleincomeandtheaffluent,marriedandunmarried,use
contraceptives;thepoorhavebabies.Whenthepoor,oftenracialminorities,areonthe
welfarerolls,taxpayingAmericansrebelandexpectthestatetodosomethingaboutit.

InadditiontodescribingtheareasofcontestationinAmerica’s

Kulturkampf,Pfefferalsodescribeshisviewofthecontendingparties.Onthe

onehand,thereweretheCatholics,

whohopeforanAmericainwhich,ifnotallwillbeCatholics,allwilladheretoCatholic
values:nodivorce,nocontraception,noabortion,noobscenebooksorpictures,no
homosexuality,everybodyworshippingGodinhisownway,governmentsolicitousofand
helpfultoreligion,andchildrenandadultsequallyobedienttotheirparentsandlawful
authority(Pfeffer,God,Caesar,andtheConstitution[1975]).

Arrayedontheothersideofthefrontlinesoftheculturalwarare“liberal

Protestants,liberalJews,anddeists[i.e.,secularhumanists]”who

seekadifferentAmerica:oneinwhichindividualsenjoymaximumfreedomofthoughtand
expression,contraceptionisusedandencouragedtocontrolpopulationandavoidthebirth
ofbabiesthatareunwantedorcannotadequatelybecaredfor,women’srighttocontrol
theirownbodiesisrecognizedandrespected,thesexualpracticesofadults,whetherof
thesameorofdifferentsexes,areofnoconcerntoanyonebutthemselves,governmental
institutionsavoidmanifestationsofreligiosity,publicschoolsarefreeofsectarianism,and
citizensarenotforcedtofightinawartheydeemimmoralorinanywar(ibid).

AscanbegatheredfromPfeffer’sdescriptionofthetwosidesinthe

culturalwar,themajorissuewassexuality.Iftherewasaresidualanti-Catholic
feelingintheUnitedStatesasevidencedintheBlaineAmendments(Mr.Blaine
coinedthephrase“Rum,RomanismandRebellion”asadescriptionofthe
DemocraticParty),itwasquicklysubsumedinto(orre-energizedby)thesecular
humanists’determinationtoliberateAmericanmoresfromwhattheyperceived
tobetheshacklesofChristianmorals.Whatoftenpresenteditselfasa
theoreticaldiscussionofissuesofstate—theseparationofchurchandstate,let
ussay,asoneexample—turnedoutuponcloserinspectiontobeanattemptto
putthelegitimatizingauraoflawaroundbehaviorthathadhithertobeendeemed
immoral.

JamesHitchcockcitesthecaseofPaulBlanshard,whoseinfluenceon

ChiefJusticeHugoBlackhasalreadybeennoted,asillustrative:

Althoughhisanti-CatholicattackswerealwayscastintermsoftrueAmericanismand
concernforseparationofchurchandstate,Blanshardrevealsinhisautobiography,
PersonalandControversial,thathewasan“utterlytypicalexampleofthesexual
revolutionofthe1920s”andthathewasfirststirredtowriteabouttheCatholicChurch
whenhechanceduponabookaboutCatholicsexualmorality(YearsofCrisis).

Theconcernabouttheseparationofchurchandstateevincedbythinkers

likePfefferandBlanshardshowsitselfuponcloserexaminationtobeafearthat
theCatholicschoolsmightprosper,andthatspecterinspiresfearamongthe
secularhumanistsbecauseofthesexualconsequencestheyseeresultingfromit.
Parochialschoolshaveasignificantimpactontheculture,andfromthatimpact
thereisatleastthepossibilitythatasocietywouldcomeintobeinginwhich,as
Pfeffersaid,therewouldbe“nodivorce,nocontraception,noabortion,no
obscenebooksorpictures,nohomosexuality,everybodyworshippingGodinhis

ownway,governmentsolicitousofandhelpfultoreligion,andchildrenand
adultsequallyobedienttotheirparentsandlawfulauthority.”Whattheliberals
fearedinshortwasasocietyinwhichsocialmoreswerecongruentwiththe
morallaw,specificallythemorallawregulatingsexualbehavior.Whatthe
liberalssoughttobringaboutintheirculturalwarwastheminimizationofthe
effecttheCatholicChurchcouldhaveovertheculture,theexclusionofCatholics
fromtheforumofideas,themarginalizationoftheCatholiccontributiontothe
moraltoneofsociety,andthesubstitutionofsecularhumanismforthesocial
lawsandregulationstheProtestantshadforallpracticalpurposeserectedand
abandoned.

ThisiswhatKulturkampfmeantinAmericainthe1960s,andthiswas

whyLeoPfeffercametoPhiladelphiain1976onthetwo-hundredthanniversary
oftheDeclarationofIndependencetoclaimvictoryintheculturalwarsand
proclaimthetriumphofsecularhumanism.

TheRoleofJohnCardinalKrol

ButPfeffer’sappearanceinPhiladelphiatoproclaimthetriumphofhis
worldviewwassignificantforanotherreasonaswell.IfPfefferhadhisattitudes
towardtheChurchformedunderthereignofCardinalSpellmanofNewYork,it
wasJohnCardinalKrol,theArchbishopofPhiladelphia,whomoreoftenthan
notprovedtobehisactualopponentintheculturalwars.IfPfefferwasatwar
withtheCatholicChurchanditsteachingsanditsinfluenceingeneralduringthe
1960sandearly‘70s,hewasmoreoftenthannotatwarwithJohnCardinalKrol
ofPhiladelphiainparticular.ThemostobviousinstancewasLemonv.
Kurtzman.Krolwasthearchitectofpublicaidtonon-publicschoolsinthestate
ofPennsylvania,andPfefferdefeatedhimintheLemoncasebeforetheSupreme
Courtin1970.

Buttheoppositionwasbroaderandmoreradicalthanthatonecasewould

indicate.Inadditiontobeingthearchitectbehindthebillaidingparochial
schoolsstruckdowninLemonv.Kurtzman,Krolwasheadoftheepiscopal
commissionfortheLegionofDecencywhenHollywooddecidedtochallenge
theLegion’sinfluenceoverthecultureandoverthrowtheProductionCodein
1965.Krolwasalsoamajoropponentonboththestateandthenationallevelto
government-fundedbirthcontrol,andinthesummerof1966foughtthestateof
Pennsylvaniatoastand-stillbygettingthatyear’sbudgetappropriationsbill
heldupincommitteeuntilthestatewelfaredepartmentagreednottobringup
contraceptiontoitsclients.Finally,Krolwasinstrumentalindealingwiththe
liberalism’sfifthcolumnwithintheChurchaswell.Hewastheepiscopal
strategistinCharlesCurran’stenurebattleatCatholicUniversity,thepreludeto

theopenrebellionofthedissenterswhichbrokeoutwhenPopePaulVIissued
HumanaeVitae.

JustasPfeffercouldbaskintheglowofvictory,soKrolcouldmullover

thelessonsofdefeatinaculturalbattleinwhichthecountryseemedbenton
committingsocialsuicideinthenameofliberationfromthemorallaw.Ina
memoirofhisown,deliveredalsoinPhiladelphiasevenyearsafterPfeffer’s
“TriumphofSecularHumanism”speech,KrolacknowledgedPfefferasboth
opponentandvictorintheculturalwarfareoftheprecedingtwenty-fiveyears.
HeevencitedPfeffer’sPhiladelphiaspeechasthebasisforhisargument.“Leo
Pfeffer,”KrolstatedontheoccasionoftheMayor’sPrayerBreakfastonApril
19,1983,candidlyadmitsthat

secularhumanismhaswonoutasthepermanentcureforreligiousdivisiveness.Hehas
usedtheFirstAmendmenttodrivealltheisticreligionintoaclosetandtoestablishhisown
“religion”ofsecularhumanismastheprevailingethicofAmericansocietyandAmerican
publicschools.

IfKrolandPfefferagreethatsecularhumanismwasthevictorin

America’sculturalwars,Krolwasoftheopinionthatthevictorywasapyrrhic
oneatbest.Themainloserinthesuccessfulcampaignthesecularistswagedhas
been,nottheChurch,asPfeffermighthavesaid,butthesocialfabricinthe
UnitedStatesingeneralandinPhiladelphiainparticular.Themainresultof
whatPfeffersetouttoachievehasbeenspiritualimpoverishment—inKrol’s
words,“thedepletionofthereligiousandmoralcapitalofournation.”Asthe
morallawsanctionedbyreligionwasdrivenfromthepublicsphere,
Philadelphiainparticularandthecountryatlargebecameamoredangerous
place.AccordingtoKrol,“theprogressivedeclineinmorality”ledtoa
“correspondingincreaseincrimeandcorruption.”

Between1960and1970,whilethepopulationincreased13per-cent,

crimesincreased176percentinthenationand128percentinPhiladelphia.In
1980,67Philadelphiapoliceweredetailedtoseniorandjuniorhighschools...
In1981inthe260publicschoolbuildings,therewere316assaultsonteachers
and368onstudents...12rapesand244casesofweaponspossession...The
declineinmoralityandtheincreaseincrimeandcorruptionisalltooobvious
today.

AfternamingPfefferasitsadvocate,Krolindictedsecularhumanismas

thecauseoftheprecipitousdeclineinsocialwell-being.“Theseaffirmations,”
saidKrol,citingthesecularhumanistmanifestosof1933and1973,

sweepawayalldecalogues,rules,andregulations.TheydenyGod’sexistenceandhence
theinalienablerightswhichmanderivesfromGod.Theydenyobjectivetruthandthe
differencebetweenrightandwrong.Theyacceptastheultimatecriterion,human

experience,humanneed,andhumandesire.Theyopenthegatenottohealthy
individualism,buttoanuninhibitedandfrightfulegoismandruthlessselfishness...These
affirmationsarenotbasicallydifferentfromtheunderlyingprinciplesofAtheistic
CommunismandNazism...ThelegalsituationoftheChurch-Statequestionistoday
boggeddowninconceptualconfusionandcontradictions.TheCourtsseemunableto
distinguishbetween“church”and“religion”;betweeninstitutionsofreligionandthe
dynamicsofreligionassuchinsociety.

ThetwospeecheswerenotunliketheparableofthesevenblindHindus

andtheelephant,exceptthatinthisinstancewearetalkingaboutthebodypolitic
andnotpachyderms.Thattwosuchmenshouldhavesuchdiametricallyopposed
viewsofthegoodofsocietyisinmanywaysevenmoreremarkableconsidering
thesimilaritiesoftheirbackground.Bornwithinthreemonthsofeachother,both
PfefferandKrolcamefromEasternEuropeatatimewhenEasternEuropeans
weredeniedaccesstothedecision-makinginstitutionsofAmericanculture.Krol
wasborninCleveland,butwastakenbacktoPolandin1912,thesameyearthat
LeoPfefferarrivedinNewYork.JohnJosephKrol’sfatheroncetoldhimthat,if
ithadbeeneconomicallypossibletohaveraisedhisfamilyinPoland,henever
wouldneverhavecometotheUnitedStates.TheolderKroltriedtoreturn
unsuccessfullytwoyearsafterhissonJohnwasborn,buthadtoreturnto
Clevelandagaintoseekwork.LeoPfeffercamefromHungary,whichiswhere
Krol’sfatherfirstwenttoseekworkduringtheearlyyearsofthiscentury.

InadditiontobothbeingimmigrantsfromEasternEurope,bothKroland

Pfefferweretrainedinthelaw.Pfeffermadeanameforhimselfasacivil
lawyerwithgroupsbentonbringingaboutthesecularizationofAmerican
culture.Krol’sriseoutoftheworkingclassPolishneighborhoodinCleveland,
Ohio,toapositionwherehewassoughtafterbypresidentsandpopesforhis
adviceandexpertisetookplacewithintheCatholicChurch,atfirstasapriest
andfinallyasaprelate,but—intellectuallyatleast—asacanonlawyer.Both
KrolandPfefferweretrainedinthelaw,anditwouldbeinthecourtsoflaw,
primarilytheSupremeCourt,thatthefinalbattlesoftheculturalrevolution
wouldbedecided.

TheInfluenceoftheLawandtheCourts

Americans,perhapsbecauseoftheabsenceoftraditionsinalandcarvedoutof
thewilderness,havealwaysaccordedthelawanunusualamountofrespect.In
retrospect,whenoneconsidersthemagnitudeofchangesthatwerewroughtin
suchabrieftime,itseemsimpossibletounderstandwithoutunderstandingthe
influencethatlawhadinthisparticularculture.Therespectforlawwassogreat
thatthemajorityofAmericansallowedittooverruletheirrespectfor
democracy,asonedemocraticallyenactedbillafteranotherwasoverturnedbya

SupremeCourtwhichhadarrogatedtoitselfthepositionofunelected
legislature.Pfeffertacitlyacknowledgestheanti-democraticstanceofthecourts
duringtheculturalrevolution,butsincehesympathizessoclearlywiththe
resultsthereislittleofthezealinhisdefenseoftheconstitutionalseparationof
thebranchesofgovernmentasthereisinhisdefenseoftheseparationofchurch
andstate.InexplainingwhytheSupremeCourthadtogetinvolvedin
overturningastatutebanningthesaleofcontraceptivedulyenactedbythechosen
representativesofthestateofConnecticut,Pfefferprofferedthefollowing
explanation:

Whydidittakeamoreactivistapproachtoanti-contraceptionlaws?Theanswermaylie
inthefactthatthejusticesrecognizedtheneedtogetthelawsoffthebookstoenablethe
Statestotakeaffirmativeactiontowardencouragingandassistingbirthcontrol,oratthe
veryleastnottopreventprivategroupsfromdoingso;buttheyalsorealizedthatasa
matterofpoliticalrealitytheStateswerenotgoingtorepealthelaws,asthetwice-
unsuccessfuleffortinConnecticutevidenced(God,Caesar,andtheConstitution).

Thestrategyofusingthecourts,inotherwords,wasnecessaryto

circumventthedemocraticprocess.Allofthetalkaboutprocedureisessentially
asubterfugewhichisnecessarytorationalizeresults.Sinceweallknowwhat
wewant,namely,contraceptives,and,ofcourse,whatcontraceptivesstandfor,
namely,sexualliberation,andsinceweallknowthattheachievementofthis
end,was,giventhesocialclimateofthecountryin1960,democratically
impossible,wewillallowthecourtstooverruledemocracyinthenameof
socialprogress:

InthisrespecttheninejudgesontheSupremeCourt,beingimmunetopoliticalreprisal
sincetheyserveforlife,maybeperformingasignificantthoughquitecontroversial
function;theymaybecompellingthepeopletoacceptwhatthejudgesthinkisgoodfor
them,butwhichtheywouldnotacceptfromelectedlegislators(ibid).

Theculturalrevolutionariesrealizedthattogettheirwaytheyhadto

circumventthedemocraticprocess,andtheyrealizedaswellthattheonly
institutionwhichcouldtrumpdemocracyinthisculturewasthelawandthe
exaggeratedrespectforitthatwaspeculiartothiscountry’sintellectualhistory.
Krol’srisetoaprominenceasacanonlawyerintheCatholicChurchtookplace
when,asPfefferputit,“Catholicismtookoverthemissionfirstlaunchedby
Protestantism”(Commonwealarticle).Inthevacuumcreatedbytheeffacement
ofmainstreamProtestantismastheguarantorofthesocialorderinthiscountry,
KrolandPfefferfoundthemselveslockedinabattleoverwhoseinterpretation
ofthelawwouldpermeatetheculture.ItwasaKulturkampfinjustaboutevery
senseoftheword,andtheplaceofreligionastheguarantorofpublicmorality
wasthemainboneofcontention.

AccordingtoPfeffer,

Religiousgroups,avowedlyornot,seektotranslatetheirownparticularhierarchyof
valuesintocategoricalimperativesforthecommunityatlarge,includingthatpartoutside
theirownrespectivefolds.Sincegovernmentandlawarehighlyeffectivemeansfor
translatingparticularvaluesintouniversalrulesofconduct,eachcompetingreligiousgroup
willseektoprevailupongovernmenttoacceptitsvaluesasthebest(“TheTriumphof
SecularHumanism”).

OneoftheunintendedironiesofPfeffer’saccountisthefactthatinarguing

fortheseparationofchurchandstatewhatheeffectedwastheestablishmentofa
religionofsecularhumanism.GivenPfeffer’sessentiallyNietzscheanworld
view,thebodypoliticismadeupofgroupswhichattempttoimposetheirwill
onthebodypoliticasawhole.Hisuseoftheterminologyoftheseparationof
churchandstatewasnothingmorethanacleverattempttoinsurethat,inthe
battleforthepublicmindandmorals,thosewhowereopenabouttheirreligious
affiliationsweretobedisqualifiedbeforetheygotoutofthestartinggate.
AccordingtoPfeffer’sview,someoneinvariablyimposedhisviewsonthe
majority.Thiswasonlywrongwhentheimposerhappenedtoespouseor
representareligion.

NaturalLawandLegalPositivism

Krol’sviewoftherelationbetweenlawandsocietywasradicallydifferentfrom
Pfeffer’s.Becauseofhistrainingasacanonlawyer,butalsobecauseofhis
familiaritywiththeCatholictraditionofnaturallaw,Krolbegantoviewthe
directiontheSupremeCourtwastakingwithalarmasearlyastheearly‘50s
whenhewasstillauxiliarybishopinCleveland,Ohio.Insteadofsimplifyingthe
justadjudicationofdisputes,Americanlegalpraxiswasbecomingprogressively
morecomplexandconfusedbecausetheSupremeCourtinparticularwas,in
Krol’sview,takingleaveofelementaryprinciplesofjurisprudence.Thelawhad
ceasedtobeaneffectiveagentinadjudicatingdisputesbecauseithadtaken
leaveofitsfoundationinthemoralorder,anorderestablishedbyGod.Thechief
villain,accordingtoKrol,wasOliverWendellHolmes,whopropoundedaview
ofthelawthathassubsequentlybecomeknownaslegalpositivism.

AccordingtoKrol,Holmes

dismissedtheideaofNaturalLawPrinciplesasaproductofmerewishfulthinking.He
rejectedalltraditionalmoralconceptsasasetofemotionalprejudices.Heconsidered
physicalforceastheessenceofalllaw.Headmittednoabsoluterights...anddeniedthe
existenceofabsolutetruth.HemaintainedthatMightisRight.

Withtheforegoingformulation,theliberaljudiciaryfounditselfinadeep

metaphysicalbind.Theliberaljudiciarydidnotbelieveintruthorinthe
positivelawasbasedonthemorallaw,whichwasinitsturnbasedonthelaw
ofGod.Inshort,itdidnotbelieveinanythingidentifiedwiththenaturallaw.
Thelawwas,quitesimply,whatthejuristssaiditwas,andthatlawwas

imposedbyforceonthepopulaceasawhole.Atleast,thisiswhattheybelieved
theoretically.Inpraxis,theliberalsfoundthemselveshamstrungbytheirvery
theory.Ifthelawwasnotaninstantiationorapproximationofmoraljustice,then
itwassimplytheimpositionofasetofviewsonanunwillingrecipient.Andif
thiswasthecase,bywhatrightdidtheyimposethelaw?Inordertopreserve
liberalismthejusticeshavetobackoffinenforcingthelaw,whichisprecisely
whattheWarrencourtdid.OliverWendellHolmesmayhavefeltnoqualmsin
implementingtheruleofmightmakesright,buthissuccessors,perhaps
influencedbyhowthattheoryhadworkeditselfoutinNaziGermanyand
StalinistRussia,lackedthestomachforitsconsistentimplementationinthe
UnitedStates,eveniftheycouldcomeupwitharationaleforconsistent
implementation.

Theresult,ofcourse,wassocialchaos,whichispreciselywhatKrolsaw

in1983astheresultofPfeffer’srevolution.AccordingtoKrol,

Governmenthastheresponsibilityofarticulatingapublicmoralityforthecommongoodof
societyandforthehappinessandsecurityofitscitizens.Ifgovernmentdoesnot
encouragetheteachingofvirtueandmorality,itgivesbydefaultfreereigntovice.

Informulatinghispositionthisway,Krolwasenteringadebatewhichhad

beentakingplaceinthiscountrysincebeforetheinceptionoftheRepublic.“Is
notthelawsufficienttoprotectitself?”JudgeMarmadukeTempleexclaimsin
JamesFenimoreCooper’sinitialvolumeoftheLeatherstockingtales,The
Pioneers(1823).Theanswer,thenasnow,isno.Thelawsofthelandcanonly
functioninabroadercontextwhichincludesthemorallaw.Itisalessonwhich
thiscountryhashadtolearnthehardway.ItisalessonwhichJohnCardinal
Krolattemptedtoteachit.Itisalessonwhichtheculturalrevolutionariesofthe
‘60srefusedtolearn,andonetheyrefusedtoallowtobetaughtinthecultural
institutionswhichfellundertheirhegemony.

“IfourtraditionalJudaeo-Christianmoralitydeclines,”Krolwrote,

and—Godforbid—shouldgointoeclipse,wewillwitnessnotonlyaspiralingcrimerate
—nowinevidence—butalso,eitherincreasingsocialandpoliticalchaosoran
emergenceofgovernmentmoralitybylegislation.Butmoralitycannotbesecuredbylaws,
andvirtuecannotbecoerced—noteveninatotalitarianpolicestate.

Iftheliberalswerethedoctorsofthe‘60s,thenthecountryingeneralwas

theirpatient.Theyhadcomeupwithanewcureforalloftheillsofsociety,one
whichsolvedvirtuallyeverysocialproblembyredefiningitoutofexistence.In
thenameoffreedomoftheindividualtodowhathewantedwithoutregarding
theexigenciesofthemorallawandthesocialconsequencesofdisregardingthat
law,anarchywasloosedontheland.Ifliberalismwasthemedicine,thenthe
patientsickenedanddied.Theliberalsgotvirtuallyeverythingtheywantedin

CHAPTERTWO

TheChurchandtheSecondVaticanCouncil

TheHighWaterMarkofCatholicPower

OnJuly4,1962,acrowdof100,000people,manyofthemCatholic,gatheredat
IndependenceHallinPhiladelphiatohearanIndependenceDayaddressfrom
thefirstCatholicpresidentoftheUnitedStates.OnthepodiumwithJohnF.
KennedywereDavidLawrence,governorofPennsylvania,whoalsohappened
tobeaCatholic,andJamesH.J.Tate,mayorofPhiladelphia,whowasa
Catholicaswell.ArchbishopJohnJosephKrolgavetheinvocation.Virtuallyall
ofthemenonthepodiumwere,inadditiontobeingCatholic,newlyarrivedon
thepoliticalscene.KennedyandLawrencehadbeenelectedin1960;Tateand
Krolhadbothtakentheirrespectiveofficesin1961.ForaCatholicaudience
mostofwhomcouldstillremembertheKlanmarchesof1928inprotestagainst
thepresidentialcampaignofAlSmith,itmusthavebeenaremarkablesight.For
anaudienceofPhiladelphiaCatholicswhosehistoryincludedtheanti-Catholic
nativistriotsof1844,itmusthaveseemedmoreremarkablestill.Itmusthave
seemedasifanewageofacceptanceforCatholicshadfinallydawned.Thelong
nightofanti-Catholicbigotrywhichhadcharacterizedthiscountrysincewell
beforeitsbeginningin1776hadfinallycometoanend.Catholicswerefinally
acceptedasfullpartnersintherepublic.Catholicshadcomeofageandwere
nowinapositiontomaketheircontributiontothecommongoodofthecountry.
ThesceneatIndependenceHall,PhiladelphiaonJuly4,1962wasinmanyways
thehighwatermarkofCatholicpowerinthiscountry.

Therewasalsothedemographicissue.Asearlyas1949,inhisattackon

theCatholicChurch,AmericanFreedomandCatholicPower,PaulBlanshard
referredto“theCatholicproblem.”WhattroubledBlanshardmostabout
America’sCatholicswastheirunwillingnesstousecontraceptives.Asaresult,
demographicincreasewasleadingtopoliticalpowerand,asBlanshard
mentionedinhisbook,BertrandRussell’sgreatestfearwascomingtrue.
AmericawasbecomingaCatholiccountry,andAmerica’sCatholicsweredoing
it“bythenumbers.”

Withthebenefitofhindsight,wecannowseethattheeuphoriawas

remarkablyshort-lived,justaswecanseethattheconditionsforacceptance
werelessthancongenialtoCatholicinterests.Tobeginwith,therewasthefact
thatPresidentKennedy’sCatholicismwasmoreethnicthanmoral,assubsequent

biographyhasshown.Beyondthat,thecloserKennedygottotheleversofpower
themoreheprovedwillingtodivesthimselfofhisCatholicidentity.Thecloser
PresidentKennedygottoapolicy-makingposition,thegreaterbecamehis
willingnesstopromisethathisCatholicismwouldhavenoinfluenceonhis
policies.Duringthe1960campaign,Kennedyhadtopromisetoagroupof
ProtestantministersassembledinHoustonthathisCatholicismwouldinnoway
influencehisbehavioraspresident.Itisdifficulttoimaginethememberofany
otherdenominationintheUnitedStatesbeingrequiredtomakesuchhumiliating
assurances,butCatholicismhadalwaysbeenaspecialcase.

Thehiatusinanti-Catholicfeelingintheearly‘60shadothercausesas

well.LessthanfourmonthsawayloomedtheopeningoftheSecondVatican
Council.WhatwastheCouncilsupposedtoaccomplish?FromtheChurch’s
pointofviewitwastoreorganizetheChurchandmakeitmoreeffectivein
dealingwiththechallengeswhichmodernityposed,specificallythechallenges
tofamilylifewhichthecultureofliberalismanditsincreasinglyinvasivemedia
promulgated.Fromtheoutside,however,thiswasnotclear,primarilybecause
theChurchwasneverabletocompetewiththemedia’sversionofwhatitwas
supposedtobe.Fromtheoutside,itoftenlookedasiftheCouncilhadbeen
convokedfortheexactoppositepurpose;namely,toconformtheChurchtothe
superiorachievementsofthemodernage.Thiswasdueinlargemeasuretothe
presstheCouncilgot,whichwasinlargemeasuretheresultoftheeffortsof
youngCatholicswhohadimbibedtheintoxicatingatmosphereoftheKennedy
ageandwantedtousetheopportunityofinterpretingtheCouncilasavehiclefor
upwardmobility.

“AtthehighestpositionoftheChurch,”wroteMichaelNovakasafairly

representativeinstanceofthisclass,

downthroughthemajorityoftheCouncilofBishops,theideaofreformhadtakenhold.
Thechiefpointforreformwasintheareaofliberty...HowcouldtheChurchofChrist
everhavelostliberty?Butithad.Thewaveofenthusiasmandreliefthatsweptthe
Churchandtheworldwerebecauseofthereturnofliberty,andatthereturnofCatholics
intothemidstofthehumanrace,outoftheirdefensiveisolation.

TraditionallyhostileAmericanculturewaswarminginitsfeelingstoward

Catholicismforanumberofreasons,butforemostwastheanticipationthatthe
ChurchmightceasebeingsoaggressivelytheChurch.Thiswas,infact,everthe
conditionofacceptanceforCatholicsinAmericancultureandwouldcontinueto
bethereafter.IfCatholicschosenottoimposetheirviews,thentheywere
perfectlyacceptable.Imposingtheirviewscametomeanexercisingtherightthat
othergroupstookforgrantedintherepublic,butthatwasjustpartofthedouble
standardthatCatholicshadtofaceand,inmanyinstances,hadcometoaccept.

Now,if,asseemedtobethecaseatthedawnoftheCouncil,theChurchitself
waswillingtoendorsetheseparatepeacethatsomanyCatholicshadalready
made,thenthebasisforcooperationwasmoreorlesslimitless.Hencethe“era
ofgoodfeeling”whichcharacterizedtheearly‘60s.ForJamesHitchcock,the
eraofPopeJohnXXIIIandJohnF.Kennedywasan“unusualandtemporary
parenthesisinthehistoryofanti-Catholicism”(YearsofCrisis)thathad
pervadedtheUnitedStatessincebeforeitsfounding.Justhowtemporaryitwas
wouldprobablyprovetobeasurprisetomanyassembledatIndependenceHall
thatdayhadtheybeenabletolookafewyearsintothefuture.

LeadinguptotheCouncil

In1958,therewasasenseofstormjustoverthehorizon.Adeceptivecalmhad
fallenovertheChurch.ThenPopePiusXIIdied,andaneweradawned.In
attemptingtoexplainwhyhesupportedtheletterofVaticanIIifnotthespirit
unleashedinitswakeintheChurch,thethenCardinalRatzingerdescribedthe
Councilas,

perhaps,thefirstcouncilinhistorytobeconvoked,notunderthepressureofpressing
problemsorcrises,butinamomentofseemingtranquilitywithrespecttoecclesiallife...
ThencametheculturalrevolutionsandthesocialconvulsionsthattheFathersinnoway
couldhaveforeseenbutwhichhaveshownhowtheiranswers—atthetimeanticipatory
—werethosethatwereneededinthefuture...Thecriseseruptedlater,notonlywithin
theChurchbutinthewholesociety.Coulditnotbesaid...thattheChurch,atallevents,
wouldhavehadtoconfrontthoseculturalrevolutionsbutthat,withouttheCouncil,her
structurewouldhavebeenmorerigidandthedamagescouldhavepossiblybeeneven
moregrave?(JosephCardinalRatzingerwithVittorioMessori,TheRatzingerReport
[1985])

ItwasarhetoricalquestiontheChurchwasstillansweringthirtyyears

afterthefact.ThefactisthattheCouncilunleashedforcesintheChurchwhich
noonecouldhaveanticipatedatthetime.Butastheforegoinganalysishas,I
think,shown,thoseforcesweregatheringonthehorizonwithoutregardtowhat
theChurchthoughtofthemandwouldhavefallenontheChurchwhethershehad
openedherwindowsornot.

Inthefallof1958,intheconclaveimmediatelyfollowingthedeathofPius

XII,whenitbecameapparentthatAngeloRoncalliwouldbethenextpope,
CardinalsOttavianiandRuffiniwenttohisroomandsuggestedinthestrongest
termspossiblethathecallanecumenicalcouncil.Inmanyinstances,theCatholic
Churchwouldbecomeabattlefieldoverwhichliberalsfoughtconservativesfor
controloftheChurchintheperiodfollowingthecloseoftheSecondVatican
Council.LikethebattleovertheConstitutionthatwasfoughtinthejudicial
systemandtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,itwasabattlebetween
competinginterpretations.However,thereisonethingbothCatholicliberalsand

conservativeshadincommon,andthatwasacommonviewoftheCouncil.
Whentwoopposinggroupswhootherwisedisagreeonjustabouteverything
agreeonsomething,thatideagenerallybecomesfirmlyembeddedinthe
conventionalwisdom.ThisispreciselythecaseaboutthecallingoftheCouncil.
BothliberalsandconservativesagreethatCardinalAlfredoOttaviani,prefectof
theCongregationoftheDoctrineoftheFaith,orHolyOfficeatthetime,opposed
theCouncil:conservativesapplaudthefact;liberalsbemoanit;butbothacceptit
astrue.

Givingtheconservativeformulationoftheposition,Fr.GommerdePauw,

founderoftheCatholicTraditionalistMovementandoneoftheearlyopponents
ofliberalizationfollowingtheCouncil,writes

SinceRomeitselfhasliftedtheveilofsecrecyfromsuchmatters,itcannowbesaidthat
therewouldhavebeennoSecondVaticanCouncilandchurchhistorywouldhavetakena
completelydifferentdirection,if,uponthedeathofPiusXIIin1958,theconclaveof
cardinalshadelectedOttavianitobecomePopePiusXIII,asiteversonearlydidbefore
oneAngeloRoncallifinallyreceivedthenecessaryvotesthatmadehimPopeJohnXXIII.
AndIventuretoaddthatfromthatdayonI,amongmany,startedwonderingwhat
percentageintheoutcomeofpapalelectionsisattributabletotheHolyGhost,andwhat
percentageistheresultofpolitics(SoundsofTruthandTradition[1979]).

Takingthesamepositionbutfromadiametricallyopposedpointofview,

XavierRynne,thepseudonymforPassionistFr.FrancisX.Murphy,claimsthata
“self-perpetuatingcliqueintheCuria...hadthusfarsuccessfullyresistedallbut
themostinnocuouschangesdictatedbytheexigenciesofmodernlife...Tothese
mentheannouncementofthenewCouncilcameasasevereshock.”Lestanyone
notgethisdrift,Rynnespellsouthismoralityplayofgoodandevilatthe
Councilinexplicitterms.“Theleadingfigureinthegroupofintransigents—or
“prophetsofdoom,”tousethepope’sphrase—wasCardinalAlfredo
Ottaviani”(VaticanCouncilII[1968]).WhenPopeJohnXXIIIusedthephrase
“prophetsofdoom”inthespeechannouncingtheopeningoftheCouncil,Rynne
directsthereader’sattentiontoCardinalOttavianiastheprincipalsuspect:“As
thelistenersheardthesewords,”Rynnewrites,“theirattentionfocussed
irresistiblyonthefaceofCardinalOttaviani.”

PaulJohnson,inhisbookPopeJohnXXIII(1974),makesamuchmore

convincingcasethatPopeJohnXXIIIwasreferringtoCardinalPizzardowith
the“prophetsofdoom”reference.Beyondthat,onewondershowRynnewas
privytotheconsciousnessofsomanylisteners,butbeyondthatonecanhardly
denythathisaccountoftheCouncilhaslongsincesettledintotheconventional
wisdom.Theonlyproblemwiththeaccountisthatitiswrong.Ottavianinotonly
didnotopposetheCouncil,hewasinstrumentalingettingitcalled.Justwhyhe
shouldbecastasthevillainisobvious,atleastfromthepointofviewofthe

liberals’misrepresentationoftheCouncil.Theliberalswantedtoportray
VaticanIIastheChurchconvertingtomodernitywheninfacttheoppositewas
thecase:theCouncilinvolvedtheChurchrespondingtothechallengeof
modernity.InordertoappropriatetheCounciltheliberalshadtoexpropriatethe
manwhocalledit;hencetheirneedtomakeOttavianithevillain,wheninfact
thecallingoftheCouncilwashisidea.Thethesisthatconservativeslike
OttavianiopposedtheCouncilleadstoquandariesforboththeliberalsandthe
conservatives.Accordingtotheconservativeview,everythingwasfine.There
wasnoreasontocalltheCouncil.Itwasanactofeithersupererogationorself-
immolationbutineithercaseaneffectwithoutacause.Thisofcourseplays
nicelyintothehandsofliberalswhocanthenclaimthattheconservativeswere
somyopictheydidn’tseetheobviousneedtomodernize.

ThefactisthattheCouncilwasneitheraworkofsupererogationnoran

attempttoconverttheChurchtotheideologyofmodernity.Alloftheevidenceof
thetimeindicatesitwasanattempttohelptheChurchfaceathreatjustoverthe
horizonbutonepalpableenoughtothosewitheyestoseeandearstohear.

“Itmustnotbeforgotten,”writesOttaviani’ssuccessor,JosephCardinal

Ratzinger,“thatmypredecessorintheHolyOffice,CardinalOttaviani,also
supportedtheprojectofanecumenicalcouncil.AfterPopeJohnXXIIIhad
announceditsconvocation,theRomanCuriaworkedtogetherwiththemost
distinguishedrepresentativesoftheworldepiscopateinthepreparationofthose
schematawhichwerethenrejectedbytheCouncilfathersastootheoretical,too
textbook-likeandinsufficientlypastoral.PopeJohnhadnotreckonedonthe
possibilityofarejectionbutwasexpectingaquickandfrictionlessballotingon
theseprojectswhichhehadapprovinglyread”(TheRatzingerReport).

Fr.RobertBonnot,whointerviewedOttavianiinthelate‘70sjustbefore

hisdeath,corroboratesRatzinger’sviewbystatingemphatically“Cardinals
OttavianiandRuffinihadrecommendedacounciltoCardinalRoncalliduring
theconclave”(PopeJohnXXIII[1979]).

TheyvisitedRoncalli’scellonMondayevening(October26,1958)with

theawarenessthathewasgoingtobeelectedpope.Oneoftheiraimswasto
suggestthatitwouldbea“finething”(bellacosa)tocallanecumenicalcouncil
inordertocombatthemanyerrorscirculatinginbothChurchandworld.
EvidencethatPopeJohnthoughtaboutcallingacouncillongbeforeJanuaryis
abundant.OnOctober29,JohntoldCardinalFeltinofParis,“Ishallsummona
council.”OnOctober30,hissecretaryheardhimcomment“forthefirsttimeina
conversationonthenecessityofcelebratinganecumenicalcouncil.”On
November2,PopeJohnhadseveralaudiences,includingonewithRuffiniand

theideaofacouncilcameupagain.

OncetheroleoftheundeniablyconservativeCardinalOttavianiincalling

theCouncilbecomesclearanumberofcontentiousissuesareresolved.Firstof
all,theCouncilwasnottheChurch’sbelatedconversiontomodernityasthe
liberalswouldliketoportrayit.Secondly,itwasnotanactofself-destructive
supererogationastheconservativeswouldliketoportrayit.TheChurchwasin
serioustroublein1958,afactrecognizedbypeoplelikeOttaviani.Thedictum
“Ifitain’tbroke,don’tfixit”mightholdtrueherebutnotinthewaythe
conservativesthinkitshouldapply.Therewassomethingbroke,andtheChurch
neededtotaketimetofixit.TheCouncilwasconvokedforbasicallytwo
reasons:internaldecayandexternalthreat.Thedocumentsofthepreparatory
commissionscalledbyJohnXXIII,someofwhichwerewrittenunderCardinal
Ottaviani’sdirection,giveampleevidencethattheChurchhadreachedastate
approachinginternalparalysisduringthelastyearsofPopePiusXIIandthatthis
wasnotthebestpostureforconfrontingtheliberalrevolutioninmoralswhich
wasbeginningtosweepthroughtheWest.EveninItaly,whichaslateas1950
hadbeenapredominantlyagriculturalcountry,themedia,mostespecially
televisionandfilm,wereusheringsocietyinadirectionthatdeep-thinking
prelateslikeOttavianifoundprofoundlydisturbingandinimicaltosocialwell-
beingandthesalvationofsouls.

“Television,”writesRenéLatourelleinhisbookontheCouncil,Vatican

II:AssessmentandPerspectives(1987),“actedasamultiplyingfactorina
processoftransformationthatwasinitselfdramatic...Thedayhasgoneinwhich
peoplelistenedtotheChurchwhenitgaveinstructionsintheeconomic,
political,andsocialfields.”TheChurchof1958founditself“onthedefensive,
immobileinthefaceofarapidlychangingworld,”asituationthatwasinlarge
measureduetothepersonalityofPopePiusXII,ofwhomCardinalTardini
states,he“didnotwantcollaboratorsbutsimplyexecutors.”“Duringhis
papacy,”Tardinicontinues,

directpersonalcontactbetweentheSupremePontiffandthebishopsofthevarious
dioceseswasconsiderablyreduced...ThustheRomancuriasufferedacertainstagnation,
ratherlikethesituationinthebodywhensomeirregularityinthecirculationofbloodsets
in.Weoldpeoplestayedon,standinginthewayandpreventingfresherandmorerobust
forcesthanourownfrommovingforward...

InsteadoffindingthemselveswithinaChurchintimatelyinvolvedinfacing

thechallengesofmodernity,theChurch’sownofficialsfoundadisconcerting
immobilityatthecenteroftheChurch’saffairs.However,whattheChurch
lackedinvitalityitmadeupindiscipline.OneJesuitdescribeshisperplexityat
themyriadsenselessrulesthatdominatedChurchlifeatthetime.Anyonewho

challengedtheruleswastoldtheparableofthedrystick,referringtothe
anecdoteofthemonkwhowateredadrystickafterbeingorderedtodosobyhis
superioraspartofhisdutiesasthemonastery’sgardener.Thetaskmadeno
sense,butthemonkpersistedoutofsheerblindobedienceandwasintheend
rewardedwhenGodmadethedrystickblossomintoalushplant.

By1958,theprincipleofthedrystickhadbeenmadetocoveramultitude

ofsins,andthepeoplewhowereexpectedtogivetheChurchthissortofblind
devotionwerebecomingincreasinglyskeptical,especiallyinlightoftheliberal
ideologiessweepingthroughtheWestatthetime,ideologieswhichseemedso
reasonable,enlightenedandhumanebycomparison.

Duringhislongreignaspope,PiusXIIincreasinglyconcentratedthe

administrativepowersoftheChurchintohisownhands.Whenthepositionof
SecretaryofStatefellvacant,hefilledthepositionhimself.Withhelpof
telephoneandradio,PiusXIIbecameinmanywaystheecclesialequivalentof
thetotalitarianleadersofhistime,micro-managingtheChurchintoapositionof
paralysisthatonlyincreasedashisphysicalpowersbegantofailhimwith
advancingage.Thesituationbecameacuteduringthe‘50s,whenoftentimes
ordinariesofmajordioceseswouldcometoRomeonlytocooltheirheelsin
someantechamberandtogohomewithoutseeingthePope.CelsoCardinal
Constantini,chancelloroftheHolyRomanChurch,characterizedthegovernment
oftheChurchinthelastdaysofPiusXIIas“Byzantineandweird.”PaulJohnson
inhisbiographyofPopeJohnXXIIIconcurred:

ThetragedyofPius’sdeclineisthatthestiflingandunseemlyatmosphereofhiscourt
begantoaffectthechurchasawhole.Decisionsweredelayed,ortakeninsecret,often
behindthebacksofresponsibleofficials.Therewasawideningchasmbetweenthepapal
apartments,whereallpowerultimatelyresided,andtheCuriaitself.Inmanyrespects,
theyoperatedastwoseparategovernments,sometimesinconflict.ThoughPiustookall
thedecisionsinsomespheres,downtothesmallestdetails,inotherstheCuriawasgiven
freerein,andworkedon,initsownbureaucraticmanner,stiflinginitiativeand
strengtheningitsgripontheroutinesofthechurcheverywhere.Bishopsandcardinals
throughouttheworld,responsibleforvastcongregations,facedwithproblemsofgreat
urgency,foundthattheycouldnotobtainaccesstothepopewhentheyvisitedRome,and
wereforcedtomaketheirownseparatedealswithCuriaofficials.Therewasafeeling,
duringtheseyears,thatthechurchwasalmostentirelystagnant,agreatmachinerunning
downforlackofvitalcontrollingforce.PiushadalwaysseentheChurchasabeleaguered
citadel:attheendofhislifeitbecameone,inmorethananotionalsense,butacitadel
crumblingfromwithin,mannedbyagarrisonwithoutofficers,andwithcommander
increasinglydivorcedfromreality.Pius,wroteGuiselleDallaTorre,formereditorofthe
officialVaticanpaper,L’OsservatoreRomano,“separatedhimselffromdirectcontact
withlife,thoughnot,unfortunately,frompeoplewhoabusedhisconfidence.”Hisown
interestsbecameincreasinglypietisticandcredulous.Hewasobsessedbytheprophecies
oftheFatima-miraclechildren,bytheprodigiesworkedbytheBavariangirlTheresa
Neumannn,andbyhisownmysticalvisionsanddreams,someofwhichwereleakedto
thepress.Someprelatesfearedhemightsuddenlyannounceanewandcontroversial

dogma:therewererumors,forinstance,thatheplannedtodeclaretheVirginMarytobe
theco-redemptress,andthusplungethechurchintomariolatry.Inhisoldage,thegreat
organizationhecontrolledseemedtohavelostanysemblanceofintellectualvirility,any
senseofpastoralmission,anydesiretocometogripswiththeproblemsoftherealworld,
andtobesettlingintoachildish,devotionaldotage.Thechurchappearedtobedyingwith
him.

Inthefallof1958theChurchwasinaperilousconditionandvirtuallyall

ofthecardinalswhoarrivedinRometoelectPiusXII’ssuccessorfeltthat
somethingneededtobedone.Thetaskwastwofold:first,restructuretheChurch
fromthedefactomonarchyithadbecomeunderPiusXIItoaninstitutionwhere
theauthoritywouldbemorebroad-basedand,therefore,moreeffectivein
dealingwiththelocalsituation.Thismeantarehabilitationoftheroleofbishop
sothat,secondly,theChurchcouldmeetthechallengesofsecularismheadon.

L’OsservatoreRomanoannouncedthemostmomentousCatholiceventfor

the20thcenturyinitsJanuary26-7,1959issue.Therewerenoblazing
headlines,justabriefannouncementthat,inordertomeettheerrorsofthetime
anditsexcessivematerialism,thepopeintendedtoholdasynodoftheRoman
clergy,tocallanecumenicalcounciloftheuniversalChurch,andtomodernize
canonlaw;theCouncilwasalsotobe“aninvitationtotheseparated
communitiestosearchforthatunitytowardswhichsomanysoulsaspire.”
CardinalOttavianiconcurredonboththeinternalandtheexternalgoals,andthe
bestdemonstrationthathefelttheChurchwasfacinganexternalthreatcanbe
gleanedfromthepreparatorydocumentswrittenunderhisdirection.

InapreparatoryschemaissuedonMay7,1962entitled“TheEsteemof

VirginityandChastity,”Ottavianisaidquitebluntlythatsexualissueswere“the
mostacuteanddiscussedmoralproblemsofourday.”Theywereeternally
crucialbecause“theChurchhasalwaysshownthatsheconsidersconjugallife
astheordinarywayofsanctificationforthemajorityofthehumanrace.”
However,thatplanwasindangerofbeingthwartedbythecombinationofsexual
permissivenessandthenewly-createdmediaofcommunicationwhichwere
constantlyattemptingtoinjectthissamesexualpermissivenessintotheir
programming.“Modernlife,”Ottavianicontinued,givinghisassessmentofthe
post-warperiod,

withoutdoubt,multipliesinvitationstoevilbysuchdistractionsasbeautycontests,
spectacles,billboards,songs,illustratedmagazines,beaches,placesofvacation,
promiscuity,andcertainformsofsport.ThisiswhytheChurchneverceasestorecallto
eachonetheprinciplesofprudence,conscience,andresponsibility,therightsanddutiesof
liberty,andtheobligationofvigilanceandprecautiononthepartofparents,educatorsand
civilauthorities.Thisisalsowhythechurchpointsoutasdangerousandcondemnsas
erroneousalltheoriesthatarethentranslatedintopracticeconcerningthecultofmovie
stars,naturalism,theso-calledsexualeducation,pan-sexualism,andcertaininjurious
aspectsofpsychoanalysis...Italsostudiedthoseerrorswhicharedirectlyharmfulto

marriage,e.g.,divorce,orindirectly,Malthusianism,andartificialinsemination.

EventuallythepreparatorydocumentswouldberejectedbytheCouncil

fathers,somethingthatundoubtedlycausedCardinalOttavianisome
consternation.However,therejectionwascausedmorebytheapproachofthe
documents,andtheapproachtheCouncilwantedtotaketomodernity,ratherthan
theircontent.Ratzingerdescribestherejectionofthepreparatorydocumentsas
“acertaindiscomfortingfeelingthatthewholeenterprisemightcometonothing
morethanmererubber-stampingofdecisionsalreadymade...Thepreparatory
commissionhadundoubtedlyworkedhard,buttheirdiligencewassomewhat
distressing.”Atissuewasanewapproachtoahostileworld.Themajorityof
theassembledbishopshaddecidedthehardlineofPiusIXandtheSyllabusof
Errorssimplydidnotwork.Insteadofcondemnation,theypreferreddialogue.
Ratzingerspeaksofhow“theanti-Modernisticneurosis...hadagainandagain
crippledtheChurchsincetheturnofthecentury”andhowwiththeconvokingof
theCouncilthepostureofrigiddefiance“hereseemedtobeapproachinga
cure.”

“Therealquestionbehindthediscussion,”Ratzingerwrote,

couldbeputthisway:Wastheintellectualpositionof“anti-Modernism”—theoldpolicy
ofexclusiveness,condemnationanddefenseleadingtoanalmostneuroticdenialofallthat
wasnew—tobecontinued?OrwouldtheChurch,afterithadtakenallthenecessary
precautionstoprotectthefaithturnoveranewleafandmoveonintoanewandpositive
encounterwithitsownorigins,withitsbrothersandwiththeworldoftoday?Sinceaclear
majorityofthefathersoptedforthesecondalternativewemayevenspeakoftheCouncil
asanewbeginning.Wemayalsosaythatwiththisdecisiontherewasamajoradvance
overVaticanCouncilI(TheologicalHighlightsofVaticanII[1966]).

WhethertheCouncilfathersmadetherightdecisionisopentodebate.In

lightoftheculturalrevolutionwhichfollowedtheCouncil,theCouncil
documentsseemoftentimesnaivelyirenic.“TheChurchhasnothingtofearfrom
themodernworld,”ishowthesituationwasdescribedinGaudiumetSpes.
Well,inasenseitdoesn’t,butinasenseitdoes.Andinretrospectthe
forthrightnessofthepreparatorydocumentsoftentimesseemsawelcomerelief
fromtheoftentimesnaiveoptimismoftheearly‘60s.“Themoralorder,”
CardinalOttavianiwroteinoneofthepreparatorydocuments,

hasthetask,notonlyofleadingmantohistrueend,butofdefendinghimagainstall
doctrinesandpracticesthatwouldenslavehimtotheminds,modesandpassionsthatare
contrarytothedignityofhisintellect...Inparticularthemoralorderdefendstheimmutable
principlesofChristianmodestyandchastity.Weknowtheenergiesspentatthepresent
timebytheworldoffashion,moviesandthepressinordertoshakethefoundationsof
Christianmoralityinthisregard,asiftheSixthCommandmentshouldbeconsidered
outmodedandfreereinshouldbegiventoallpassions,eventhoseagainstnature.The
Councilwillhavesomethingtosayconcerningthissubject.Itwillclarifyandeventually
condemnalltheattemptstorevivepaganismandallthetrendsthatintheabuseof

psychoanalysistendtojustifyeventhosethingswhicharedirectlycontrarytothemoral
order.

CardinalOttaviani’sconcernaboutthesexualizationofCatholicculture

fellondeafearsin1962,largelyasaresultofthecampaignwhichtheGermans
underthethenFr.JosephRatzingerandCardinalFringswagedagainstthe
preliminarydocuments.

Intheend,theCouncilcondemnedvirtuallynothing,anddidnothavea

wholelottosayabouttheSixthCommandmentinparticulareither.Theironyof
courseisthattheChurchwasaccusedofbeingobsessedwithsuchmattersat
preciselythetimewhentheobsessionswereallontheotherside.TheChurch
wasopeningitswindowstotheworldatthesametimethattheworldwas
openingitselftoabadcaseofsexualobsession.

CHAPTERTHREE

WilhelmReich,TheoreticianoftheSexualRevolution

SexualSubversionofChildrenandCatholicClergy

WilhelmReichcreatedtheterm“SexualRevolution;”healsocombined
psychoanalysisandMarxismtocreateaweaponthatwasspecificallytargeted
againsttheCatholicChurch,andevenmorespecificallyonewhichpromotedthe
sexualcorruptionoftheclergyasthebestwayofreducingtheChurch’spolitical
power.

ReichwasaJewfromGalicia,theeasternmostprovinceoftheAustro-

HungarianEmpire,whowasbothaFreudianandaMarxist.Nineyearsafterhis
death,hebecametheheroofthe‘68revolutioninParis.Twoyearslaterhewas
featuredonthecoveroftheNewYorkTimesmagazine.

Beforehismindrottedoutwithsyphilisandhewasconvictedandsentto

LewisburgPrisonontrumpedupFoodandDrugAdministrationcharges,
WilhelmReichwasaleadingtheoristoftheNewLeft’suseofsexualrevolution.
BythetimeReichhadbeenrediscoveredbytheNewLeftin1969,hehadbeen
deadfortenyears,butthatfactwasirrelevant,becausetheReichthecultural
revolutionarieswereinterestedinpromotinghadstoppedwritingin1933
anyway.OnJanuary4,1971,ChristopherLehmann-Hauptwroteareviewofthe
newFarrarStrauseditionofTheMassPsychologyofFascism,which
announcedineffectthattheReichrevivalhadbeguninearnest.Christopher
Lehmann-Hauptproclaimed,“theAustriansexologistandinventoroftheso-
calledorgoneenergyaccumulator,hasmadeacomeback.”Reich,accordingto
thereview,wasthefatherofyouthculture,thesexualrevolution,andthefeminist
movement.KateMillett’sbookSexualPoliticswaswrittenunderhisinfluence.
Beyondthat,ReichwasbetteratreconcilingFreudandMarxthanMarcuse,
especiallybyexpoundinghis“credothatsexualmanwasmanliberatedfromhis
needforauthority,religion,andmarriage.”Reich,inotherwords,“makes
considerablesense,”atleasttosomeonesympathetictothegoalofsexual
liberation.Lehmann-Hauptwas,infact,soenamoredofReich’svisionofsexual
liberationhewasevenwillingtotakeasecondlookathistheoryoforgone
energy.“Perhapsit’stimetoreconsiderallofWilhelmReich,”heconcluded.

Fourmonthslater,onApril18,1971,theNewYorkTimesreturnedto

Reich,thistimedevotingafeaturelengtharticleinitsSundaymagazinetohis
thought.In“WilhelmReich:ThePsychiatristasRevolutionary,”DavidElkind

describedstudentcommunardsinBerlinpeltingthepolicewithsoft-bound
copiesofReich’sTheMassPsychologyofFascism(Wasitcompassionor
frugalitythatkeptthemfromusinghardboundcopies?).Reich“wasbeing
resurrectedeverywhereinEuropeasahero/sainttostudentsdemandingsocial
reform,”and“manyAmericanyoungpeople”were“nowdiscoveringthatReich
isverymuchtheirkindofRevolutionarytoo.”Thiswasthecasebecausehis
messagewasmoreappealingtotheAmericanLeft,whofeltthattheycouldbring
downthestatebysexuallicensewithoutthesublimationurgedbyFreudorthe
politicalrevolutionurgedbyMarx.

Reichwasaproponentofbothchildsexualityandthesexualsubversionof

theclergy.AfteryearsoftryinginvaintodebatetheexistenceofGodandgetting
nowhereinpersuadingpeopletobecomeatheisticcommunists,Reichnoticeda
simplefact.IfyouchangedthesexualbehaviorofidealisticyoungCatholics,in
particularseminarians,inthedirectionofsexualliberation,includingespecially
masturbation,thentheideaofGodsimplyevaporatedfromtheirmindsandthey
defectedfromtheCatholicChurch,andthewaytosexualrevolutionwasclear.
Thekeytobringingaboutrevolutionwaschangingsexualbehavior,somethinghe
noticedinacommunistgirlwhosebehaviorhediscussesinTheMass
PsychologyofFascism.Thegirlwasinthehabitofmasturbating.Whena
womanbroughtuptheideaofdivinepunishmentshestoppedmasturbating.The
oppositewasalsotrue,leadingReichtoconcludethatprayerandmasturbation
weremutuallyexclusiveactivities.

“Thecompulsiontopray,”Reichwrites,“disappearedwhenshewas

madeawareoftheoriginofherfear;thisawarenessmadeitpossibleforherto
masturbateagainwithoutfeelingsofguilt.Asimprobableastheincidentmay
appear,itispregnantwithmeaningforsexeconomy.Itshowshowthemystical
contagionofouryouthcouldbeprevented.”

Therevolutionwhichcouldbringabouttheoverthrowofthepolitical

poweroftheCatholicChurchwasbased,notondebate,butbehavior:“Wedo
notdiscusstheexistenceornonexistenceofGod—wemerelyeliminatethe
sexualrepressionsanddissolvetheinfantiletiestotheparents.”

InTheMassPsychologyofFascism,Reichpraised“thegenuine

sociologistwhowillreckonpsychoanalysis’comprehensionofchildhood
sexualityasahighlysignificantrevolutionaryact.”Hegoesontosaythatthe
CatholicChurchisthemainenemyofrevolutionaryliberation:

Withtherestrictionandsuppressionofsexuality,thenatureofhumanfeelingchanges;a
sex-negatingreligioncomesintobeingandgraduallydevelopsitsownsex-political
organization,thechurchwithallitspredecessors,theaimofwhichisnothingotherthan

theeradicationofman’ssexualdesiresandconsequentlyofwhatlittlehappinessthereis
onearth.

AccordingtoReich:“Sexualinhibitionpreventstheaverageadolescent

fromthinkingandfeelinginarationalway.”Religion,accordingtoReich,is
nothingmorethaninhibitedsexuality:

Clinicalexperienceshowsincontestablythatreligioussentimentsresultfrominhibited
sexuality,thatthesourceofmysticalexcitationistobesoughtininhibitedexcitation.The
inescapableconclusionofthatclearsexualconsciousnessandanaturalregulationof
sexuallifemustforedoomeveryformofmysticism;that,inotherwords,naturalsexuality
isthearchenemyofmysticalreligion.Bycarryingonananti-sexualfightwhereveritcan,
makingitthecoreofitsdogmasandputtingitintheforegroundofitsmasspropaganda,
thechurchonlyatteststothecorrectnessofthisinterpretation.

AtanotherpointReichclaimsthat:“Ifonesucceedsingettingridofthe

childhoodfearofmasturbationandasaresultthereofgenitalitydemands
gratification,thenintellectualinsightandsexualgratificationarewontto
prevail.”

Thefirststeptorevolutionisthepromotionofchildsexualitybecause

“Sexualconsciousnessandmysticalsentimentscannotcoexist.”Any
revolutionarywhoregardssexualityasa“privatematter”isguiltyofa“grave
error”because

politicalreaction...alwaysridesontwotracksatthesametime:onthatofeconomic
policiesandthatof“moralrenewal.”Untilnow,thefreedommovementhastraveledon
onetrackonly.Whatisneeded,therefore,istomasterthesexualquestiononasocial
scale,totransformtheshadowysideofpersonallifeintosocialmentalhygiene,tomake
thesexualquestionapartofthetotalcampaign,insteadofconfiningoneselftothe
questionofpopulationpolitics.

Sexualrevolutionis,touseReich’sterm,“socialdynamite,”butitcannot

workitsdestructivehavociftherevolutionariesareafraidofgettinginvolvedin
childsexuality,orasReichputsit:“ifthisworkistobecarriedoutby
revolutionarieswhoviewiththechurchintheasseverationandadvocacyof
moralisticmysticism,whoviewtheansweringofthesexualquestionasbeing
beneaththe‘dignityofrevolutionaryideology,’whodismisschildhood
masturbationasa‘bourgeoisinvention,’”itwon’twork.

Inotherwordsthetruerevolutionarymustbewillingtopromotethe

sexualizationofchildren.Therevolutionary,accordingtoReich,must“awaken
...adesireinmodernyouth,adesireforanewphilosophyandforscientific
knowledgeaboutthefightforsexualhealth,sexualconsciousness,andfreedom...
Itistheyouththatmatters!Andthey—thismuchiscertain—arenolonger
accessibletoasex-negatingideologyonamassscale.Thisisourstrongpoint.”

Reich’semphasisonthepromotionofsexualactivityistoopervasiveto

beignored:

Inthemain,revolutionaryworkwithchildrencanonlybesex-economicwork.
Overcomeyourastonishmentandlistenpatiently.Whyisitthatchildreninthepre-pubertal
stagecanbedirectedbysexualeducationinthebestandeasiestway?

ThispowerfulweaponwasneverputtouseinGermany.Anditwasthoseinchargeof
childorganizationswhoofferedthestrongestresistancetotheproposalthattheusual
individualtreatmentofsexeducationbeturnedintosexeducationonamassscale.

Ifwecouldoncesucceedinengagingthesexualinterestsofchildrenandadolescentson
amassscale,thenreactionarycontaminationwouldbefacedwithatremendous
counterforce—andpoliticalreactionwouldbepowerless.

...themechanismthatmakesmassesofpeopleincapableoffreedomisthesocial
suppressionofgenitalsexualityinsmallchildren,adolescents,andadults.

Inordertobringaboutrevolution,thetruerevolutionary,accordingto

Reich,mustpromotesexwithchildren.Hemustalsopromotethesexualization
oftheCatholicclergybecausetheCatholicChurchisthemainobstacletothe
revolutionarytake-overofsociety.

Thecaseofclericsisespeciallydifficult,foraconvincingcontinuationof

theirprofession,whosephysicalconsequencestheyhavefeltontheirownbody,
hasbecomeimpossible.Theonlycourseopentomanyofthemistoreplacetheir
priesthoodwithreligiousresearchorteaching.

TakentogetherReich’spromotionofchildsexualityandthesexualization

oftheCatholicclergybecametheblueprintforthesubversionoftheCatholic
Church.ThiscampaignbeganinthewakeoftheSecondVaticanCouncilbutit
reacheditsculminationinthepriestabusecrisisofthefirstdecadeofthe21st
century.Reich’stheorieswereputintopracticeduringthesexualrevolutionof
the‘60s,butitwouldtakedecadesbeforetheirfulleffectwouldbefelt.

PuttingtheTheoriesintoPractice

TheLeftputReich’stheoriesintopracticeduringthe‘60s.Inanarticlewhich
appearedintheAustrianmagazineDieAulainFebruary2001,atranslationof
whichwasreprintedinEnglishinCultureWarsinMayofthatyear,Hans
Fingellerexplainedhowthesexualrevolutionaries“usedchildrenas
experimentalguineapigsinthesensitiveareaofsexualdevelopment”:

WilhelmReich,awackofollowerofSigmundFreud,proposedcertainthesesonhowone
might“liberate”thesexualityofchildren,whichthe“Spontis”andAPO
[AusserparliamentarischeOpposition]revolutionariesusedasanexcusetocarryout
certainexperimentswithchildren...AsaresultofabsorbingReich’stheories,the‘68
generationbeganexperimentingontheirownchildren,whowerenowbeingraisednotin
publicorreligiousschools,butratherin“alternativedaycarecenters”inwhichzealous
comradesattemptedtocreateoutofthis‘humanmaterial”the“NewMan”notbyany
biologicalprocessbutbythedeliberateapplicationofMarxistideologytotheclassroom.

InhisbookLinkeLebensluegen:eineUeberfaelligeRechnung[Left-

WingLiesAboutLife:aLong-OverdueReckoning]KlausRainerRoehl,who

wasthenhusbandofRAFterroristUlrikeMeinhof,goesintosomedetailabout
thechild-rearingpracticesinKommune2,whichspecializedinraisingchildren
accordingtotheGospelofWilhelmReich.

Thefirstgoalofthis“education”wastoreplacetheattachmentofthechild

tohisparentswitharelationshiptoa“relationshipperson”andasaresult
inhibittheformationof“theauthoritarianfamilyfixation.”Theseactivities
includedpedophiliccontactbetweenadultsandfiveyearoldgirls,thedetailsof
whichIwillspareyou.YoucanreadthefullaccountintheMay2001issueof
CultureWars.

DanielCohn-BenditlaterbecameamemberoftheEuropeanParliament

andtheheadoftheGreenPartyinFrance,butduringthe‘60shewasateacherin
oneofthesedaycarecenters.AfterhisComrade-in-ArmsJoschkaFischerwas
namedforeignministerofGermany,Cohn-BenditgrantedaninterviewwithZDF,
thesecondGermanTVchannel,inwhichhewasaskedwhetherhewasever
employedinoneofthedaycarecenters.

“Yes,ofcourse,ofcourse,”hereplied.

TheZDFreporterthenaskedhimifhepublishedthefollowingtextabout

hisexperiencesthere:“itoftenhappenedtomethatthechildrenwouldunzipmy
flyandbegintofondleme.”

AtthatpointtheeloquentEuropeanParliamentarianhadthelookofadeer

caughtintheheadlightsofanoncomingcar.

Afterlotsofhemmingandhawing.Cohn-Benditsaidthathewouldn’t

recommendnowwhatherecommendedthenbecauseweknowalotmoreabout
childabuse.

Then,contradictingwhathehadwritten,Cohn-Benditswore:“Ineverhad

anythingtodowithchildren.”

TheZDFreporterremainedunconvinced:“Itsoundssoautobiographical.

Thedescriptionsaresopersonal,asifyouhadhadsexwithchildren.”

Cohn-Benditreplied,“Yeah,butthatisnottrue.Thatisnottrue.Thesame

thinggoesfortheparents...I’mnotmadifpeopleaccusemeofthatbecauseit
wasnosecret.Iwasonlythinkingthatyouhavetolookatitinthecontextofthis
timeandthisperiod.We’retalkingabout‘68.Thatwasthen...”

UnliketheCatholicChurch,whichhasapologizedforthepriestswhohave

engagedinsexualactivitywithchildren,theLeftingeneralandtheGreenParty
specificallyhavenever“soughtwaystorepairthedamagethattheyhavedoneto
thechildrenofthatgeneration,whoweretreatedlikeguineapigsbybeing

subjectedtotheabstruseideasofthemadmanWilhelmReich.”

KlausRainerRoehlwrites:“lt’sinthisparticulararea[thesexualization

ofchildren]thathismovementhasthemosttoanswerfor.Theseevilorstupid
deedshavecreatedthebiggestaftershockforthemovement.Itwasherethatit
diditsmostdamage.”

WritingaroundthesametimeasHansPingeller,HerbertRauterclaimsthat

Cohn-Bendit’sexperienceswere“Noisolatedincident.”Infactin1985the
GreenParty,thepoliticalhomeofbothCohn-BenditandJoschkaFischer,
advocatedtheeliminationoflawscriminalizingsexualrelationswithchildren,
claiming“theypreventthefreedevelopmentofthepersonality.”

Atthebeginningof1985,theGreensproposedlegislationwhichwould

decriminalizetheseductionofgirlsundersixteenyearsofageaswellas
homosexualcontactwithchildrenandteenagers.Theirreason?“Thethreatof
punishmentinhibitschildrenfromdiscoveringtheirtruesexualorientation.”

AttheirstateconventioninLuedenscheidinMarch1985,theGreensof

Nordrhein-Westfalendemandedthat“nonviolentsexualactivity”between
childrenandadultsneverbeconsideredasareasonforcriminalprosecution.
Thissortofactivity,tothecontrary,“mustbeliberatedfromallrestrictions
whichthissocietyhasplacedonit.”Thefactthatthisresolutionwasapproved
byamajorityofthoseinattendanceatteststothefactthattheyconsideredsexual
relationsbetweenchildrenandadultsasaformof“socialoppression,which
placesthosewhoareinterestedinengaginginnon-violentsexwithchildrenin
thedangerofhavingtheirentirelivesdestroyedfromonedaytothenextifit
weretobecomeknownthattheyhadrelationswhichallofusconsiderpleasant,
productive,development-enhancing,inshort,positiveforbothparties
involved...Therefore,wedemandthatallcriminalsanctionsagainstsuchsexual
activityberemoved.”

In1985theGreensinBaden-Wuerttembergattemptedtoweakenthe

criminalsanctionsagainstthisformofsexualactivity.Consensualsexbetween
adultsandchildrenshouldnotbepunished.Alsoin1985,intheirpolitical
platform(AuszuegeausdemWahlprogramderAlternativeListeBerlin),the
Greensclaimedthat“Itisinhumantoapprovesexualactivityonlyforacertain
agegroupandundercertainconditions.Ifyoungpeopleexpressthewishtohave
sexwithpeopleofthesameageorwitholderpeopleoutsideofthefamily,either
becausetheirhomosexualityisnotacceptedbytheirparentsorbecausethey
havepedophilictendenciesorforwhateverreason,theymustbeaffordedthe
possibilityofactingonthesedesires.”

Let’ssumup.ChristopherHitchens,whohaswrittenabookextollingthe

virtuesofatheismandanotherattackingMotherTeresa,plannedtoarrestPope
BenedictXVIwhenhearrivedinEnglandinSeptember2010,butnoonehas
plannedtoarrestDanielCohn-Benditanytimesoon.TheChurchhasnever
condonedthissortofactivityinanyway,shapeorform,muchlessintheway
thattheGreenPartyhas,butnooneissuingtheGreenPartyforthesexual
molestationthattookplaceinthedaycarecentersofthe‘60s.

Itturnsoutthat,asstatedearlier,theVaticanIIPastoralConstitutiononthe

ChurchintheModernWorld,GaudiumetSpes,wasoffthemarkwhenit
claimedthattheChurchhadnothingtofearfromthemodernworld.Modernity
hasalwaysbeentheenemyoftheChurchanditremainssotoday.

Butworsethanthemachinationsofherenemies,theChurchhasadopted

thecategoriesofitsoppressorsinthenameofdialogueandasaresultblinded
itselftowhatwasreallygoingonduringthiscrucialperiodofChurchhistory.
Asaresult,theChurchisstilltryingtofigureoutwhathappenedduringthe‘60s.

ACaseStudy:ThePriestCrisis

Letustakethepriestcrisisandusethatasacasestudy,lookingspecificallyat
thesituationinIreland,thesubjectofpastoralletterbyPopeBenedictXVI.In
thatletteraddressedtotheChurchinIrelandanddatedMarch19,2010,Pope
Benedictclaimedthatinordertorecoverfromthewoundwhichanumberof
Irishpriestshadinflictedontheyoungpeopleentrustedtotheircare

theChurchinIrelandmustfirstacknowledgebeforetheLordandbeforeothersthe
serioussinscommittedagainstdefenselesschildren.Suchanacknowledgement,
accompaniedbysinceresorrowforthedamagecausedtothesevictimsandtheirfamilies,
mustleadtoaconcertedefforttoensuretheprotectionofchildrenfromsimilarcrimesin
thefuture.

ThepopebasedhisletterlargelyonthefindingsoftheMurphyReport,

whichhadbeenpublishedonNovember26,2009andfoundthat“childabuseby
clericswaswidespreadthroughouttheperiodunderreview.”

MorecrucialtoacorrectunderstandingoftheIrishsexualabusecrisis,

andsimilareventsinothercountries,isanunderstandingofthe“periodunder
review.”MostofthecasesofabusewhichtheChurchisnowconfrontingtook
placeinaperiodwhoseepicenterwasroughlythirtyorfortyyearsago.Inorder
tounderstandthecrisisthen,weneedtounderstandwhatGermanscallthe
Zeitgeist,orthespiritofthetimes,thetimesbeinglargelythe‘70s,when
roughlytenyearsaftertheSecondVaticanCouncilendedtheChurchwasinthe
throesofitsimplementation.

PopeBenedictadvertedtothistimeperiodinhisletter:

Significanttoowasthetendencyduringthisperiod,alsoonthepartofpriestsandreligious,
toadoptwaysofthinkingandassessingsecularrealitieswithoutsufficientreferencetothe
Gospel.TheprogramofrenewalproposedbytheSecondVaticanCouncilwassometimes
misinterpretedandindeed,inthelightoftheprofoundsocialchangesthatweretaking
place,itwasfarfromeasytoknowhowbesttoimplementit.

Oneofthemaincharacteristicsofthisperiod,accordingtoPopeBenedict,

was

awell-intentionedbutmisguidedtendencytoavoidpenalapproachestocanonically
irregularsituations.Itisinthisoverallcontextthatwemusttrytounderstandthedisturbing
problemofchildsexualabuse,whichhascontributedinnosmallmeasuretothe
weakeningofthefaithandthelossofrespectfortheChurchandherteachings.

TheMurphyReportmakesclearthattheChurchdidnotapplytheremedies

whichCanonLawprovidesinthecaseofsexualabuse.Insteadthedioceseof
Dublinsetasidethepenalprocessofcanonlawinfavorofapurely“pastoral”
approachwhichwas,intheCommission’sview,“whollyineffectiveasameans
ofcontrollingclericalchildsexualabuse.”Duringthecourseofits
investigations,theCommissionlearnedthat“Inthemid-1970stherewasno
public,professionalorGovernmentperceptioneitherinIrelandor
internationallythatchildsexualabuseconstitutedasocietalproblemorwasa
majorrisktochildren.”

Asonecommentatorputit:

ThepagesoftheMurphyReportarelitteredwithinstancesofcarelessness,incompetence
andmoralcowardice.Overthepastfifteentotwentyyearstheyhavebeenflailingabout,
tryingtogettogripswithaseeminglyintractableproblem.Fartoooftentheirresponsehas
been,atbest,inadequate.AlinefromtheReportwhichringsparticularlytruereferstoa
priestwhohadtheimpressionofArchbishopConnellthathe“cameacrossassomeone
whoreallycaredforthevictimbuthadnot“gotaclue”abouthowtogoaboutdealingwith
therealityoftheproblem.”ManyoftheotherBishopsgiveasimilarimpression.

PopeBenedictwasunsparinginhiscriticismofthepriestswhobetrayed

thetrustofthosewhomtheywerecalledtoserveandthebishopswhowere
derelictinexercisingproperoversight,butParagraph4ofhispastoralletter
indicatesthatotherforceswereatworkaswell.

InrecentdecadestheChurchinyourcountryhashadtoconfrontnewandserious
challengestothefaitharisingfromtherapidtransformationandsecularizationofIrish
society.Fast-pacedsocialchangehasoccurred,oftenadverselyaffectingpeople’s
traditionaladherencetoCatholicteachingandvalues.Alltoooften,thesacramentaland
devotionalpracticesthatsustainfaithandenableittogrow,suchasfrequentconfession,
dailyprayerandannualretreatswereneglected.Onlybyexaminingcarefullythemany
elementsthatgaverisetothepresentcrisiscanaclear-sighteddiagnosisofitscausesbe
undertakenandeffectiveremediesbefound.

CommentingonPopeBenedict’sletterinasymposiumatChiesa.com,

SandroMagisterclaimedthat“BenedictXVIhasgiventheCatholicsofIreland
anorderneverbeforegivenbyapopeofthemoderneratoanentirenational

Church...Hetoldthemnotonlytobringtheguiltybeforethecanonicalandcivil
courts,buttoputthemselvescollectivelyinastateofpenanceandpurification...
inapublicform,beforetheeyesofall,eventhemostimplacableandmocking
adversaries,”butthepointofthearticlewas,onceagain,theZeitgeist.Asthe
titleofMagister’sarticleinLaRepubblicaindicated,“GenesisofCrime:the
Revolutionofthe1960s,”thecauseofthiscrimewasthesexualrevolutionofthe
‘60s,aneventwhichwasatruerevolutionandwhichbroughtaboutthe
sexualizationoftraditionalCatholiccultures,whichbroughtwithitthe
sexualizationoftheclergyaswell.

Takingpartinthesamesymposium,AngeloCardinalBagnascosaw

“strategiesofgeneralizeddiscredit”behindthenewsreportsaswellasmore
thanalittlehypocrisy.Themediawhowerecallingforthepope’sresignation
werethesamemediawhichhadspentdecadesunderminingsexualmorality:

Inreality,wemustallquestionourselves,withoutanymorealibis,aboutaculturethatin
ourtimereignspamperedanduncontested,andtendsprogressivelytofraytheconnective
tissueofsocietyasawhole,perhapsevenmockingthosewhotrytoresistandtooppose
it:theattitude,thatis,ofthosewhocultivateabsoluteautonomyfromthecriteriaofmoral
judgmentandconveyasgoodandalluringbehaviorsthataredesignedaccordingto
individualdesiresandevenunbridledinstincts.Buttheexaggerationofsexuality
disconnectedfromitsanthropologicalsignificance,all-encompassinghedonism,anda
relativismthatdoesnotadmitlimitsorexceptions,dogreatharmbecausetheyare
speciousandsometimessopervasiveastoescapenotice.

CardinalRuinicalledthecrisisinIreland“partofastrategythathasbeen

underwayforcenturies”andwentontoclaimthattheGermanphilosopher
FriedrichNietzschehad“elaborated”thisstrategy“withhisflairfordetail.”

AccordingtoNietzsche,thedecisiveattackonChristianitycannotbe

broughtontheleveloftruth,butonthatofChristianethics,whichhesawasthe
enemyofthejoyofliving.AndsoIwouldliketoaskthosewhodecryscandals
ofpedophiliamostlywhentheyinvolvetheCatholicChurch,perhapsbringing
intoquestionpriestlycelibacy:woulditnotbemorehonestandrealisticto
recognizethatcertainlytheseandotherdeviationsrelatedtosexuality
accompanytheentirehistoryofthehumanrace,butalsothatinourtimethese
deviationsarefurtherstimulatedbythemuchballyhooed‘sexualliberation.’

Whentheexaltationofsexualitypervadeseverypartoflifeandwhen

autonomyfromanymoralcriterionisclaimedforthesexualinstinct,itbecomes
difficulttoexplainthatcertainabusesareabsolutelytobecondemned.Inreality,
humansexualityfromthestartisnotsimplyinstinctual,itisnotthesameasthat
oftheotheranimals.Itis,likeallofman,asexuality‘mixed’withreasonand
morality,whichcanbelivedhumanly,andtrulybringhappiness,onlyifitis
livedthisway.

Onceagainthekeytounderstandingtheabusecrisisisunderstanding“the

periodunderreview,”whichistosaytheaftermathofthesexualrevolutionof
the‘60s.ProfessorofsociologyMassimoIntrovigne,presidentofCESNUR,the
CenterfortheStudiesonNewReligion,claimedthattheattackontheChurch
beganinearnestduring“whattheEnglishandtheAmericanscall‘the‘60s,’and
theItalians,concentratingontheemblematicyearof1968[call]‘il
Sessantotto.’”Thisera,accordingtoProfessorIntrovigne,“increasingly
appearsasatimeofprofounddisturbancesofcustoms,withcrucialandlasting
effectsonreligion.”

BenedictXVIinhislettershowedthathewasawareofthefactthatthere

wasinthe1960sanauthenticrevolution—nolessimportantthantheProtestant
ReformationortheFrenchRevolution—thatwas“fast-paced”anddealta
tremendousblowto“traditionaladherencetoCatholicteachingandvalues.”

IntheCatholicChurchtherewasnotasufficientawarenessofthescopeof

thisrevolution.Inthisclimate,certainlynotallpriestswhowereinsufficiently
formedorinfectedbytheclimatefollowingthe‘60sandnotevenasignificant
percentageofthem,becamepedophiles.Butthestudyoftherevolutionofthe
1960sandof1968iscrucialtounderstandingwhathappenedafterward,
includingpedophilia.Andtofindingrealremedies.Ifthisrevolution,unlike
thosebeforeit,ismoralandspiritualandtouchestheinteriorityofman,itisonly
fromtherestorationofmorality,ofthespirituallife,andofcomprehensivetruth
aboutthehumanpersonthattheremediescanultimatelycome.

Whatthisandsimilarcommentarymakesclearisthattalkingaboutthe

‘60sandunderstandingthe‘60saretwodifferentthings.Whatallofthecritiques
haveincommonisaninadequateunderstandingofwhathappenedinthe‘60s
and,moreimportantly,whathappenedintheaftermathofthesexualrevolution,a
periodwhichcoincidedwiththeimplementationoftheSecondVaticanCouncil.

CardinalRuinimentionedNietzsche,whowascertainlyavillain,butifhis

Eminencewasinterestedintalkingaboutacampaignofrevolution,of“astrategy
thathasbeenunderwayforcenturies,”andsexualizationoftheculturefor
politicalpurposes,hewouldhavedonebettertobeginwiththeMarquisde
Sade.

Similarly,ProfessorInvigneclaims

thatasinglefactorcannotexplainarevolutionofthismagnitude.Theeconomicboomand
feminismplayapart,butalsomorestrictlyculturalaspectsbothoutsidethechurchesand
Christiancommunities(theencounterbetweenpsychoanalysisandMarxism)andinside
them(the‘newtheologies’).

Buthedoesn’tmentionWilhelmReich,themanwhocreatedtheterm

CHAPTERFOUR

SensitivityTrainingandSexualEngineering

CarlRogersandtheIHMNuns

Duringthesummerof1966,attheendoftheSecondVaticanCouncilandthe
beginningofthesexualrevolution,theworldseemedalivetonewsexual
possibilities,especiallyforCatholicnunsandpriests,manyofwhomconfidently
expectedthattheCatholicChurch’sdisciplineoncelibacywasabouttobelifted.
JoiningtheminachorusofmuteanticipationweretheCatholiclaity,whowere
justasconfidentintheirexpectationthatthebanonartificialbirthcontrolwould
belifted.PopePaulVIhadappointedalayman-staffedadvisoryboardandit
wasassumed—correctly,itturnsout—thattheywouldvotetooverturnthe
Church’slong-standingbanoncontraception,whichhadbeenreaffirmedas
recentlyasthirtyyearsbeforeinPiusXI’sencyclicalCastiConnubii.Because
ofPopeJohnXXIII,PresidentJohnF.Kennedy,andtheVaticanCouncil,
Catholicshadbecomethefocusofsomuchmediaattentionthattheyfailedtosee
distortionsinthemirrorwhichthemedia,dominatedbyalumnioftheOSSand
otherpsychologicalwarfareoperations,helduptotheircollectiveface.They
failedtounderstandhowseriouslymalformedtheiropinionswerebecomingat
thehandsofpeoplelikeXavierRhynneandMichaelNovakandothermedia
enthusiastswhofelttoamanthatthelongreignofanti-Catholicbigotryinthe
UnitedStateshadcometoanendandthatalltheChurchneededtodotocreate
itsownhappyendingwasjoinhandswiththeliberalZeitgeist,asreportedin
placeslikeTimeandtheNewYorker,dropafewmedievalsexualprohibitions,
andwalkoffintothesunset.

Inkeepingwiththespiritofthatage,duringthesummerof1966,the

ImmaculateHeartnunsofLosAngeles,California,invitedaNewYork
psychiatristtotheirretreathouseinMontecitotoconductanencounter
workshop,asessionoftruth-tellingandice-breakinggroupexercisesthatbroke
downsocialinhibition,fosteredanillusorysenseofintimacy,andopenedthe
wayfortheengineeringofconsentthroughsmallgrouppeerpressure.Thenuns
likedencountergroupssomuchthatayearlaterthepsychologistCarlRogers
andhisassociatesbegansomethingtheycalledtheEducationInnovationProject
withtheentireorderandalloftheschoolsitranforthearchdioceseofLos
Angeles.

Rogershadbecomefamousin1961withthepublicationofhisbookOn

BecomingaPerson.HealongwithAbrahamMaslow,whosebookTowarda
PsychologyofBeingcameoutin1962,hadbecomethetwoleadingproponents
ofwhatcametobeknownashumanisticorthirdforcepsychology.Thethird
forcereferredtoatherapythatwasbasedonbothFreudandJ.B.Watsonbut
wasmore“clientcentered.”InRogeriantherapy,theclientsolvedhisown
problemswithminimalinterferencefromhistherapistguide,whogavelittle
morethannon-committalanswersasawayofguidingthepatienttotruthsthatthe
clientknewbutchosenottosee.Anothernameforthistherapywasnon-
directivecounselling.Acreationoftheearly1940s,ithadbeenproposed,
accordingtotheformulationofRogers’assistantW.R.Coulson,“asahumane
replacementforbehaviorisminthelaboratoryandFreudianpsychoanalysisin
theclinic.”

In1965CarlRogersbegancirculatingapaperentitled“TheProcessofthe

BasicEncounterGroup”tosomereligiousordersintheLosAngelesarea.The
SistersoftheImmaculateHeartofMaryfoundhisideasintriguing.Thisshould
notbesurprisingbecausetheCalifornia-basedIHMnunshadalready
establishedthereputationofbeing“innovative.”Intheearly‘60s,SisterAloyse,
theorder’ssuperior,hadbroughtintheDutchpsychologist-priestAdrianvan
Kaamforretreatexercisesduringwhich“allcommunityrulesweresuspended.”
Theresultsthissortofinnovationwerepredictable.Afterallowingthe
psychologistsin,thenunsbecameawareof“howdictatorialsuperiorswereand
inturnhowdependent,submissiveandhelplessnunswerewhenitcameto
workingwiththeoutsideworld.”Bythespringof1965,JamesFrancisCardinal
McIntyre,archbishopofthearchdioceseofLosAngeles,hadbecomeupsetatthe
largenumberofImmaculateHeartnunswhohadaskedtobedispensedfrom
theirvows.Large,astimewouldshow,wasarelativeterm.Soonthenumberof
nunsaskingtobelaicizedwouldturnintoaflood,andthesensitivitytraining
whichCarlRogerswouldunleashontheorderundertheauspicesofthe
EducationInnovationProjectwouldplayamajorroleintheirleaving.Bythe
timetheexperimentwasover,theorderwouldceasetoexist,leavingsubsequent
generationstopuzzleoveranincidentwhichhadbecomeaclassicinstanceof
renewalgonewrongintheaftermathofVaticanII.

Withthebenefitofhindsight,anyonewhoreadRogers’spapershouldhave

beenawareofthispossibilityfromthebeginning.Inaversionofthatpaper
whichappearedintheJuly1969issueofPsychologyToday,entitled
“Community:TheGroupComesofAge,”Rogersexplainedthatinmixed
intensiveworkshopspositiveandwarm,lovingfeelingsfrequentlydevelop
betweenmembersoftheencountergroupand,naturallyenough,thesefeelings

sometimesoccurbetweenmenandwomen.Inevitably,someofthesefeelings
haveasexualcomponentandthiscanbeamatterofgreatconcerntothe
participantsand...aprofoundthreattotheirspouses.Ortotheirreligiousvows,
Rogersmighthaveadded.

AroundthetimethatRogerswascirculating“InvolvementintheBasic

Encounter,”adraftofapaperpublishedtwoyearslateras“TheProcessofthe
BasicEncounterGroup”amongtheImmaculateHeartnunsin1965,theVatican
Councilcametoaclose.Aclosereadingofthepertinentdocumentsshowsthey
reaffirmedCatholictradition.Butatthattimeclosereadingshadbeeneschewed
infavorofreadingsinkeepingwiththespiritofVaticanII,whichseemedeager
tosecondwhateverthesecularZeitgeistwasproposing.OnSeptember2,1966,
PopePaulVIimplementedtheearlierconciliardecreeonreligiouslife,
PerfectaeCaritatis,byissuingaMotuProprioinwhichheurgedallreligious
“toexamineandrenewtheirwayoflifeandtowardsthatendtoengageinwide-
rangingexperimentation.”Thepopeaddedthefollowingcaveat:“providedthat
thepurpose,natureandcharacteroftheinstitutearesafeguarded.”Inkeeping
withthespiritofthetimes,thecaveatwasallbutuniversallyignored.Infact,
thosemosteagertoexperimentwerethosealsomostlikelytoignoreit.TheIHM
sisterswereamongthefirsttorespond,andwithinsixweeks,thepontiff’sletter
hadbeencirculatedamongthe560membersofthecommunity.Anumberof
commissionswereappointedtostudycarefullyallaspectsoftheirreligious
commitment.

TwoCaseStudies:JeanCordovaandSisterMaryBenjamin

JeanCordovahaddecidedtobecomeanImmaculateHeartnun.Cordova
graduatedfromhighschoolinthespringof1966,andonasunnySeptember6,
1966sheandfourofherninebrothersandsistersdroveuptothenovitiatein
SantaBarbarawhereshewastobeginherlifeasanun.

OnJanuary1,1967,JeanCordovawascalledintothemothersuperior’s

officeandtoldthatsheandherfellownoviceswerebeingsenttoliveinthe
“realworld,”whichinthisinstancemeantabuildingsurroundedbychain-link
fenceandbarbedwireindowntownLosAngelesnearskidrow,whereCordova
wouldlieawakeatnightwatchingthepulsingredlightontopofLosAngeles
cityhallandwonderwhathadhappenedtoherandtheconventshehadchosenin
lieuofthis“realworld.”Cordovaarrivedatthenovitiateexpectingsomething
differentfromwhatsheeventuallygot.Herbitternessatwhatamountedtobait
andswitchtactics(evenifperpetratedinadvertently)wasstillpalpabletwenty
yearslater.

Theypromisedmemonasticrobes,gloriousLatinliturgy,theprotectionofthethreesacred

vows,thepeaceofsaintsinaquietcell,thesisterhoodofaholyfamily.ButIentered
religiouslifetheyearJohnXXIII[sic]wastakingitapart:1966.ThefathersoftheHoly
RomanCatholicandApostolicChurchweresittingattheVaticanCouncildestroyinginthe
nameofCHANGE,mydreams.DeleteLatinritual.Dumpthehabit.Damnholy
obedience.SendnunsandpriestsoutintotheREALworld.IfIhadwantedtherealworld,
I’dhavestayedinit.

Aspartofherentryintotherealworld,Cordovawasenrolledat

ImmaculateHeartCollege,theflagshipschooloftheorder,whereshewas
subjectedtotheEducationInnovationProjectfirst-handthroughsensitivity
trainingandsecond-handthroughtheteacherswhohadalsotakenthesensitivity
training.

IntheirenthusiasmforRogers’sencountergroups,theoldersistersseemto

havemissedthefactthatstudentslikeJeanCordovafoundthewholeexperience
moretroublingthanexhilarating.“Alotoftimes,”wroteoneofCordova’s
fellowstudents,“I’veheardthatfacultyfelttheywerebeingforced...tosay
thingstheydidn’twanttosay;Imyselffeelveryuncomfortableaboutbeingshut
inwithpeoplewhobreakdownandsaythingsIfeelIshouldn’thaveheard.I
thinkitcreatesakindofembarrassment,whichwouldseemtobeahindrancein
relationshipsratherthanahelp.StillIdofeelthatI’vegainedalotofinsightinto
otherpeoples’behavior.”Anotherstudentwasevenmoretroubled.“Ifeltata
losstodayinthatencountergroup:verynaked,asthougheveryoneknowstoo
muchaboutme.”

Beforelong,manyofthenunsstartedtofeelnakedaswell,mainlybecause

asaresultofthelooseningofcontrolsintheorderinthenameofCalifornia-
styleopenness,theyweretakingofftheirclothesandhavingsexwithothernuns.
InsteadofdoingaclosereadingofRogers’spaperongroups,especiallythe
passageabouthowencountergroupsoftenledto“feelingswhichhaveasexual
component”andactingaccordingtoproceduresconsonantwiththevowof
chastity,theImmaculateHeartnuns,inthenameofopennessandinnovation,
decidedthattheyhadtolearnthesamelessonabouthumanpassioninthe
expensiveschoolofexperience.Inthenameofopenness,religiousasceticism
vanishedfromconventlife.CordovastoppedgoingtoMassat6:30inthe
morningbecausenunsweren’t“required”togotoMassanymore.Asreligious
practiceevaporatedfromtheirlives,thenunsturnedtoeachotherforsupport.
Particularfriendshipsflourished,andintheatmosphereofthetimes,someof
thesefriendshipsinevitablyturnedsexual.This,ofcourse,meantthatlifeinthe
conventbecamebothmean-spiritedandchaotic.Duringthespringof1967,
Cordovanoticedthatmanyofthenunsweren’tgoingtoMassanymore.This
meantthebeginningof

lotsofparticularfriendships,awholesub-cultureofin-groupandout-group,whothey
wereandhowtheydiditandhowyoucouldjustlieyourwayoutofanything.Toalonely
postulantinamiserablefriendlessworld,itwasanabsurdoutrage.Ifelloutoflovewith
JesusandtheIHMs,whobetrayedandmockedmyinnocence...Iwassinkinginthe
quagmireofbrokendreams...AllIhaveeverwantedtobewasanun.NowIwas,andit
washell.

JeanCordovafoundthatshecouldn’ttalktoherparentsaboutchanges,

probablybecauseherparentswereasbewilderedbytheunprecedented
sequenceofeventsasshewas.“Momwasasheltered,upperclassconvent
raisedIrishCatholicfromQueens,LongIsland,whoprobablyfirstreadabout
birthcontrolintheLATimesbetweenherninthandtenthkid.”Inthe
bewilderingatmosphereoftheup-datedchaoticconvent,wherethenunswere
toldtobeopentotheirfeelingsintheencountergroupstheywereattending,
Cordovafoundsolaceinsexualcontactwithoneoftheothernuns.Both
embitteredandsexualizedbyherexperienceintheconvent,Cordovaconverted
tolesbianactivismwiththesamefervorwhichsheofferedtothepre-conciliar
Church.

Iharnessedmyangerintoloveforgaysasanoppressedpeople.Mybitternessdemands
thestraightworldtomoveoverandacceptourrights.Ihavelearnedthatmyangertakes
mewhereothersareafraidtogoandthatoutrageisgoodintheeyesofwhateverHigher
Powergivesusrighteous,ifmisguided,angertoprotectus.

OtherIHMnunshadsimilarexperiences.SisterMaryBenjamin,likeJean

Cordova,wasdriventotheIHMnovitiatebyherlargeCatholicfamily,who
piledoutofthestationwagon“likeabaseballteam”whentheyarrivedtherein
1962.LikeJeanCordova,SisterMaryBenjaminwasenrolledasastudentat
ImmaculateHeartCollege,wherefouryearslater,duringthesummerof1966,
shewas“introducedtosensitivitytraining,theorder’sfirstventureintothe
humanpotentialmovement.”Inherencountergroup,SisterMarymetEva,“a
heavy,dark-skinnedwomenwithdeepbrowneyesandblackhair.”Giventhe
spiritofthetimes,thealchemyofthisrelationshipwasjustaspredictableasthat
whichseducedJeanCordova:“Theordernolongerprohibitedparticular
friendships,”SisterMaryrecountedmatteroffactly,“sothecontactturned
sexual.”SisterMarysoughtcounselfromapriest,butapparentlyhehadbeen
infectedbythespiritofthetimesaswelland“refusedtopassjudgmentonmy
actions.Hesaiditwasuptometodecideiftheywererightorwrong.He
openedadoor,andIwalkedthrough,realizingIwasonmyown.”WhenSister
MarytoldEvathatshewas“worriedthatIhadaterriblecrushonher,”Eva
respondedbysaying,“Great!Enjoyit!”

SisterMary’srelationshipwithEvaturnedouttobelessthanenjoyable,

however.Afterthefriendshipbecamesexualized,apainfulbreakupensued,

whichinturnprecipitatedabreakwiththeCatholicChurch.SisterMary,like
mostlesbians,wasthencastadriftonaseaoftransientrelationships,andone
relationshipwhichprovedjustastransientwasherrelationshipwiththe
CatholicChurch.“InlovingEva,”shewrote,“Iwasgrowinginadirectionat
oddswithconventgoalsofobedienceandservicetotheChurch.Ibegantomake
decisions,notoutofguilt,butaccordingtothevoiceofmyintuitionandthe
wisdomofmybody.IbegantoseetheChurchmoreobjectively.Itwasrunmen,
notGod.MyallegiancetotheChurchwasnolongerfatebutchoice.”

Actually,ifSisterMaryhadbeenreadingWilhelmReich,shewouldhave

realizedthatonceshestartedactingonherillicitsexualimpulses,herbreakwith
theChurchwasmorefatethanchoice.Onceshebeganactingoutherlesbian
impulses,herbreakwiththeChurchwasinevitable.Becauseshewas
subsequentlydragoonedintofeminism,SisterMarysimplylackedthe
intellectualcategoriestounderstandwhathadhappenedtoher.Everythingwas
nowaquestionof“liberation”fromoppression,andsincethecultureshe
embracedhadhundredsofyearsofexperienceinportrayingconventlifeasa
formofoppression,itisnotsurprisingthatshewouldseemattersthatwaytoo.If
thereweresinisterforcesatworkinprecipitatingSisterMary’sdeparturefrom
theconventandtheCatholicfaith,thelesbianismwhichreplacedher
Catholicismasthereligiouscenterofherlifeprecludedanyclearunderstanding
ofthem.Thecategoriesoflesbianpoliticstookcontrolofhermindand
precludedanyotherexplanationofwhathadhappenedtoher.

TheWorkofAbrahamMaslow

FouryearsbeforeCarlRogersbeganintroducingsensitivitytrainingtothe
ImmaculateHeartnunsinLosAngeles,AbrahamMaslowwasdoingsimilar
workonanothergroupofnunsattheotherendofthecountry.OnApril17,1962
MaslowgavealecturetoagroupofnunsatSacredHeartCollegein
Massachusetts.Afterwardshenotedinhisdiarythathistalkhadbeenvery
“successful,”buthefoundthisfacttroubling.“Theyshouldn’tapplaudme,”he
continued,“theyshouldattack.IftheywerefullyawareofwhatIwasdoing,they
would[attack].”Andwhyshouldtheyhaveattackedhim?

MaslowwasawarethatencountergroupsweretoxicforCatholicsin

generalandespeciallytoxicforCatholicreligious.Anyonewhopromoted
encountergroupsamongCatholicswaspromotingipsofactotheirdemiseas
Catholics,evenifhedidsointhenameofliberationandwiththatashisintent.
FortheliberalJeworProtestant,thenunwasthetextbookcaseofsomeonein
needof“liberation”andinthecontextofCatholicreligiouslifeandthevows
uponwhichitwasbased,liberationcouldonlymeanannihilation.OnFebruary

25,1967,Maslowwroteinhisdiary,“Maybemoronsneedrules,dogmas,
ceremonies,etc.”HethenmadeanotetoorderabookentitledLifeAmongthe
LowbrowsfortheBrandeislibrary.Hemayhaveordereditbecausetheauthorof
thatbooknotedinitthat“feeble-mindedclientsbehavedmuchbetterandfelt
betterbeingCatholicandfollowingalltherules.”Sincethenunsweren’t
feebleminded,thismeantthatbringing“self-actualization”tothenunsmeant
destroyingtheircommitmenttotheirvowsandtheCatholicChurch.Perhapsthis
iswhyMaslowfelttheyshouldn’thaveapplaudedhistalkin1962.Maslowhad
spenttimeattheNationalTrainingLaboratories’headquartersinBethel,Maine,
whereencountergroups,withthehelpofsubsidiesfromtheOfficeofNaval
Research,hadbeencreated;heknewthattheywerefundedasaform
psychologicalwarfare,andhehadaninklingoftheeffecttheywouldhaveon
nuns,butitwasuptohiscolleagueCarlRogerstodotheactualexperiment.

“IguesswhatI’mtryingtosayhere,”Maslowwroteinhisjournalin

1965,thesameyearthatCarlRogersbegancirculatinghispaperonthe
psychologyofsmallgroupencounteramongtheIHMnunsandaroundthesame
timethatthenunsstartedtoleavetheconvent,

isthattheseinterpersonaltherapeuticgrowth-fosteringrelationshipsofallkindswhichrest
onintimacy,onhonesty,onself-disclosure,onbecomingsensitivelyawareofone’sself—
andtherebyofresponsibilityforfeedingbackone’simpressionofothers,etc.—that
theseareprofoundlyrevolutionarydevices,inthestrictsenseoftheword—thatis,of
shiftingthewholedirectionofasocietyinamorepreferreddirection.Asamatteroffact,
itmightberevolutionaryinanothersenseifsomethinglikethisweredoneverywidely.I
thinkthewholeculturewouldchangewithinadecadeandeverythinginit.

Whatwastruefortheculturewasafortioritrueofreligiousordersinthe

CatholicChurch.Thewholeculturedidchange,asamatteroffact,after
implementationofencountergroupsbecamewidespread,butnowherewasthe
changeasdramaticasintheCatholicChurch,whereitliterallydestroyedthe
orderswhichexperimentedwithit.Aftermakingcontactwiththeirinnerselves,
thenunsallwantedtoleavetheirordersandhavesex,althoughnotalwaysin
thatorder.“Asignofthispotency,”Rogers’sassistantW.R.Coulsonwrote
somethirtyyearslater,

wastheconversionsthatfollowedRogers’workshops.ACatholicpriesttookpartina
five-dayworkshopinthe1960s,thenleftthepriesthoodtostudypsychologywithRogers,
whohadbeenhisgroupfacilitator.Ithappenedrepeatedly.Oftheworkshopthat
convertedhim,thepriestwrotethathebegansomewhatskeptically,but“byWednesday...
somethingnewandintriguingandintoxicatingaswellasfrighteninghasbecomerealall
aroundme...[It]seemedlikeabeautifulbirthtoanewexistence...Ihadnotknownhow
unawareIwasofmydeepestfeelingsnorhowvaluabletheymightbetootherpeople...
NeverinmylifebeforethatgroupexperiencehadIexperienced‘me’sointensely.”

Thepriestmaynothavenoticedit,butbothMaslowandRogerswere

involvedinthesexualengineeringofbehavior.Catholicreligious,whowere
expectedtoleadasceticlivesWhileatthesametimebeingtoldthatlovewasthe
reasonfortheirasceticism,werenowexperiencingthe“love”theyhadalways
talkedaboutinpreviouslyabstractandrarefiedterms,andtheywereforthemost
partunhingedbytheexperience.Theeffectivenessoftheencountergroupwas
basedonthedeliberateviolationofthesexualinhibitionswhichmadeeveryday
lifepossible.Whentheinhibitionsdropped,theemotionwhichfloodedintofill
thevacuumseemedalotlikethelovewhichChristiansweresupposedto
practiceontheirneighbors,wheninpointoffactitwasmoreakintounfettered
libido,whichcouldnowbeusedbythefacilitatorastheenergywhichbrought
aboutthesocialengineeringtheydesired.

TheIntroductiontoa2006LinacreInstitutebookbyPatrickGuinan,After

Asceticism:Sex,PrayerandDeviantPriests,describedthedevastatingeffects
thatthesystematicimplementationoftheserevolutionarytechniqueswouldhave
onreligiouslifeintheUnitedStates.Whatwe’retalkingabouthereisthe
wholesaleabandonmentofasceticalpracticeamongtheclergy:

Whatchangedbetweenthefirstandsecondhalvesofthetwentiethcenturywerenotthe
managementpoliciesonsexabuseandsecrecyatallcosts—theseremainedaconstant
throughout—nordowehaveevidencetoshowthatthepersonalityfeaturesof
seminariansorpriestschangedinanyfundamentalwaythatwouldaccountforthenature
andthemagnitudeofthecrisis—initsearlystagesatleast...thecorechangeoverthe
courseofthetwentiethcenturywasoneofpurposeorallegiance—leavingbehind
asceticaldiscipline,havingdisdainforreligioustradition,andadoptingthetherapeutic
mentality,apopularbeliefthatfulfillmentofthehumanpersonspringsfromemotional
desireinaquestforself-definition,orself-actualization,withoutregardtoanobjective
philosophical,religiousormoraltruth.Further,thetherapeuticmentalityviewssinasa
socialconcernanddiscouragesloyaltytoreligiousauthority;itisprofoundlyanti-ascetical.

Allegiancetothetherapeuticmentalityhasdislodgedasceticalhabitsandmanners,andit
nowholdsswayovertheattitudesofclergy,justasitstrengtheneditsmaterialistgripon
westernsocietiesfornearlyacentury.Mentalhealthexpertsandeducators,asthemain
purveyorsofthetherapeuticmentality,knowlittleofthespirituallifeandareignorantof
asceticaldiscipline.Nevertheless,inthenameofscience,andastheprimerepresentatives
oftheeducatedelite,theyadvocatedaliberalizationofsexualstandardsbeforethesexual
scandalintheChurch,andthenattemptedtoadvisethebishopsandtotreatproblem
priestsasthecrisistookform.Bishops,whohaveoversightoftheparishpriestsand
seminaries,andwhohavebeenatthecenterofthecrisismanagement,donotspeak
much,ifatall,aboutasceticaldiscipline.Priestsgivefewindicationsthattheyknowor
careaboutasceticaldiscipline.Butmostclergyseemedwellversedinlanguageofthe
therapeuticmentality.Predictably,whenthestormsurgeinpagansexualitybeganto
overwhelmthenaturaldefensesoftheclergyinthe1950sand1960s,thosewithoutthe
spiritualanchorofasceticaldisciplineweresetadrift—perpetratorsaswellastheir
managers.Astheinitialstormsurgereceded,aspawnofthetherapeuticmentality
remainedinthetidalpools.

Fr.EugeneKennedyandtheSexualCorruptionoftheAmericanClergy

ThemanwhointroducedtheseideasintotheChurchandthereforethemanmost
responsibleforthesexualcorruptionoftheAmericanclergywasthe
psychologistandformerMaryknollpriestEugeneKennedy.In1972thenFather
KennedywascommissionedbytheUnitedStatesCatholicbishopsdoasurvey
ofAmericanpriests.KennedywasadiscipleofErikErikson,a/k/a,Erik
Salomonsen,ErikHomburger,aJewishpsychiatristwho,likeWilhelmReich,
wasdeeplyinfluencedbythewritingsofSigmundFreud.Centraltothethinking
ofbothmenwastheideathatsexualrepressionwaspsychologicallydamaging,a
theorytotallyatoddswiththeCatholictraditionofacelibateclergy.

InadditiontoFreud’stheoryofsexualrepression,Kennedyalsoimported

Erikson’stheoryofegodevelopment,accordingtowhicheachpersonwent
througheightdevelopmentalstages:

1)thefirstyearoflife,2)throughthesecondyear,3)fromagethreetosix,4)fromageof
sixtopuberty,5)adolescence,6)earlyadulthood,7)youngandmiddleadulthood,and8)
lateradulthood.Eachstagehadtobesuccessfullyworkedthroughfornormal
development.Stagesixrequiredsexualintimacyandexpression.

AccordingtotheteachingoftheCatholicChurch,“Chastityisanaspectof

temperancewhichinclinesapersontodeliberatelyforegosexualrelationsfor
asceticalpurposes.”AccordingtoFreudandErickson,anysuchrenunciationin
thenameofreligion,whichbothmenconsideredadangerousillusion,“would
beabnormalandpossiblypathologic.”

WhenKennedy’ssurveycameoutinbookformasTheCatholicPriestin

theUnitedStates:PsychologicalInvestigations(1972),theresultswerea
foregoneconclusion,giventhepremiseswithwhichhebeganhisstudy.Ofthe
271priestssurveyed,Kennedyfoundthatonly19(or7percent)couldbetermed
psychologically“developed.”TheoverwhelmingmajorityofAmericanpriests
were“notdeveloped,”becausetheyhadnotengagedinsexualactivity.

ThestandardagainstwhichthepriestswerejudgedwasErickson’s

developmentscale.Becausethemajorityofpriestswereunderdeveloped,they
remainedinStageSixortheearlyadultstage,becauseinordertogetbeyond
StageSix,thepriestswouldhavetoengagein“sexualintimacy.”

GuinanclaimsthatKennedy’sstudycontributedtothesexualabusecrisis

bygivingtheimpressionthatcelibacywasnothingmorethanrepression,andthat
repressionwasunhealthy:

Ifrepressionisportrayedaspsychologicallyunhealthy,itcanbearguedthatKennedy’s
PsychologicalInvestigationsanditsflawedpsychologygavesupportandjustificationto
beliefsthatresultedinthesexabuseofminors.Erickson’sinsistencethatsexualintimacy
wasessentialtosuccessfullytraversedevelopmentalstagesix,justifiedsexualactingoutin
general,butitalsojustifiedsexualactivitywithpredominantlymaleminors,whobecause
oftheirproximitywerethetargetsofabusivepriests.

GuinangoesontoblameKennedyforthecurrentpriestscandals:

WhenPsychologicalInvestigationswaspublishedin1972,itreliedonErickson’sand
Freud’smaterialistpsychology,whichpositedunrestrainedsexualbehaviorasinevitable
andhealthy.SeminaryformationprogramsaswellasindividualpriestsacceptedKennedy
uncriticallyandinanefforttomovebeyondStageSixandbecomenormalthroughsexual
intimacybeganactingoutsexually.Sincepriests,manyofwhomwerehomosexually
inclined,hadreadyaccesstoadolescentmales,thisvulnerablegroupofvictimswas
disproportionatelytargeted.Whilesomeabuserswereimplicatedinserialrapesmany
involvedonlyisolatedcases.Nonethelessmostinvolvedcoercionandallwerebreachesof
boththesixthandninthcommandmentsaswellasthevowofchastity.Thescandal,now
involvinghundredsofcases,hasresultedinsignificantdamagetoeffortsatevangelization
intheUnitedStates,tosaynothingofthestaggeringfinanciallosses.

In1976therevolutionthatReichhadpredictedasresultingfromthe

sexualizationoftheclergycameoutintotheopen.Theinauguraleventwasa
celebrationofthebicentennialofAmericaknownastheCalltoAction
Conference.Therevolutionwasledbythesexualizedclergy.CalltoActionwas
theCatholicequivalentofthetenniscourtoaths.TheRevolutionwasnowoutin
theopen.ThevectorofrevolutionarytransmissionwastheChurch’seducational
system.

TwooftheparticipantsattheCalltoActionconferencewereDr.&Mrs.

JohnKrejci.In1996bothDr.&Mrs.KrejciwereexcommunicatedbyBishop
FabianBruskewitz,ordinaryofthedioceseforLincoln,Nebraska,forbelonging
toananti-Catholicorganization,namelyCalltoAction.Duringthe1960s
ProfessorJohnKrejciwasFr.JohnKrejci,apriestwhowasworkingonhis
doctorateintheologyandMrs.KrejciwasanunbythenameofJean
Gettelfinger.Mr.&Mrs.KrejcimetatNotreDame.Likemanywhoattendedthat
university,Fr.KrejciandSr.Gettelfingergotmarried,andwhentheydidthey
lefttheirrespectivereligiousorders.

Therealproblemlaywiththeclergywhofeltnoreasontoleavebecause

theywerehomosexual.Oncetheheterosexualsranoffandgotmarried,the
Churchwasleftwithaserioushomosexualproblem.GermainGrisezsaysmost
“abuse”consistsinseductionbyhomosexualpriests:

Thebishopsandthosewhospeakforthemshouldacknowledgehonestlythatmostclerical
sexcrimesthathavecometolighthavebeenseductionsofadolescentsandyoungmenby
homosexualpriests.BecauseJesusentrustsbishopstooverseethepastoralcareofsouls,
thosebishopswhofailedtodoallthattheycouldandshouldhavedonetopreventorlimita
priest’scrimesoughttoponderverycarefullythemoralandspiritualnatureandgravityof
theirownomissionsandactions.Havingdonethat,thosebishopsshouldre-examinetheir
consciences,repentanysinstheypreviouslyoverlooked,andbegintodowhattheycan
andshoulddobywayofrestitution(“AssessingResponsibilityfortheScandal,”
bishopaccountability.org,April2002).

TheChurchwasthendeniedtheabilitytosolveitshomosexualproblem

becausethedominantculturethatwaslevelingtheaccusationsrefusedtoadmit
thathomosexualitywasaproblematall,muchlesstheproblemthatwastearing
theChurchapart.Theissueiscomplicatedbythehypocrisyanddouble
standardsoftheinstitutionsthatwereactingasjudge,juryandexecutionerinthe
sexabusescandals.Throughouttheperiod,themediacontinuedmaking
contradictorydemandsontheChurch.Ontheonehand,themedia,especially
duringthe‘70s,wereclaimingthatweshouldallactonoursexualimpulses
whethertheyarecongruentwiththemorallawornot.Thirtyyearslater,thesame
institutionswereclaimingthatcertainpeopleshouldbepunishedfordoingwhat
theyweretoldtodo.

Themediawereclaimingthatthereisnothingwrongwithhomosexuality,

ignoringthefactthat80percentoftheoffenseswhichhavebeenactuallyproven
involvehomosexualbehaviorbetweenclergyandvictimsovertheageof
puberty.BecausethecampaignagainsttheChurchcoincidedintimewitha
campaignbythesamegroupofpeopletolegitimizehomosexuality,theChurch
wasdeniedanyeffectivewayofdefendingitselfagainstthesexualfifthcolumn
whichhadestablisheditselfintheChurchinthewakeoftheimplementationof
VaticanII.

TheBostonPedophiliaCaseandTheVaginaMonologues

WhenitcametomediaconcernaboutsexscandalsintheChurch,itwas
increasinglydifficulttoseparatethearsonistsfromthefiredepartment.Asthe
lateTomHerronwroteinCultureWars:

FatherShanleyofBostonusedtobethetoastoftheawardwinningBostonGlobebackin
theearly‘70swhenhewasalong-hairedstreetpriestwhoworkedwithyoungpeople,
spokeagainstCatholicmoralteachingsandwasaknownearlyfounderofNAMBLA
(NorthAmericanMan-BoyLoveAssociation).Thirtyyearslater,thesamenewspaper,
theBostonGlobe,wasinstrumentalinbringinghimbackfromretirementinCaliforniato
facetrialandimprisonmentinMassachusetts.

Pedophiliaplaysacrucialroleinthissystemofcontrolthroughappetite.It

isthesexualsinwhichexcusesallothersexualsins.“Imaybebad,”saysthe
homosexualpropagandistinhismorecandidsecretmoments,“butI’mnota
pedophile.”Thewomanwhohashadanabortionisurgedonbythecultureto
saythesamething.Pedophilia’ssignificancederivesfromthefactthatit
involveschildren.Anditseffectcanbenotedinthehysteriainvolvingchild
molestationatdaycarecenters.Daycareisjustthetipoftheguilticebergwhich
involveschildrenandsex,itgoesdownthroughthattocontraceptionandbeyond
thatallthewaytoabortion.Thosewhofeelguiltwithregardtochildrenbecause
theyhaveeitherneglectedorkilledthem,andthosewhofeelguiltbecauseof
theirsexualsins,canfindconsolationinthefactthattheyare,atleast,not

pedophiles.WhentheCatholicChurch,theonlyinstitutionintheworldwhich
maintainsthecompletesetofsexualstandards,canbeimplicatedinthissin,
thosesamepeoplefeelevenbetter.Themajorreminderofsexualderelictionhas
beenexposedashypocritical.They,meaningpriests,areallperverts,theyareno
betterthanweare,etc.etc.Inotherwords,Ifeelbetteralready.

ThatisthepsychologicalbasisoftheBostonpedophilemediaassault,

whichturnedouttobeaclassicinstanceofKulturkampfagainsttheCatholic
Church.Demonizationwasfollowedbycallsforreformby“concerned
Catholics”likeAndrewSullivanandWilliamF.BuckleyandAnnaQuindlen,
whoallpredictablycalledformeasuresthatweretantamounttopouringgasoline
onthefire,by,inotherwords,loweringthemoralstandardsevenfurther.When
theVaticaninresponsetothepedophilecrisissaidthathomosexualsshouldnot
beordainedaspriests,theBostonGlobecriticizeditforbeinghomophobicand
intolerant.“Peoplewiththeseinclinationsjustcannotbeordained,”saidJoaquin
Navarro-VallsinaninterviewintheNewYorkTimes.Thefactthatthisstatement
unleashedastormofprotestsexposesthehiddenagendabehindallofthe
indignationagainsthomosexualpedophilia.

DavidClohessyofSt.Louis,nationaldirectoroftheSurvivors’Network

ofthoseAbusedbyPriests,calledtheVaticanreply,“anarrow,misguided
statement.”Inotherwords,it’sokayforprieststoengageinhomosexual
behavioriftheobjectoftheiraffectionsisovertheageofconsent.Ifthiswereto
occurwithayoungmanthedaybeforehiseighteenthbirthday,itwouldbea
capitaloffense.Doesanyonetakethisdoublestandardseriously?Theansweris
yes,thepeoplewhodoarethoseorchestratingthecampaignagainsttheCatholic
Church.ThenatureofthisKulturkampfbecomesapparentbywayof
comparison.WhenMichaelJacksonwasaccusedofpedophilia,didanyonecall
forsweepingchangesinthemusicindustry?DidWilliamF.Buckleywrite
columnscallingforthepresidentofSonytoresign?

Thesamecampaignisstillgoingon.Thefiredepartmentisstillrushingto

thescenetopourgasolineonthefire.JustoneexampleisthewayTheVagina
MonologuesgotperformedatNotreDameUniversity.TheVaginaMonologues,
asthosewhohavereadthearticlesonitinCultureWarsknow,isagitpropfor
lesbianismandmasturbation.Italsofeaturesagraphicdescriptionofthelesbian
seductionofaminor,whichisexcusedpreciselybecausealesbianisdoingthe
molesting.Didthemoralfiredepartment,thedesignatedCatholics,Sullivanet
al,objecttotheperformanceofTheVaginaMonologuesatNotreDameorHoly
CrossorGeorgetown?No,theydidnot.Infacttheydefendtheveryincitationto
passionthatleadspeoplewithweirdappetitestosayyestothembyappealingto

academicfreedomandalloftheotherclichésusedtobreakdownmoral
standards.Thenwhensomeoneactsoutwhathehasseen,themediaorganizea
lynchmobanddemandmorechangesthatwillpunishthevictims,andmore
sexualliberation,moresayingyestoappetite,toinsurethatnewvictimswill
appearinduetimetolegitimatetheirnextcampaignagainstthedefendersof
moralorder.Thefiredepartmentisrunbyarsonists.

NotreDameUniversitydefendedtheperformanceoftheplaypreciselyon

thegroundsofacademicfreedom;thebishopdidnothingtocontradictthis
underminingofmorals,andinfact,inascenariowhichhasbynowbecome
familiar,thosewhoattemptedtodefendthemoralstandardgotpunished.When
JoeScheidler,theprolifeactivistandNotreDamealumnus,camedownfrom
ChicagotoprotesttheperformanceofTheVaginaMonologues,theuniversity
calledthepoliceandthreatenedtoarresthim.

TheBostonpedophiliacasewas,inotherwords,aclassicinstanceof

mediadrivenKulturkampf.ButthatdoesnotlettheChurchoffthehook.The
Churchisculpablepreciselybecauseithasprovidedsuchfecklessand
ineffectiveresistancetothedominantcultureofcontrolthroughappetite.Itis
culpablebecauseithasbeenpositivelyavidtoimplementthedirectivesofthe
arsonistsonthefiredepartment.

CHAPTERFIVE

TheBattlefortheMedia

TheEarlyDays

Thestorybeganinthe1880s.RevolutionaryfervorinRussiaculminatedinthe
1881assassinationoftheCzar.That,inturn,ledtothepogromsofthe1880s,
andthepogroms,inturn,ledtomassiveJewishmigrationtoAmerica.Roughly
twomillionJewsleftRussiaandemigratedtotheUnitedStates.Noothergroup
ofimmigrantswouldhaveacomparableimpactonAmericanculture.Frozenout
ofestablishedindustries,theJewstookuptradesnooneelsewasinterestedin
likescrapmetalandfursornewtechnologiesthattheWASPrulingclasshadn’t
hadtimetocontrol.Oneofthosetechnologieswasthemovingpicture,andinit,
Jewishrevolutionarieswouldfindtheprimeexampleofthe“masssituation”
whichWilhelmReich,thepsychiatristandpsychoanalyst,saidwasnecessaryto
destabilizemorals.HollywoodbecamethefulfillmentofReich’sdream:mass
situationleadingtothecorruptionofmoralsandtherefore,moresophisticated
control.

WhentheJewsbegantoarrive,AmericawasProtestant.Bytheendofthe

20thcenturyAmericahadbecomeJewish,evenifJewsmadeuplessthantwo
percentofthetotalpopulationoftheUnitedStates.

Bythe1920s,America’sProtestantmajorityrealizedthattheJewshad

broughtalongwiththemthebadhabitsthathadcausedconflictinRussia.Asin
Russia,Jewishinvolvementinalcoholproductionwasabigissue.HenryFord
articulatednativistProtestantconcernsinhisfourvolumesetofpamphlets,The
InternationalJew(1920-1922),blamingJewsformaking“niggergin,”cheap
andoftentoxicliquorwhose“labelsborelascivioussuggestionsandwere
decoratedwithhighlyindecentportraitureofwhitewomen,”which“spurred
certainNegroesonto...namelesscrime.”

InAmericaculturalwarfareoverobscenitybeganinearnestduringthe

1920s,whenthemotionpicturebegantohavemoreandmoreimpacton
Americanculturalmores.ThefirsttotakeupthecryagainstHollywoodwerethe
ProtestantnativistsingeneralandculturaliconslikeHenryFordinparticular.
Fordsawtheissueinethnicterms.Hollywood,heclaimedinTheInternational
Jew“wasaJewishenterprisefromthestart.”TheJewshadstolenThomas
Edison’sinventionofthemovieprojectorandwereusingittocorruptthemorals
oftheAmericanpeople.

InhisbookBookleggersandSmuthounds:theTradeinErotica,1920-

1940(1999),ProfessorJayGertzmannoftheUniversityofPennsylvania,
corroboratesFord’sclaim:

Theethnicflavoroferoticadistributionstillexists,although,exceptforextremeright-wing
hategroups,criticsofsexualexplicitnessdonotexploitit.Themaindistributorsoferotica
areJewish.InTheInternationalJew,HenryFordcomplainedaboutthetakeoverof
Broadwaytheater.ButtheJews,hecontinued,neverhad“todrivetheGentilesoutof”the
filmindustry,“becausetheGentilesneverhadachancetogetinit.”In1924,Fordclaimed
that“themotionpictureinfluenceoftheUnitedStates,ofthewholeworld,isexclusively
underthecontrol,moralandfinancial,oftheJewishmanipulationofthepublicmind.”

Inadditiontotheobviousissueofincreasingnudityandsexualinnuendo

onthescreenduringthepre-Code1920s,Hollywoodsubjected“Christian
clergymen...toallsortsofmisrepresentation,fromthecomictothecriminal.”
Thepurposeofthismisrepresentation,whichFordsawas“distinctlyJewish,”
wasto“tobreakdownasfaraspossibleallrespectfulorconsideratethought
abouttheclergy.”Interestingly,especiallyinlightoflaterdevelopments,itwas
theCatholicclergy,who,accordingtoFord,“verysoonmadethemselvesfeltin
oppositiontothisabuseoftheirpriestlydignity.”Asaresult,Fordwrites,“the
Jewclimbeddown”and“younowneverseeapriestmadelightofonthescreen.
ButtheProtestantclergymanisstilltheelongated,sniveling,bilioushypocriteof
anti-Christiancaricatures.”

JosephI.Breen,apublicrelationsexecutiveandthefirstmaninchargeof

theHollywoodProductionCode,sawthebattleoverthesexualizationof
Americancultureinessentiallyethnictermsaswell.“Ninety-fivepercentof
thesefolks,”hewrotedescribingtheHollywoodmogulsofthe1930s,“areJews
ofanEasternEuropeanlineage.Theyare,probably,thescumoftheearth...
TheseJewsseemtothinkofnothingbutmoneymakingandsexualindulgence.
Thevilestkindofsinisacommonindulgencehereabouts,andthemenandthe
womenwhoengageinthissortofbusinessarethemenandwomenwhodecide
whatthefilmfareofthenationissupposedtobe”(MarkA.Vieira,SininSoft
Focus:Pre-CodeHollywood[1999]).

Breensawthesexualizationissueinethnictermsbecausethatishow

everyoneelsesawittoo,includingtheJews.LeoPfeffer,whosemajorrolein
themodernKulturkampfhasbeenexploredearlier,notedthesameethnicdivide
overthesexualizationofthecultureinoneofhismemoirs.“AfterWorldWarI,”
hewrote,“Irish-orientedAmericanCatholicismbegantakingoverleadershipin
anti-obscenitymilitancy.CatholicorganizationssuchastheNationalOfficefor
DecentLiteratureandthenationalLegionofDecency...becamethenations’
mostmilitantandeffectivedefenderofmoralsandcensorship.”Asaresult,

America’sCatholicscameintoculturalconflictwiththeJewswhopromotedthe
sexualizationofAmericanculture.“AmericanJewry,”accordingtoPfeffer,
supportedthatsexualization“becausemanyJews,farmoreproportionatelythan
theotherfaiths,arecommerciallyandprofessionallyinvolvedinthecinemaand
publishing.”Asaresult,Jewshave“beenoverwhelminglyantipathetictothe
crusadeformoralityandcensorshipintheartsandliterature.”

EchoingHenryFord’sconcerns,manylegislaturesinthe1920sthreatened

toimplementgovernmentcensorshipofthemovies.In1929,Hollywoodwent
deeplyintodebttofinanceitstransitiontotalkingpictures.Afterthestock
marketcrash,thestudioswerepressedtocutcostsandsimultaneouslyincrease
theirboxofficereceiptswhenticketsalesweredroppingandnormalsourcesof
moneyhaddriedupasaresult.

Inordertoservicetheirdebtatatimeofdecreasingincome,Hollywood

turnedincreasinglytosexandobscenityasaninexpensivewaytogetpeopleinto
thetheaters,producingfilmsfeaturingthesuggestiveMaeWest,butindoingthis
theyincurredtheireoftheCatholicChurch,whichwastoassumetheroleof
censorthattheProtestantdenominationsnolongerwanted.

TheProductionCode

InAugust1933,JosephBreen,whohadestablishedcontactswithAmerican
bishopsduringtheEucharisticCongressof1924,invitedA.H.Giannini,the
CatholicbankerwhoheadedBankofAmerica,Hollywood’smostsignificant
sourceofcredit,toameetingwithmotionpictureproducers.Duringthat
meeting,GianniniinformedHollywoodproducershewouldnolongerfundfilms
“prostitutingtheyouthofAmerica.”Oneyearlater,DennisCardinalDougherty
ofPhiladelphiaannouncedaboycottofthatcity’smovietheaters,mostofwhich
wereownedbyWarnerBrothers.

AsaresultofthePhiladelphiaboycott,WarnerBrotherswaslosing

$175,000aweekattheheightoftheDepression.JosephBreenattendeda
meetingofHollywoodmogulscalledtodiscussthePhiladelphiaboycott,after
whichhereportedthatthenormallypugnaciousHarryWarnerwas“standingat
thetopofthetablesheddingtearsthesizeofhorseturdsandpleadingfor
someonetogethimoffthehook.Andwellheshould,foryoucouldfireacannon
downthecenteraisleofanytheaterinPhiladelphiawithoutdangerofhitting
anyone!AndtherewasBarneyBalaban(ofParamountTheaters),watchinghim
interrorwonderingifhewasgoingtobenextinChicago.”

JosephBreen,themanwhodescribedHarryWarner’splightandranthe

ProductionCodeofficeforthenext20years,wasaCatholicwithnoillusions

abouttheHollywoodelite:

Theyaresimplearottenbunchofvilepeoplewithnorespectforanythingbeyondthe
makingofmoney...Here[inHollywood]wehavePaganismrampantanditsmostvirulent
form.Drunkennessanddebaucheryarecommonplace.Sexualperversionisrampant...
anynumberofourdirectorsandstarsareperverts...TheJewsseemtothinkofnothing
butmoneymakingandsexualindulgence.Thevilestkindofsinisacommonindulgence
hereaboutsandthemenandwomenwhoengageinthissortofbusinessarethemenand
womenwhodecidewhatthefilmfareofthenationistobe.Theyandtheyalonemakethe
decision.Ninety-fivepercentofthesefolksareJewsofanEasternEuropeanlineage.
Theyareprobablythescumoftheearth.

TheoutcryagainstHollywood’ssubversionofmoralswassogreatthat

federal,state,andlocallegislationwasproposedasanantidote.Toheadoffthis
legislation,theJewswhoranHollywoodin1934enteredintoavoluntary
agreementknownastheProductionCode,withtheLegionofDecencyandits
threatofboycottsifHollywoodrenegedastheenforcer.TheProductionCode
insuredthatforthenextthirty-oneyearspeoplelikeJosephBreenkeptnudity,
blasphemy,obscenity,andfoullanguageoutofHollywoodfilms.Notheater
wouldshowunapprovedfilms,andnofilmgotapprovedwithoutthetacit
approvalofCatholicslikeJosephBreen.

HenryFordadmiredCatholicresistancetoJewishHollywood,even

beforetheimpositionoftheCode.UnlikeProtestantclergymen,who,asseen
earlier,wereregularlyridiculedinHollywoodfilms,“TheCatholicclergyvery
soonmadethemselvesfeltinoppositiontothisabuseoftheirpriestlydignity,
andasaresultoftheirvigorousresentment,theJewclimbeddown.”

FordfeltthatthemoviesweretherehearsalforrevolutioninAmerica.The

Jewswereusingthescreenaspartoftheir“traditionalcampaignofsubversion.”
Themoviescreenalsoserved“asarehearsalstageforscenesofanti-social
menace...Successfulrevolutionmusthavearehearsal.Itcanbedonebetterin
themotionpicturethananywhereelse:thisisthe‘visualeducation’suchaseven
thelowestbrowcanunderstand.”

TheHollywoodProductionCodespecifiedamongotherthingsthat:

1.Nopictureshouldlowerthemoralstandardsofthosewhoseeit.

2.Law,naturalordivine,mustnotbebelittled,ridiculed,normustasentiment
becreatedagainstit.

3.Asfaraspossible,lifeshouldnotbemisrepresented,atleastnotinsucha
wayastoplaceinthemindofyouthfalsevaluesonlife.

AsadministeredbyJosephBreen,theCodewasneverhadanexclusively

Catholiccharacter.Italwaystookintoaccountboththemoresofthecountryas
BreenfoundthemandtheinterestsofHollywood.Breen,theCatholic,for

example,forbadetheSignoftheCrossinGoneWiththeWindbecauseitwould
offendEnglishviewers.HadhebeensimplyinHollywoodtorepresentthe
interestsoftheCatholicbishopsoftheUnitedStatesatlarge,Breen’sjobwould
havebeenmuchsimpler.Asitwas,theCodewasinessenceoneCatholic’s
attempttopreservethemoresofthecountry,nomatterhowcontradictorythey
happenedtoappeartohim.

TheChurchintheunenviablepositionofprotectingtabooswhichwerenot

ofitsownmakingatatimewhentheoriginatorsofthosetaboos,namely,the
mainlineProtestantdenominations,nolongerbelievedinthem.Asaresultthe
Codetriedtoadapttothetimes,andproveditselfremarkablyflexible,butits
flexibilitywasintimatelytiedtotheflexibilityoftheLegionofDecency,which
providedtheteethfortheCode’senforcement.Gradually,atendencydeveloped
onthepartofCatholicintellectualsintheearly1960stounderminewhatthe
CodeandtheLegionstoodfor.TheProductionCodewaserectedonthe
foundationofthemorallaw,toinsurethatthefilmsthatgotproducedremained
withinitspurview.However,theCodestartedtobere-definedtotakeinto
accountsupposedartisticvalues.TheLegionadoptedanewcourse,
subordinatingmoraltoculturalandartisticconsiderations,contendingthatany
themewhatsoever,includingsexualperversion,couldprovidesubjectmatterof
acceptablemotionpicturesprovidedthatsuchsubjectsweretreatedin“good
taste”.

MuchofthebitternessinHollywoodovertheCodetookonthelanguageof

culturewarsaswagedbythecourts.EventhoughtheLegionwasaprivate
organizationandtheCodewasapurelyvoluntaryarrangement,theCatholics
wereaccusedofsomethingakintoviolatingtheseparationofchurchandstate.
Bytheveryfactthatitexistedandhadbeensosuccessful,theLegionofDecency
wasguiltyofimposingitsviews,accordingtothosewhowantednudityinfilms.
Itwasachargenormallyreservedforreligiousgroupswhoaresuccessfulat
whattheydo.

Muchoftheresentmenthadareligiousundercurrent.Thepeoplewhoran

HollywoodwereJewish;thepeoplewhorantheCodewereCatholic.Asthe
Jewsbecamemoreandmoreliberal,andasliberalismdefineditselfmoreand
moreasdefianceoftraditionalmorality,theconflictbecamemoreandmore
difficulttoavoid.Evenso,however,therewasmorethanalittlehumorinvolved
attimes.AcommontacticusedbyintendedProductionCodebreakerswasto
argue“It’spartoflife,”towhichJosephBreenusedtoreplybysayingthatthe
bowelmovementhehadeverydaywaspartoflifetoo,butnoonewas
proposingtomakeamovieoutofit!

BreakingtheProductionCode

InDecember1964theLegionofDecencyunderthechairmanshipofArchbishop
Krolissuedareportcondemningwhathetermed“moralbrinkmanship.”The
filmindustryhadsentonemoviecontainingnudityafteranothertothepeopleof
theProductionCodeinwhatwastobecomeafullfrontalassaultontheLegion’s
influenceoverHollywoodandthehegemonyoftheProductionCodeestablished
bytheLegion’sclout.Thebishopswereinthemiddleofabattlethathadbeen
virtuallyconstantsincetheendofWorldWarII,butwhichhadintensifiedasa
resultofrecentSupremeCourtdecisions,forexampleRothvU.S.(1957)and
JacobellisvOhio(1964).Beginningwiththelate‘50stheSupremeCourttookit
uponitself,inKrol’swords,to“provideobscenitywithahighwallof
constitutionalprotection.”InthewordsofLeoPfeffer,“theneteffectofthese
decisions...wastoaccordconstitutionalprotectiontoalmostanythingshortof
thehardestofhard-corepornography”(God,Caesar,andtheConstitution
[1975]).

Also,therewasagrowingunwillingnessonHollywood’sparttoadhereto

standardswhichitdeemedmorallyunrealisticand,notcoincidentally,
financiallylessremunerative.InApril1964thebishopsdenounced“alaxityin
standardsdisplayedduringthelastsixmonths,instigatedbypowerfulfactionsin
Hollywood”aswellastheattempt“toattractanaudiencebydirectlystimulating
baseemotionalresponsesofaneroticorviolentnature.”Theyalsodeploreda
“growingtendencytochallengetheJudaeo-Christianvisionofman.”

Thecuttingedgetrendwas,ofcourse,sexuality.Hollywoodwasbenton

introducingnudityintothefirst-run,bigbudgetfilmsthateventuallytrickled
downtotheneighborhoodtheaters,and1964wastheyearthewarontheCode’s
restrictionsbeganinearnest.

BoththeLegionofDecencyandtheHollywoodProductionCodewere

anachronisms,butsincetheywerevoluntary,theywerebeyondthereachofthe
lawandthereforebeyondthereachoftheSupremeCourt’sabilitytomanipulate
thelaw.TheLegioncouldnomoreforceHollywoodtoedititsfilmsthanit
couldorderthepolicetoarrestthosewhoattendedthosefilms.ButtheLegion
couldurgeCatholicsnottoattendthosefilms,whichispreciselywhatitdidin
increasinglyspecifictermsfollowingtheestablishmentoftheCodeandthe
Legion.ThekeytotheLegion’spowerwas,asLeoPfeffermighthavesaid,the
“monolithity”oftheCatholicChurch.Thethoughtoffiftymillionpeople(orany
significantpercentageofthatfigure)notgoingtoseeaparticularmovie(andthis
figuredoesn’ttakeintoaccountthesignificantinfluencetheLegion’sratingshad
amongtheProtestantrankandfile)wasenoughtobringeventhemosthard-

boiledproducerintotheeditingroom.ButwiththeadventofVaticanII,the
“monolithity”oftheChurchwascalledintoquestionmoreandmore.

ActuallytheCouncilwasinmanywaysanalogoustotheSupremeCourt

decisions.TheCouncildidnotmandatedissent,butitprovidedanoccasionfor
theforceswhichhadbeenupuntilthattimekeptinchecktobreaklooseand
opposeoneanother.Oncetheybrokeloose,theillusionofCatholicunity
disappeared,andoncethatdisappeared,theChurchlostitscloutwith
Hollywood,andHollywood,emboldenedbythegreenlightfromtheSupreme
CourtandthegeneraldesireonthepartoftheAmericanpublicintheperiod
followingWorldWarIItodisconnectthepleasuresofsexfromthe
responsibilitiesofmarriage,decidedtomakeitsmove.

Therevolutionfinallyarrivedin1965,whenHollywoodlaunchedanother

attackontheCodewiththereleaseofThePawnbroker.Duringthefilmawoman
playingablackprostituteopenedherblouseandexposedherbreaststothe
camera,breaking,asaresult,section7,sub-section2oftheMotionPicture
ProductionCodeandoneofHollywood’slastremainingtaboos.Aswasthecase
lessthanayearearlierwiththereleaseofthesexfarceKissMeStupid!(1964),
theProductionCodeapprovedthefilmandtheLegioncondemnedit.However,
becauseofthenatureofthefilm,ThePawnbrokerwouldprovetobeamuch
moreseriouschallengetotheCodeandtheLegionthanDeanMartinleeringat
KimNovak,themaincharactersinKissMeStupid!

Onereasonthechallengewassoseriouswastheseriousartisticintentof

thefilm.ThePawnbrokerwasnotDeanMartintellingdirtyjokes.Itwasan
accountofaHolocaustsurvivorwhosememoriesofhisdeadwifeare
reawakenedbythesightoftheprostitute’sbarebreasts.Thebreasts,inother
words,servedafunctionintheplot.Theywereartisticallyjustifiedbreasts—
theLegion’sworstnightmare.BecausetheLegionhadonlyonecategoryfor
condemnedfilms,theCatholicswereputintheunenviablepositionoflumping
ThePawnbrokerinthesamecategorywithKissMeStupid!Theywerealsoput
inthepositionofcriticizingafilmthathadanimmediateconnectionwithan
importanteventinrecentJewishhistory.Theywereobviouslythrowingoutthe
artbabywiththenuditybath.

Atthecrucialmomentwhentherevolutionbrokeout,theCatholicbishops

losttheirnerveonanumberoffronts.FollowingGriswoldv.Connecticut
(1965),theSupremeCourtdecisionlegalizingthesaleofcontraceptives,the
Catholicbishopsstoppedcontestingbirthcontrolinthepublicsphere;ataround
thesametimetheystoppedcontestingHollywooduseofnudityandobscenityas
weaponsintheculturewars.

TheydidthislargelybecauseoftheirmisunderstandingoftheDecreeon

ReligiousLiberty,DignitatisHumanae,oneofthekeydocumentsoftheSecond
VaticanCouncil,whichendedintheannusmirabilisof1965.RelyingonJohn
CourtneyMurray’snotestotheAbbotteditionoftheCouncil’sdocuments,the
CatholicbishopsacceptedtheAmericanistunderstandingoftheseparationof
churchandstate,relegatingtheCatholicChurchtothestatusofonesectamong
many.

TheCatholicChurchlosttheculturewarsin1965whenitfailedtoblock

pornography.Withinsevenyears,hard-corepornographicfilmslikeDeep
Throat(1972)andTheDevilinMissJones(1973)wereshowninfirstrun
theaters,andJewishpoweroverthecultureincreasedaccordingly.Asaresultof
themainstreamingoffilmslikeDeepThroat,pornographybecameaweaponin
America’spsychologicalwarfarearsenal.Pornographywasusedtotopplethe
communistgovernmentwhichhadtakenoverPortugalinthewakeofSalazar’s
deathin1974.ItwasusedasacrucialpartoftheAmericaninvasionofPanama
inDecember1989.ItwasusedbytheIsraelisduringtheiroccupationofGazain
2002.IraqwasfloodedwithpornographyaftertheAmericaninvasionof2003,
anditwasusedasaweaponinIran.

TheCatholics,befuddledbymistakennotionsofrenewal,droppedthe

ball,andthewholecountrysufferedasaresult.Hollywoodgotwhatitwanted,
butonesmallgroupprofitedattheexpenseofthecommongood.Archbishop
JohnKrolwasprovenrightinaveryshortperiodoftime.Thebarebreastsin
ThePawnbrokerwerethefirstdropinwhatwassoontobecomeafloodof
pornographyflowingoutofthenation’smovietheatersandintothemindsofthe
nation’spopulace,causinguntoldmisery.

InDecember1983,LindaMarchiano(a/k/a,Lovelace)testifiedbeforethe

MeesePornographyCommissionaboutherlifeasthestarofthepornographyhit
of1973,DeepThroat.Hertestimonywasataleofsexualsadismandbeatings
andanescapefromaworldwhichnearlykilledher.Untoldstillisthestoryof
howheractionsonthescreenaffectedthepeoplewhopaidmoneytoseeher.It
remainsuntoldbecausetheculturalrevolutionarieshavethwartedmostattempts
totellit.“Wefinditdifficulttounderstand,”theMeeseCommissionconcluded
afterlisteningtothetestimonyofLindaMarchianoandmanyothers,“howmuch
ofthematerialwehaveseencanbeconsideredtobeevenremotelyrelatedtoan
exchangeofviewsinthemarketplaceofideas,toanattempttoarticulateapoint
ofview,toanattempttopersuadeortoanattemptseriouslytoconveythrough
literaryorartisticmeansadifferentvisionofhumanityortheworld.”Atbottom,
theMeeseCommissionconcluded,“thepredominantuseofsuchmaterialisasa

masturbatoryaid.”

OncetheCatholicslosttheirnerveinthewaroverthesexualizationof

culture,oncetheybackedawayfromholdingHollywoodtothebasicrudiments
ofsexualdecency,itwasinevitablethattheinstrumentsofculturetheyfailedto
controlwouldbeusedagainsttheminalloutculturalwarfare.Thesexualization
oftheCatholicclergydatesfromthisperiod.

Therearenotrucesinculturalwarfare.Thelawofculturallifeiseither

occupyyourownculturalterritoryorhaveitoccupiedbyalienforces.“Thetruth
ofthematterwasthatIdidnotliketheCatholicChurch,”LeoPfefferadmittedin
hismemoirs(“The‘Catholic’CatholicProblem,”Commonweal,August1975).
LeoPfefferwasnotjusttalkingaboutpersonalanimus;hewastalkingaboutan
animussharedbyhisemployer,theAmericanJewishCommittee,aswellasby
Hollywood’smotionpictureandtelevisionindustries.Thelattergroupwas
describedbyStephenSteinlightas“theJewishindustry,parexcellence”(“The
JewishStakeinAmerica’sChangingDemography,”CenterforImmigration
Studies,October2001).Eventowardtheendofhislife,afterproclaimingthe
triumphofsecularhumanismovertheCatholicChurchinthespeechin
Philadelphiain1976,PfefferwasconcernedaboutCatholicactivismonthe
abortionissuebecause“thepartialsuccesswhichithassofarachievedmay
encouragefurtherCatholicinterventioninthepoliticalarenaandbringbackthe
dayswhentheRomanCatholicChurchwasapowerfulforceintheAmerican
politicalsystem.”

Inhumanhistorythereareonlytwoalternatives.ThereistheCityofGod,

whichisbasedonloveofGodanddenialofself.AndthereistheCityofMan
whichisbasedonloveofselfanddenialofGod.

ThealternativetosexualrevolutionisunderstandingwhatSt.Augustine

said1600yearsago.Thealternativetoaworldwheremenhaveasmany
mastersastheyhavevicesisaworldofsmallreligious-basedethnic
communitiesofthesortSt.BenedictenvisionedwhentheRomanEmpire
collapsed.

Americawasoncebasedonthisprinciple.ItwascalledtheUnitedStates

becausepoliticalpowerwasdelegatedtothestateswhothendelegatedittothe
localcommunity,whichhadthepolicepowertomakevirtueeasyandvice
difficult.

WeneedtogobacktobeingtheRepublicenvisionedbytheFounding

Fathers,notanotherfailedempirelikeRome.Andthisissoforasimplereason.
Therewillalwaysbecontrol.Theonlyquestioniswhetheritisgoingtobeself-

CHAPTERSIX

TheBirthControlBattle

CatholicsandtheEnlightenment

Letusgobackagaintotheearly‘60s,specificallytothatsceneinPhiladelphia
in1962,infrontofIndependenceHall,celebratingthe4

ofJuly,attendedbya

CatholicPresident,aCatholicGovernor,andaCatholicmayor.Ihavedescribed
thisasthehighwatermarkofCatholicpowerinthiscountry.Andoneofthe
mainreasonsthatCatholicshadthismuchpower,aswedid,wasbecausewe
werehavingchildren.Wewerehavingalotofchildren.Thebabyboom.Iama
productofthebabyboom.ItwaslargelyaCatholicphenomenon.Andwedidn’t
eventhinkaboutit.Butotherpeopledid.Therewerepeopleknownas
demographers,peoplewhostudypopulation.Andthesepeoplebecameawareof
whatwasgoingon.Theysawthehandwritingonthewall.Andthehandwriting
onthewallwasbasicallythattheCatholicsweregoingtotakeover.Bertrand
RusselloncesaidthathisbiggestfearwasthatAmericawouldbecomea
Catholiccountry.Well,thepeoplewhoknewthiswereveryinfluential.These
werethepeoplewhorantheculture.

Andso,aswehaveseen,youhaveaconflictbetweentwogroups,the

CatholicsandtheEnlightenment.TheEnlightenment,ofcourse,beingthisgroup
ofpeoplewhobelievedinwhatwewouldcallsecularhumanism.Andoneof
thenon-negotiabledemandsofsecularhumanismissexualliberation.Now,
maybeyouthinkthisisincidentaltowhatthesepeoplebelieve.It’snot.Itgoesto
theheartofwhattheybelieve.Wearetalkingabouttwogroupsthatwillnever
beabletomakepeacewitheachother,becausetheirworldviewsare
completelyanddiametricallyopposed.Ontheonehand,youhavepeoplewho
subordinatetheirdesirestothetruth.ThisiswhatCatholicsaresupposedtodo.
Ontheotherhand,youhaveagroupofpeoplewhosubordinatetruthtotheir
desires.Theywantaworldwheretheirdesiresarethelaw.Andthat’stheworld
thatwelivein,becausewelosttheculturalrevolution.Welostthebattleofthe
‘60s.LeoPfefferwasright.ItwasabattlebetweentheCatholicChurchandthe
Enlightenmentoverwhowasgoingtodeterminethefutureofthiscountry,and
welost.Youknowwhywelost?Whattheirsecretweaponwas?Theweapon
thatwoulddestroythepoliticalpoweroftheCatholics?Itwasthecontraceptive.
Andthat’swhatthesepeoplewereinterestedin.

TheRockefellersandthePopulationCouncil

Now,letmegettothespecifics.Ikeepsaying“thesepeople.”Ikeepsounding
likeaconspiracytheorist,and,yes,itisaconspiracy.But,letmebespecific
aboutthepeoplewearetalkingabout,theRockefellerFoundation.JohnD.
RockefellerIIIintheearly‘50screatedaninstitutioncalledthePopulation
Council.ThemaingoalofthePopulationCouncilwastocreateaworldwhere
everyonewasgoingtousethecontraceptive.Anddoyouknowwhyhewanted
everyonetousethecontraceptive?Becausehewasagreathumanitarian,right?
Wrong.Becausehebelongedtoaclassofpeoplewhereeveryoneusedthe
contraceptivevoluntarily.I’mtalkingaboutthemainstreamProtestant
denominationsinthiscountry.Atsomepointduringtheearlypartofthetwentieth
centurythisgroupofpeoplestartedlimitingthesizeoftheirfamilies.

YoumayhaveheardoftheLambethConferencesinEngland.TheAnglican

Churchhasconferenceseverytenyearsatwhichtheytalkabouttheissuesthat
concernthem.Intheir1908conferencetheyissuedastatementoncontraception
inwhichtheyexpressedgraveconcernoverthefact“thatthereisawidespread
prevalenceamongstourpeoplesofthepracticeofresortingtoartificialmeans
fortheavoidanceorpreventionofchildbearing.”Theassembleddelegates
appealed“tothemembersofourownChurchestoexertthewholeforceoftheir
Christiancharacterincondemnationofthem.”Finally,theconferenceadopted
resolution#41which“earnestlycallsuponallChristianpeopleto
discountenancetheuseofallartificialmeansofrestrictionasdemoralizingto
characterandhostiletonationalwelfare.”

By1930,theAnglicanshadevidentlyundergoneachangeofheart.Atthe

Lambethconferenceofthatyear,theAnglicansdecidedthatartificialmeansof
restrictingbirthswerenolonger“demoralizingtocharacterandhostileto
nationalwelfare.”Infact,theynowclaimedinresolution#15,that“wherethere
isaclearlyfeltmoralobligationtolimitoravoidparenthood,”thecouplecould
choosewhatevermethoditdesired;evenartificialmethodscouldbeused
“providedthatthisisdoneinthelightofthesameChristianprinciples.”Thenas
iftocoverallbases,theconferencewentontoexpress“itsstrongcondemnation
oftheuseofanymethodsofcontraception-birthcontrolfrommotivesof
selfishness,luxury,ormereconvenience.”

By1958,theAnglicanswereclaimingthatcontraceptionwas“arightand

animportantfactinChristianfamilylife,”providedofcoursethat“suchways
aremutuallyacceptabletohusbandandwifeinChristianconscienceandsecure
fromthecorruptionsofsensualityandselfishness.”

Now,there’sonethingthathappenswhenagroupofpeoplestartsusing

contraceptives.Theystophavingchildren.Andthensomethingelsehappens.

Theystartwonderingaboutthepeoplewhodonotusecontraceptives.Andthey
startrealizingthatthosepeoplecontinuetohavechildren,andiftheyaresmart
theywillrealizewhatthedemographersknow,andthatisthatthelarger
population,thegrowingpopulation,willtakeoveracountryfromadecreasing
population,andthereisnothingyoucandoaboutit.IfyouthinkofEngland,for
example,acountrywhichconqueredtheworldinmanywaysbecauseithada
growingpopulation.Therewereotherreasons,buttheyhadagrowing
population.ThewholeexpansionofEuropethroughouttheworldwastheresult
ofagrowingpopulation.AtonepointtherewereEnglishmeninJamaicaand
NigeriaandPakistanandIndia.Ifyou’vebeentoEnglandlately,youwillrealize
thatnowJamaicansandNigeriansandPakistanisandIndiansareinEngland!
That’sthewayitworks.It’schemistry.Inbiologywetalkaboutosmosis,a
higherconcentrationgoingtoalowerconcentration.There’snothingyoucando
aboutit.Andsothepeoplewhostoppedhavingchildrenstartedtowonderabout
thepeoplewhowerestillhavingchildren.Andinthiscountrythereweretwo
groupswhowerestillhavingchildren,theblacksandtheCatholics.Andthese
peoplewhosawthehandwritingonthewall,theyrealized“ifwedon’tdo
somethingnow,they’regoingtotakeover.”

Bythe1960s,themainlineProtestantchurcheshadreachedtheconclusion

thatnotusingcontraceptionwasimmoral.Inlate1962,RichardM.Fagley,
ExecutiveSecretaryoftheCommissionofChurchesonInternationalAffairsin
NewYorkCity,describedwhathesawas“theemergingProtestantconsensus
regardingtheconceptofresponsibleparenthoodwithinthedoctrineof
marriage.”Accordingtothisconsensus,“motives,ratherthanmeans,formthe
primarymoralissue.”Thecouplecanusewhatevermethoditchoosesaslongas
themotiveisnotselfishness,etc,etc.Fagleygivesnoindicationofhowto
assessmotivesinhispresentation.Hedoesclaim,however,thattheconsensus
found“noinherentdistinctionbetweenperiodiccontinenceortheuseof
contraceptives.”HementionsthestoryofOnan,“theonebiblicalmentionofan
actwithcontraceptiveintent,”butfindsthestoryultimately“ratherambiguous.”
HisreadingofthehistoryoftheProtestantreformersontheissuetakesasimilar
tack.They“didnotre-examinethegenerallypro-fertilityteachingon
parenthood”mostprobablybecauseof“theunder-populatedstateof
northwesternEuropeatthetime.”Asitthatweren’treasonenoughtoretard
progressiveviewsoncontraception,“theemergenceofthenewProtestant
consensuswaslongdelayedbytheexpansionofEuropethroughtheIndustrial
RevolutionandimmigrationtotheAmericasandlaterbyPuritanismand
Victorianprudery.Itsgrowthhasbeenprimarilyadevelopmentofthiscentury.”

Ifallthissoundslikespecialpleading,itmightbehelpfultoelucidatethe

contextofthedocument.FagleyiswritingtoFrankNotestein,whoatthetime
washeadofthePopulationCouncil,atax-exemptfoundationcreatedbyJohnD.
RockefellerIIIin1952,whenhebecamedisenchantedwiththereticenceofhis
brothersinfundingcontroversialissueslikesexualityandpopulationcontrol.
“Itsgoal”accordingtothePopulationCouncil’sdescriptionofitself,“hasbeen
tobringaboutareductioninthenumberofbirthsthatoccurintheworld.”The
factthattheRockefellerFoundationhadfundedKinsey’ssexsurveysthroughout
the‘40sandearly‘50sgivesomeindicationofwhatJohnD.RockefellerIII
construedasreticence.HisfatherhadsubsidizedMargaretSangerandherBirth
ControlLeagueaswell,promptingonecritictosaythattheRockefellerswereto
abortionandcontraceptioninAmericawhattheKruppfamilywastomunitions
inGermany.Afterconvertingtothereligionofpopulationcontrolattheageof
twenty-eightandafterdoingsomeresearchonthetopic,JohnD.RockefellerIII
becameconvincedthatpopulationcontrolwasthesourceofalloftheworld’s
problems.Rockefeller,accordingtohisbiographers,

nevercouldexplainexactlywhyhehaddevelopedsuchastronginterestinthepopulation
fieldlongbeforeitcameintovogueorwasgenerallyrecognizedasanareaofconcern.
HehadseenthenegativeeffectsoftoomuchpopulationgrowthinhisvisittoChinain
1929.HehadchosenpopulationasthesubjectforareadingcoursehetookatPrinceton,
wherehestudiedtheworksofMalthusandothers.Hehadservedontheboardofan
organizationhisfatherhadcreated,theBureauofSocialHygiene,whichhadsupporteda
numberofprojectsrelatedtothepopulationfield,includingaidtotheclinicsoftheintrepid
birthcontrolpioneerMargaretSanger.

Infact,itwasJunior’sdecisiontoterminatetheBureauthatledhisoldest

sontovolunteertomakethepopulationfieldamajorfocusofhisinterestandto
dowhathecouldtocarryonthework.Inalettertohisfatherin1934,he
expressedconcernthatthesupportofpopulationstudiesandprojectswouldnot
bepickedupbyanyoftheotherRockefellerorganizations,includingthe
foundation,becauseof“theelementofpropagandaandcontroversywhichso
oftenisattachedtoendeavorsinbirthcontrol.”JDRwrote:“Ihavecomepretty
definitelytotheconclusionthat[birthcontrol]isthefieldinwhichIwillbe
interested,forthepresentatleast,toconcentratemyowngiving,asIfeelitisso
fundamentalandunderlying”(HarrandJohnson,TheRockefellerConscience
[1991]).

Tostatethecasemoreprecisely,populationcontrolincluding

contraceptionandabortionwastheconditiosinequanonofsolvingproblems
likehungeranddevelopmentintheThirdWorld.JohnD.RockefellerIIIspent
muchofthelate1940sandearly‘50stravellingaroundtheFarEastatthebehest
ofJohnFosterDulles,somuchsothathistravelsearnedhimthenameMr.Asia

attheNewYorker.Histravelsthereonlyreconfirmedwhathehadconcludedin
hislatetwentiesasastudentatPrinceton.Populationwastheproblem.

ThePopulationCouncilconsideredthedevelopmentoftheIUDasoneof

itscrowningachievements.LatertobedrivenoffthemarketintheUnitedStates
asaresultofproductliabilitylawsuits,theIUD,evenmoresothanPill,which
thePopulationCouncilalsohadahandindeveloping,wasRockefeller’s
equivalentoftheHolyGrailandthephilosopher’sstoneallinonelittlepieceof
coiledplastic.UnlikethePill,theIUDcouldbeinsertedandforgotten—unless,
ofcourse,itcausedinternalhemorrhagingandsevereabdominalpain,whichit
oftentimesdid.Becausetheelementofchoicewasnotplayedoutonadaily
basisasitwaswithpill,theIUDwasthefavoredvehicleforpopulationcontrol
atthePopulationCouncil.Ifpopulationwasthedisease,thentheIUDwasthe
cure.WhileinTaiwanvisitingasmallprovincialtownwherethePopulation
CouncilwasexperimentingwiththeIUD,Rockefellerlookedatthemassof
peoplethereandsaid,“‘Well,that’stheproblem,isn’tit?’Thenheturnedand
headedoffforhisnextmeeting”(HorowitzandCollier,TheRockefellers:An
AmericanDynasty[1976]).

FagleysenthispapertoNotesteinwithanoteaddingthat“anycriticismor

counselwouldbewelcome.”Thepaper,asmaybesurmisedfromitscontent,
wasnotreallyintendedforProtestants;itwasintendedtoexplainProtestantsto
outsiders,inthisinstanceCatholics.FagleysenthispapertoNotesteinfor
approvalbecausehewasintendingtopresentitataconferenceattheUniversity
ofNotreDameonpopulationwhichwassponsoredbyagrantfromthe
PopulationCouncil.AsafinalpointindescribingtheProtestantConsensusin
favorofcontraception,Fagleyaddedthat“intheProtestantconsensusabortionis
stronglycondemnedasamethodoffamilylimitation,sinceitinvolvesthe
destructionofhumanlife.”TimewouldshowtheProtestantconsensusflexible
onthisissueaswell,primarilyasaresultofRockefellermoneygoingtothe
Methodist-sponsoredReligiousCoalitiononAbortionRights.ButNotestein
raisednoobjectionatthetime,probablybecausehefelttheoppositionto
abortionwouldsitwellwiththeCatholicsconveningatNotreDame.

Rockefeller’sinterestintheCatholicChurchawakenedintheearly‘60s,

primarilybecause,asaresultofthedefectionofthemainlineProtestantson
sexualissues,CatholicswerethemainobstacletothepoliciesRockefeller
wantedimplemented.Rockefellerwasalsointriguedbynewsaboutthe
impendingVaticanCouncil.Rockefeller’sbiographers,HarrandJohnson,
mentionthat“thepapacyofJohnXXIII,whowaselevatedin1958,seemedto
promisealiberalizingofRomanCatholicdoctrine”onpreciselythisissue.

Duringtheearly‘60sithadbecomevirtuallyaforegoneconclusionamong
liberalCatholicsthattheChurchwouldchangeitsteachingonbirthcontrol.If
so,JohnD.RockefellerIIIwaswillingtodowhateverhecouldtohelpthat
processalong.

TheNotreDameLink

Buttheattractionwasmutual.AtthesametimeastheRockefellerinterestswere
lookingforanopeningintheCatholicChurch’soppositiontoeugenicsexuality
andtheapproachofthemodernworldinthesexualarena,certainCatholics
werelookingformoreacceptancefromtheProtestantconsensus,andthatmeant
acceptancebythepeoplewhoranthefoundations.RenéWormsercomplained
thatCatholicswerefrozenoutofsocialscienceresearchasaresultofthe
consciouspolicyofthefoundations.Asof1957,Wormsercouldclaim,

therearethirtymillionCatholicsinthiscountry,whomaintainscoresofuniversitiesand
colleges.Theirinstitutionsdonotfigureamongthefavoredofthefoundationcomplex,nor
areacademiciansconnectedwiththemlikelytoreceiveresearchgrantsfromthecomplex.
Perhapsthereisagoodreasonforthisdiscrimination.Ifso,Icannotguesswhatitmight
be.True,Catholicinstitutionswereincludedamongtheinstitutionaldoneestowhichthe
FordFoundationrecentlydonatedahugeaggregateofmoney,astepwhichdeservedthe
mostenthusiasticapprovalofthegeneralpublic.Butwhenitcomestospecial,individual
grants,tofindaCatholicinstitutionasadoneeisararityindeed(Foundations:Their
PowerandInfluence[1958]).

Duringthelate‘50s,Fr.TheodoreM.Hesburgh,C.S.C.,presidentofthe

UniversityofNotreDame,hadbeenconcernedaboutthislackofsupportfrom
thefoundationsasWormserwas.Fr.Hesburghwaswillingtodowhateverit
tooktogetthatsupportand,accordingtoonesource,wenttothefoundations,
whotoldhimthattoqualifyformoneyhewouldhavetoremovecertainfaculty
members.Hesburghprovedamenableandasaresultnotonlystartedtogetgrant
moneybutalsowasappointedatrusteeoftheRockefellerFoundationin1961.
HewouldlaterbecomeitschairmanduringtheyearswhenRockefellermoney
washeavilyinvolvedinabortionadvocacy,anadvocacywhichculminatedin
theoverturningofthecountry’sabortionlawsin1973.

Bytheearly‘60s,CatholicslikeHesburghandtheeugenicfoundationsfelt

thattheyhadsomethingtogainbycollaborating.WhattheCatholicslike
Hesburghwantedwasobvious.Theywantedmoney.Theywantedanentréeto
theinterlockingworldoffoundationrespectability,wheregrantsmanshipwasin
manyrespectsanall-or-nothingproposition.Becausethefoundationswere,in
effect,aconspiracyofinterlockingdirectoratesservingacommonethnic
interest,onceauniversitygotmoneyfromone,itwasinthepositionofgetting
fromall,andasthe‘60sprogressedandthegovernmentexpandeditsrolein
fundinghighereducation,foundationacceptancemeantaccesstothenewly-

burgeoningfederalaidaswellasanindicationthatCatholicshadachieveda
certainlevelofintellectualrespectability,whichtheCatholicuniversitieslike
NotreDameevidentlyfelttheylacked.Finally,intheearly‘70s,thearrangement
wascodifiedintolawwhentheSupremeCourtdecidedinLemonv.Kurtzman
thatitwasunconstitutionaltogivegovernmentmoneytoCatholicgradeschools,
but,asratifiedintheTiltondecisions,acceptabletogiveittoCatholic
universities.

Whatthefoundationswantedwasjustasspecific.Theywantedthe

CatholicChurchtodropitsoppositiontocontraception,andpeoplelikeJohnD.
RockefellerIIIfeltthatFr.Hesburghcouldplayacrucialroleinaccomplishing
that.

ThehistoryofthefirstNotreDameconferenceonpopulationgoesalong

waytowardindicatingwhatitisthefoundations,specificallyRockefeller’s
PopulationCouncil,wantedfromamenableCatholicslikethepeopleatNotre
Dame.OnOctober10,1962,onedaybeforetheopeningoftheSecondVatican
Council,Rockefeller’sPopulationCouncil,“followingdiscussionsamong
leadingCatholicauthorities,representativesofPlannedParenthood,andthe
officersofthePopulationCouncil”granted$5,000totheUniversityofNotre
Dametohosta“two-daymeetinginDecemberwhichwouldbringtogether
representativesofdifferentreligiousandotherpointsofviewtodiscuss
problemsofpopulationgrowth,withparticularinterestinexploringareasof
possibleconvergencesinapproachingtheseproblems.”

Theconferencewouldnottakeplaceuntilearly1963,butthegroundwork

preparingforittookplacethroughoutthesummerof1962.Theinitialimpetus
fortheconferencecamenotfromHesburghbutfromaCBSdocumentary“Birth
ControlandtheLaw,”whichairedonMay10,1962.Oneoftheparticipantswas
Fr.JohnA.O’Brien,C.S.C.,aNotreDametheologianwhohadcaughttheeyeof
thepro-contraceptivecrowdwhenanarticleofhisentitled“Let’sTakeBirth
ControlOutofPolitics”hadappearedintheNovember10,1961issueofLook
magazine.TheCBSdocumentarywaswidelydenouncedintheCatholicpressas
pro-contraceptivepropaganda.Fr.JohnB.SheehancriticizedModeratorEric
Severeid’sfawningattitudetowardPlannedParenthoodandcalledthe
documentary“anextendedcommercialforthatorganization.”

Fr.JohnC.Knott,familylifedirectoroftheNationalCatholicWelfare

ConferenceinWashington,claimedthat“CBSgaveevidenceofhavingbecomea
publicrelationsmediumforaparticularphilosophyoflifewithan
oversimplifiedsolutiontohumanproblems”andwentontowonderwhyCBS
didn’tallowCatholicsequaltime.EvidentlyhemissedthecontributionofFr.

O’Brien,orperhapshedidn’tfeelthatFr.O’Brien’ssuggestionthatagroupof
CatholicandProtestantexpertsshouldgettogetherto“trytoironoutthe
problem”qualifiedastheCatholicposition.

Otherpeople,however,wereimpressedwithFr.O’Brien’sposition.On

July6,1962,CassCanfield,ChairmanofPlannedParenthoodFoundationof
AmericaandaboardmemberofthePopulationCouncil,wrotetoFr.O’Briento
tellhimhehadbeenfollowinghiswritingsonbirthcontrolforyearsandhow
impressedhehadbeenwithwhatO’BrienhadtosayontherecentCBStelecast
“BirthControlandtheLaw.”Intheinterestoffostering“dialogue”inthisarea
amongreligiousgroups,CanfieldinvitedO’Brientotakepartina“small
discussion—primarilyofCatholic,ProtestantandJewishclergymen”ataNew
YorkhotelonthemorningofOctober25“todiscussfertilityregulationinthe
contextofresponsibleparenthoodandpopulationgrowth.”Inclosing,Canfield
addedafew“verygeneralquestions”whichmightbediscussedatthemeeting,
suchas“whatisthegeneralthinkingfromvariousviewpointsonthe‘population
problem”‘and“whataretheopportunities—amongreligiousgroups
themselves,andbetweenreligiousgroupsandthePlannedParenthood
Federation—forcooperativethoughtandactiononthesevitalmatters.”

OnJuly24,Canfieldreceivedaresponse,notfromFr.O’Brien,butfrom

GeorgeShuster,personalassistanttoFr.HesburghatNotreDame,informinghim
thatO’Brien’sattendanceatthePlannedParenthoodconferencewasoutofthe
question.“Itisimpossible,asmattersstandnow,”Shusterwrote

forCatholicpriestsandlaymenwhofollowdirectives(andthisisthekindyoudoubtless
want)toattendameetingsponsoredbyPlannedParenthood.Thetimeisnotyetripefor
that.ThoseinvitedwouldhavetosecurepermissionfromtheNewYorkChanceryOffice
toattend,andtherewouldseemnopossibilitythattheanswerwouldbeaffirmative.

Shuster’sobjections,however,uponcloserinspection,revolvedmore

aroundformthansubstance.InsteadoftheNewYorkmeeting,Shusterproposed
holdingvirtuallythesamemeetingatNotreDame,implyingthatthenameNotre
Damewouldsomehowpurgethemeetingofdisagreeableassociationsaswellas
helpingCatholicseagertocollaborateonbirthcontroltoevadethewatchfuleye
ofCardinalSpellman.

“Thisarrangement,”accordingtoShuster,

wouldenableprominentCatholicstoattendwithoutdifficulty,foranyprobleminvolving
participationinameetingsponsoredbyPlannedParenthoodwouldhavebeenremoved.
TheUniversityhasarrangedandiscurrentlydoingsoinaseriesofmeetingsinvarious
fieldsatwhichimportantproblemsarebeingdiscussedonabasisofparitybetween
Catholicsandothers.

InalettertoJohnD.RockefellerIIIonJuly31,Canfieldcanhardly

containhimself,callingShuster’sresponse“theanswertoamaiden’sprayer.”
Canfieldwasnomaiden,andheprobablydidn’tpraymucheither,butanopening
ofsomesignificanceininfluencingtheChurch’ssexualmoralityhadfinallybeen
foundwiththeCatholics,thelastroadblocktouniversalacceptanceof
contraception.Duringthe‘50sthePopulationCouncilhadhadcontactwitha
JesuitfromBaltimorebythenameofWilliamJ.Gibbons,whorequestedfunding
fora“NewYorkProfessionalSodality”fromthePopulationCouncilwhich
wouldattempttostudytheproblemofoverpopulationasessentiallyamoral
problem.ThePopulationCouncilwasunderwhelmedbytheproposal.Frederic
OsborninamemotoDudleyKirkopinedthat“itishardtoseehowtherecould
bemuchseriousexchangeofideasonsuchpremises,”especiallysinceFather
Gibbonswasproposingthateachmeetingstartwithapledge“torespecttheright
ofeachparenttoparticipateinthecreationoflife.”Ifthiswaswhatthe
Catholicshadinmind,thenthePopulationCouncilwasn’tinterested.What
ShusterwasproposingatNotreDame,however,wasawholenewballgame,
andCanfieldurgedRockefellertofundit,claimingthatit“shouldserveavery
usefulpurpose.”

FrankNotestein,whowasinonthediscussion,seemedtoconcurwith

Canfieldandlistedanumberofpotentialpositiveoutcomesasresultingfromit.
Tobeginwith,thePopulationCouncilandthepro-contraceptionProtestantswho
wereinvitedcouldexertpressure

ofthesupportivesortontheliberalCatholicsattending,tostrengthenintheChurchthose
elementswhichrecognizea)theneedfortoleranceofnon-Catholicviews,b)the
desirabilityforrestraintonthepartofCatholicsseekinglegalrestrictionsthatpreventnon-
Catholicsfromfollowingtheirownmoralviews,andc)theneedforgreaterattentionto
parentalresponsibilityinCatholicteaching.

Beyondthat,theconferencewouldprovide“anopportunityforthe

Catholicstoeducatenon-Catholicsintheirposition,particularlywithaviewto
lettingussee,insophisticatedform,thealmostimmutableconstraintsfacedby
theChurchincertainpartsofitspositionandtheoperationswhichareamenable
tochange.”

Notesteinfeltthatitwasunrealistictofeelthataconferenceofthissort

couldgettheChurchtochangeitsteachingonbirthcontrolbutitcouldhelp

tostrengthenthatelementintheChurchwithwhichwehavemanycommonaspirations
andaminimumofdifferences.[Withthisinmind,]itwouldbepointlesstopublishthe
resultsoftheconferencebecausethatwouldincurthewrathofepiscopalauthoritiesand
hardenthepositionsintotwoimmutablefronts.Theonlyinfluencethepro-contraceptive
partycanhaveisonthoseinfluentialCatholicswhoattendthemeeting.

Withthisinmind,Notesteinadds,“itisalsoimportant,onthesepremises,

thatweselectforattendancenotrepresentativeCatholicsbutCatholicswho

representthepositionnearestourown.Thisisthegroupwhoseinfluencewe
wouldbeendeavoringtoenlarge.”ThePopulationCouncilwouldfundtheNotre
Damemeeting,inotherwords,ontheconditionthatonly“liberal”Catholics,
i.e.,thosewillingtoworkforachangeintheChurch’spositiononbirthcontrol,
beinvited.Notesteinevensuggests“leavingoutpeoplesuchasFather
Zimmerman,”evidentlyreferringtoFr.AnthonyZimmerman,S.V.D.,anoted
opponentofpopulationcontrol.InanotherlettertoJohnD.RockefellerIIIon
August2,Notesteinreiteratedhisoppositiontoinviting“representative
Catholics.”TheonlypeopletobeinvitedwereCatholics“whorepresentthe
positionnearestourown.”

PersonallyIwouldliketore-emphasizemyopinionthatanendeavorbemadetohavethis
groupincludeonlytheliberal-mindedCatholics.Wewillgetsimplynowhereifright-wing
groupsareinvolved.Theseconversationsshouldbebetweenthepeopleonbothsideswho
haveminimumdifferencesofopinion.

Throughoutthenegotiationsfortheconference,thereisnoindicationthat

eitherShuster,whoconductedthecorrespondence,orHesburgh,whoseapproval
isnotedthroughout,objectedinanywaytothePopulationCouncil’sdictatingto
NotreDamethetypeofCatholicNotreDamewasallowedtoinvitetoits
conference.EvidentlyNotestein’sspecificationthatonlyliberalCatholics
shouldbeinvitedwasnotconstruedasanoffenseagainstHesburgh’sprinciple
of“trueautonomyandacademicfreedominthefaceofauthorityofwhatever
kind,layorclerical,externaltotheacademiccommunityitself,”theprinciplehe
enunciatedinhisLando’Lakesstatementin1967whenhealienatedthe
UniversityofNotreDamefromtheCatholicChurchbyplacingitunderalay
boardoftrustees.WhenitcametothedemandsofthePopulationCouncil,
Hesburgh’struculenceevaporatedandwasreplacedbythemostsupine
amenability.NotesteinobviouslyfeelsthatFr.Hesburghispreciselyoneoftheir
kindofCatholicandnominateshimaschairmanoftheconferenceinplaceof
JohnD.RockefellerIII,whoseconnectionwithcontraceptionandpopulation
controlmightprovetoocontroversial.“Myguess,”Notesteinwrotereferringto
Hesburgh,“isthathewouldbeeffectiveinblockinglong-windedargumentsin
theology,whichareuselessoncethepositionsareunderstood.Nooneisgoingto
makeconvertsatthetheologicallevel.”

RockefellerwasevidentlypersuadedbyNotestein’sarguments.Inaletter

toCassCanfieldonAugust6,RockefellercharacterizedShuster’sproposalas
“anencouragingnextstepinanimportantandsensitivearea.”Heisalso
persuadedbyNotestein’ssuggestion“thattheindividualswhomightattendbe
selectedfromthosewhohaveliberalviews;otherwiseitwouldbedifficultfor
themeetingstobeveryconstructive.”

ByearlyAugust,theNotreDameConferencewasprettymuchadonedeal,

atleastinthehigherechelonsofthePopulationCouncil.BySeptember1962,the
PopulationCouncilwasdictatingnotonlywhowastobeinvitedbutwhatbooks
weretobedisplayedanddiscussed(ACitizen’sPerspectiveonPopulationby
J.D.RockefellerandDoesOverpopulationMeanPovertybyJosephJones)as
wellasthequestionstobeaskedand,withouttoomuchstretchingofthe
imagination,theconclusionstheyweretoarriveataswell.Hesburgh’sabject
acceptanceofRockefeller’stermsgivessomeindicationthatacademicfreedom
wasessentiallyapretextwhichwouldallowNotreDametogetfoundation
money.Inoneofhismemoirs,HesburghtalkedaboutdefendingAmerican
theologianJohnCourtneyMurrayagainstCardinalOttaviani.Inmanyways,the
examplewasparadigmaticinHesburgh’smind.Academicfreedommeant
protectingCatholicsagainsttheinfluenceofRome.Itmeantsupineacceptanceof
whateverschemestheeugenicregimeproposed,whetheritwasthe
contraceptiveoraffirmativeaction,whichHesburghsupportedintheBakkecase
inthe1970s.In1962,asthefinalplanswerebeingmadefortheNotreDame
Conference,HesburghofferednoobjectionstostipulationsfromthePopulation
Councilonwhommightattendtheircontraceptiveconference.Hesburghoffered
noobjectionstothefactthattheydictatedwhatmaterialsweretobedisplayed,
whowastobeinvited(andnotinvited),orwhatwouldbediscussed.
“Conferees,”Canfieldwroteinhismemo,“Somerandomsuggestionsaboutthe
NotreDameConference,”“shoulddiscussthequestionofwhethertheadherents
ofanyfaithhavearighttotryandinfluencelegislation,exceptasindividuals
expressingtheirownviews.”

Itdidn’ttakeageniustofigureouttherightanswertoaquestionphrased

inthattendentiousmanner.Catholicsoftheliberalsortweretoproclaim
publiclythattheiroppositiontocontraceptionwas“personal”andthatthey
wouldn’tdreamofimposingtheirviewsonothers,andmostcertainlythey
wouldnottrytoinfluencelegislation.Thefactofthematteristhatatthispoint
RockefellerdidnotfeelhecouldgettheChurchtochangeitsteachingon
contraception—atalaterdate,asweshallsee,hewouldbeofanotheropinion
onthematter.HedidfeelthoughthatthePopulationCouncilmightpersuade
liberalCatholicstopersuadetheirlessenlightenedco-religioniststhattheyas
Catholicshadnobusinesstryingtoinfluencelegislationconcerning
contraceptionintheUnitedStates.PlannedParenthoodhadalreadytargetedthe
Connecticutcontraceptionstatuteforoverturning,asaprelude,LeoPfeffer
wouldsay,forstate-subsidizedcontraceptionaimedatprimarilyNegrowelfare
recipients.Themainobstacleintheimplementationofthisdesignwasthe

oppositionoftheCatholicChurch.

Canfieldkepthammeringhomethepointthatwhenitcameto

contraception,reasonableCatholics—i.e.,thekindwhowantedmoneyfromthe
Rockefellers—weresupposedtokeeptheiropinionstothemselves.Thiswas
thepurposeoftheconference,andbyacceptingthePopulationCouncil’smoney
onitsterms,Hesburghshowedthatheacquiescedinthearrangement.The
confereesweretounderstandthatif“areligiousgroup,assuch,shouldtryand
influencelegislation,[that]wouldbringupthequestionoftolerance.”The
reason,accordingtoCanfield,thePopulationCouncilwasputtingupthemoney
wasinthe“hopethattheliberalviewsofcertainCatholicswillgaingreater
currencywithintheChurchandthatpracticalconsiderationsinconnectionwith
limitingpopulation(aswellasbiologicalresearch,partlyorwhollysponsored
byCatholics)willleadthemtobecomelessandlessrestrictiveastomethods.”
Towhichview,neitherHesburghnorShusterexpressedanyobjection.

FredJaffe,associatedirectorofinformationandeducationatPlanned

Parenthood,tookpartinthememodialogueandcametomuchthesame
conclusions.Theconferenceshould“focusonobjectivesratherthanmethods.”
Thiswouldparethedifferencesdowntosizeandalso,althoughJaffedoesn’t
statethisexplicitly,maketheChurchseemunreasonablebyitsinsistencethat
certainmethodsareillicit.ThePopulationCouncil,ontheotherhand,couldgive
theimpressionofbeingopentothemall.Jaffeconcludedbysubmittinghislistof
acceptableCatholics.ThesewouldincludethealreadymentionedFr.Gibbons,
S.J.,Fr.JosephGremillionoftheNationalCatholicWelfareConference,who
wouldhavealongassociationwithNotreDame,Fr.Hesburgh,andFr.Walter
ImbiorskioftheCanaConferenceinChicago,whowouldeventuallyrunoffand
getmarriedanddiewithoutaCatholicfuneral.

OnOctober29,ShusteragainwrotetoCanfielddiscussingpublicityand

indicatingthathewasinvolvedinnotalittleduplicity.Herequestedthatno
advancepublicitybegiventotheconferencelestthewrongpeoplegetwindof
it,includingperhapsthelocalbishop.Inthesameletter,however,heindicates
thatinthehopeof“indirectbenefits”hehasinvited“oneortwoeditorsofkey
Catholicperiodicals.”ThisechoeswhatShustersaidtoCanfieldinAugustwhen
heclaimedthat“wearewalkinguponrelativelydifficultterrainandameasure
ofcaution,inthehopeofbetterthingstofollowisindicated.”Shusterwasnotso
muchinterestedinkeepingthesymposiumsecretashewasinmanagingtheway
theinformationcameout.Publicitywouldonlybeharmfulifthewrongpeople
showedupbeforehand.Notesteininanotewrittenaftertheconferencehopes
that“therewerenounfortunateleakssofaraspublicityisconcerned,”and

Shusterassureshimthat“therewerenoleaks,thankheavens.”

“Hopeofbetterthingstofollow”fromShusterandHesburgh’spointof

viewmeantmoremoneyfrommorefoundationsformoreconferences
underminingtheChurch’spositiononcontraception.OnJune5,1963,Shuster
submittedaproposalaskingforfundingforvirtuallythesameconferencetothe
FordFoundation.Theconferencewas“toachieveaconsensuswhichwouldfirst
serveasafirmandclearbasisfordialogue,andsecondpointoutareasforfuture
studyanddiscussion,”whichisprettymuchwhatthefirstonehaddone.
However,thistimeShustersweetensthepotbyaddingthat“theobjectiveisto
prepareafinalstatementanddistributeitwidely.”Thestatementwould,itwas
understood,beCatholicacademecallingforachangeintheChurch’steaching,
somethingthatwouldmostprobablynotchangetheteachingbutwhichwould
proveembarrassingtotheChurchnonetheless,especiallyifitwerepromotedby
themedia.“Iamnotgoingtostressfurthertheobviousimportanceofthiseffort,”
ShusterwrotetoOscarHarkavy,headoftheFordFoundation.“Theinterestof
CardinalMeyer[Shuster’semphasis]—whichistheonlypartofthisletter
whichisatpresentconfidential—sufficestoindicatethatthesedeliberations
mayfindanechofarbeyondtheconfinesoftheUnitedStates.”

TheRockefellercrowdgottheproposalpassedontothemdirectlyfrom

Harkavy(somethingwhichindicatesjusthowcloselytheinterlockbetweenthe
foundationswas).HarkavywasineffectaskingthepeopleatthePopulation
CouncilwhetherheshouldfundNotreDame’sgrantornot,andthePopulation
Councilseemedlessthanenthusedbytheprospectofanotherconferenceat
NotreDame,muchlessawholeseriesofconferences.ThePopulationCouncil
hadgonetobedwithNotreDame,andinthemorningdecidedthatitdidn’t
respectheranymore.TheFordFoundationwouldeventuallysponsoraseriesof
conferencesduringwhichtheCatholicsassembledatNotreDamedenouncedin
increasinglystridenttermstheChurch’spositionopposingcontraception.Butthe
contemptinwhichthePopulationCouncilheldNotreDameisevidentinthetone
oftheirmemos.DudleyKirk,aftersuggestingthattheymight“sponsorthisand
playitfurtherbyear”goesontowonder“whethertofeelflatteredorotherwise
atbeingtheonlyhereticproposedforinclusioninthefirstconference.”Which
promptsMarshallC.Balfourtoadd,“Hoorayfortheheretic:thecardsare
surelystackedagainsthim!Thatis,unless,thewayisbeingpreparedforPope
Paultochangetherulesofthegame.”

ThewingoftheCatholicChurchwhoseconferencesweresponsoredby

Rockefellermoneywasclearlyplanningforsuchaneventuality.Sincemostof
theplayerswereoldandostensiblycelibate,thereisnoreasontobelievethat

theywerehopingtobenefitdirectlyfromachange.ButachangeintheChurch’s
teachingwouldmeanthattheyasCatholicacademicswouldbeacceptabletothe
foundationpowerbrokersandacceptablemembersoftheProtestantconsensus,
theWASPethnosinAmerica,aswell.TheywouldbeconsideredAmericansin
fullstanding,whichhasalwaysbeentheaspirationofacertainkindofCatholic
inthiscountry.WithpeoplelikeFr.HesburghcallingtheshotsforCatholicsin
theUnitedStates,thepopecouldunpackhisbagforgoodthistime.Changingthe
Church’steachingoncontraceptionwouldalsoshowthatHesburghandcompany
hadconsiderablecloutamongtheirco-religionists.Iftheycoulddeliverthevote
oncontraception,theymightbevaluableforwringingotherconcessionsfromthe
Churchfurtherdowntheline—incasetheProtestantconsensusdida180
degreeturnonabortion,forexample.PerhapsthisiswhypeoplelikeShuster
andHesburghpursuedtheideaofthecontraceptionconferenceswithsuch
aviditythroughoutthemid-60s.

Theirdedicationinpursuingfoundationmoneyandthefoundations’

interestinchangingtheteachingoftheChurchoncontraceptionshowshow
outgunnedthebishopswereinopposingtheforcesarrayedagainstthem.Firstof
all,thebishopswereunawareofwhatwastakingplacebehindtheirbacks.
Beyondthat,inadditiontorunningtheirdiocesesandtheeducational
establishmentsinthem,thebishops—almostattheverymomentthenegotiations
betweenNotreDameandthePopulationCouncilwerebeingconcluded—were
beingdrawnintowhatwouldbeathree-yearcommitmenttotheVaticanCouncil.
ThebishopswerelefttodealwiththeoutbreakoftheCulturalRevolutionwhich
wouldsweepthroughvirtuallyeveryinstitutionintheWestduringthe‘60s,and
theupheavaloftheChurchwhichensuedwhentheCultural(andSocial)
RevolutionentereditfollowingtheCouncil.WhentheChurchopenedits
windows,theCulturalRevolutionblewin.Thisamountedtoaseriesofevents
fromwhichanyotherinstitutionwouldhavesufferedamortalblow.Itisquite
simplyamiraclethattheChurchsurvivedanyoneofthem.

OtherLinks

ThePopulationCouncilwasworkingbehindthescenesinotherareastoo.
ThroughtheNotreDameConference,NotreDamesociologistDonaldBarrett
madecontactwiththePopulationCouncil,towhomheappliedforagrant.The
PopulationCouncil,inanotherinstanceofinterlock,forwardedtheapplication
totheFordFoundationwhichgrantedBarrett$500,000inthemid-’60s.The
storybecomesmorecomplicatedwhenBarrett,withHesburgh’shelp,got
appointedtoPopePaulVI’sbirthcontrolcommission.Nowsomeonewhowas
receivingmoneyfromthefoundationestablishmentattheverytimeitwastrying

tochangeAmericanlawsandCatholicteachingoncontraceptionwasvotingon
thecommissionPaulVIhadestablishedtodecidewhethertheChurchshould
changeitspositiononthattopic.Itwasaflagrantconflictofinterest,butnoone
seemstohavenoticed.ThesamecanbesaidofPatandPattiCrowley,headof
theCatholicFamilyMovement.TheCrowleyshadalsobeenappointedtothe
birth-controlcommissionbecauseoftheirconnectiontoNotreDamewhileatthe
sametimegettingmoneyfromtheRockefellerstounderminetheChurch’s
teachingoncontraception.AccordingtoRobertMcClory,theirbiographer,just
astheChurchwasabouttoissueHumanaeVitae,“theCrowleys,withagrant
fromtheRockefellerFoundation[myemphasis],madeplansforaninternational
forumontheChristianFamilyintheWorldtobeheldinItalyduringthesummer
of‘68”(RobertMcClory,TurningPoint[1995]).

AMeetingwithPopePaulVI

Perhapsemboldenedbythisstringofstunningsuccess,Rockefellerdecidedto
takehisstruggleforcontraceptionastepfurther.Hedecidedtoconfrontthe
enemyinhisownlair.WiththehelpofFr.Hesburgh,Rockefellerarrangedan
audiencewithPopePaulVI,whowasmullingovertheissueofbirthcontrol
and,itwashopedaccordingtotheEnlightenmentviewofhistory,mightproveto
beevenmoreliberalthanJohnXXIII,whowasasdifferentfromhispredecessor
asdaywasfromnight.Hesburgh,whoisdescribedas“decidedlyliberalinhis
ownviewsonpopulationalthoughhewouldnotgoasfarasJDRonsome
aspects,”(HartandJohnson,TheRockefellerCentury[1988]),wasonlytoo
happytooblige.AfterbeingbriefedbyanumberofJesuitprofessorsfrom
GeorgetownUniversityon“thecomplexitiesoftheCatholicChurchthat
curtailedthefreedomofanyPope,”RockefellermetwithPopePaulVIforforty-
fiveminutesinmid-Julyof1965.

Withinminutesofhismeetingwiththepope,Rockefellerwasreproaching

himselfoutloudfornothavingexpressedhiscaseforcefullyenough.Inan
attempttocalmhimdown,Msgr.PaulMarcinkus,laterheadoftheVaticanbank,
suggestedthatRockefellerwritethepopealetterexpressinganypointswhich
mightnothavebeenmadeduringthemeeting.AdaylateronJuly16,1965,
Rockefellerdulysentoffhisletteron“theimportanceofthepopulationproblem
...andtherolethattheChurchmightassumeinitssolution.”

TheincidentreadslikeachapteroutofanunpublishedHenryJamesnovel.

TheearnestProtestantAmerican,withhistwonewlyinventedcontraceptives
andaboundlessfaiththattechnologyandprogresswillsolvealloftheworld’s
ills,confrontstheheadoftheoldworld’sseminalinstitution,anItalian
gentlemanbythenameofMontini.“Thereisnoproblemmoreimportantfacing

mankindtoday,”Mr.Rockefellerinformedthepopeearnestly.Ifthepopefailed
toheedMr.Rockefeller’sadvice“wewillfacedisasterofanunprecedented
magnitude.”

Mr.Rockefellerthenexplainedhisinventiontothepope,callingtheIUD

“abreakthroughoftrulymajorproportions,makingavailableamethodwhichis
safe,effective,inexpensiveandfeasibleunderthemostdifficultliving
conditions.Experiencewithitsusetodateindicatesthatitwillprovehighly
acceptabletogreatmassesofpeopleeverywhere.”TheIUDwasdrivenoffthe
marketintheUnitedStateswithinamatterofyearsasaresultofproduct
liabilitylawsuits.ThosewhoclaimthattheChurchmissedahistoricopportunity
byissuingHumanaeVitaewoulddowelltopondertheconsequencesforpapal
credibility,muchlessinfallibility,ifPaulVIhadtakenMr.Rockefeller’sadvice
andendorsedtheIUDasameansofCatholic-approvedbirthcontrol.Whenit
cametogivingadvice,Rockefellerwasusedtotheundividedattentionof
religiousleaders,whoseemedtobenefitfinanciallyindirectproportiontohow
avidlytheyimplementedhisagendathroughtheagenciesoftheirdenomination.
TheQuakers,whoseideaofmissionaryworkincludedinstallingIUDsin
Mexicanwomen,areagoodexample.Itwasperhapstheaccommodatingnature
ofthemainlineProtestantswhichledRockefellertodispensewithnicetiesand
getbluntwiththepopeandpointouttoHisHolinesswhatmighthappenifthe
popefailedtoseethingsRockefeller’sway.“AsIseeit,”Rockefellerwroteto
thepope,

iftheChurchdoesnotsupplythisleadership,therewillbetwoconsequences:one,the
presentacceleratingpacetowardpopulationstabilizationwillproceed,countrybycountry,
withoutover-allguidanceordirection,particularlyonthemoralside:ontheother,ifImay
speakperfectlyfrankly,theChurchwillbebypassedonanissueoffundamental
importancetoitspeopleandtothewell-beingofallmankind.Thefloodingtidecannotbe
stoppedorevenslowed,butitcanbeguided.BecauseIbelievesokeenlyinthe
importanceoftherolewhichyourchurchhastoplayinourtroubledworldoftoday,Iam
deeplyconcernedtoseeasituationdevelopingwhichinthelongrun,itseemstome,
inevitablywillbeharmfultotheChurch’spositionaroundtheworld.

Onewonderswhatwasgoingthroughthepope’smindashereadthese

lines.Washesupposedtofeelasenseofgratitudeatbeingsaved,alongwithhis
Church,frombeingsweptasidebythefloodingtideofprogressandhistory?Or
wasitsomethingmoreliketheItalianversionof“Ifyou’resodamnrich,why
aren’tyousmart?”Eitherway,thepopepassedonRockefeller’ssuggestion.But
manyliberalCatholicsintheUnitedStateswerewillingtoaccommodate
Rockefeller’swishes,especiallyiftheinstitutionstheyranmightbenefitfromthe
largesseofRockefellerfundingorthatofotherfoundations.Fr.Hesburgh,who
arrangedthemeetingbetweenRockefellerandthepope,isagoodcaseinpoint.

Inhislettertothepope,Rockefellerwantedtoknowifitwerepossible

“toshiftthefocusofthisconcernfromthemethoditselftotheusestowhichthe
methodwillbeput.WoulditbefeasibletostatethattheChurchwillleavetothe
discretionoftheindividualfamilyitschoiceastothemethoditwilluseto
determinethenumberofitschildrenprovidedthemethodisnotharmfultothe
userandprovideditdoesnotinterferewiththemeaningandimportanceof
sexualunioninmarriage?”This,ofcourse,wasthepositionthePopulation
Counciltookastheconditionforsponsoringitsconferenceonpopulationat
NotreDame.Fr.Hesburghhadprovedtobeasamenableonthispointatthe
popewouldlaterproveintractable.(Mr.Rockefeller’svisithadother
consequences.Itconvincedthepopethathismainenemylaynowtothewestand
nottotheeastandbroughtabouttheendoftheanti-Communistcrusadeandthe
beginningoftheVatican’sOstpolitik.OnJune26,1966,lessthanayearafterthe
pope’smeetingwithJohnD.RockefellerIII,AgostinoCasaroli,thegenerally
acknowledgedarchitectoftheVaticansOstpolitik,flewtoBelgradeandsigned
anagreementnormalizingrelationsbetweentheVaticanandYugoslavia.)

Sincesexwassimplyaninstrument—somethinglikeaknife—according

totheRockefellerviewofthings,“couldnotthefullweightandprestigeofthe
Churchbebroughttobearonprescribingthecircumstancesunderwhichthe
chosenmethodwillbeused?...Toexpresstheabovemoreconcisely,whatIam
suggestingisthatspecificmethodsberegardedasmerelyinstruments,like
knives,whoseuseismorallygoodorbaddependingontheintentionsofthose
whoemploythem.”ItwasthesortofconsequentialismFr.CharlesCurranwould
advocateroughlytwoyearslaterinabookpublishedbytheUniversityofNotre
DamePress.Thepopewas,however,notbuying.TheCatholicChurchdidnot
buytheviewimplicitlyin1968withtheissuanceofHumanaeVitae,anditstill
didnotbuyittwenty-fiveyearslater,thistimeexplicitly,withtheissuanceof
VeritatisSplendor.Ofcourse,theCatholicuniversitiesandtheologiansbought
intotheRockefellerviewataroundthesametimethatFr.Hesburgharranged
Rockefeller’smeetingwiththepope.TheymadetheirbreakwiththeChurch
explicitwhenHesburghissuedhisLando’Lakesstatementinthesummerof
1967.

Rockefelleraddedthatdisseminationofcontraceptiveswoulddiminish

recoursetoabortion,implyingthatheopposedthepractice,wheninfacthewas
alreadyinvolvedinfundingabortionadvocacyintheUnitedStates.Whathewas
proposingashiscontributiontothepope’sbirth-controlencyclicalwouldlater
cometobeknownasconsequentialism,thenotionthatthegoodorevilofany
actionisontologicallyfreeofitsessenceandsolelydeterminedbytheintentions

ofthemoralagentandtheconsequenceswhichflowedfromtheact.Thiswould
becomeaprominentfeatureofCatholicdissentasthedecadeprogressed.It
wouldbethecornerstoneofthepositionofCharlesCurran,themanwhowould
mountthemosteffectiveprotestagainstHumanaeVitaeintheUnitedStates,and
itcouldbepickedupatanynumberofconferencessponsoredbyfoundation
moneyintheUnitedStates.Rockefellerdidn’tsucceedwiththepope,buthis
argumentswereheardwithincreasingfrequencycomingfromthemouthsof
Catholictheologyprofessors.

TheNotreDameStatementonBirthControl

InOctoberof1965theseriesofconferencesoncontraceptionatNotreDame
whichbeganundertheaegisofthePopulationCouncilin1962andwhose
continuedfundingwasprovidedbytheFordFoundation,finallyemergedfrom
thesecrecyunderwhichtheywereheldwiththeissuanceofwhatGeorge
ShusterhadpromisedRockefellerthreeyearsearlier,namely,astatementby
CatholicacademicscontestingtheChurch’spositiononbirthcontrol.InOctober
1965,ReligiousNewsServiceannouncedthepublicationofa“remarkable
statementonbirthcontrolpreparedthisSpringbythirty-sevenAmerican
scholars,theveryexistenceofwhichwasnotrevealed”untilsevenmonthsafter
ithadbeenwritten.Catholicscholars,atleastthirty-sevenofthem,werenowon
recordincallingtheChurch’spositiononcontraception“unconvincing.”The
statementhadbeendeliveredpersonallybyFr.HesburghtotheRev.HenriDe
Riedmatten,secretaryofthepapalcommissiononbirthcontrol.Thestorybroke
inthePariseditionoftheNewYorkTimes,inanarticlewrittenbyJohnCogley
whichincludedthetextHesburghcarriedtothebirth-controlcommission.

NotsurprisinglytheNotreDamestatement,whichwashammeredoutfrom

March17toMarch21,1965,claimedthat“thecrisisofworldpopulation”was
themainreasonthattheChurch’steachinghadbecome“unconvincing.”The
statementlistedanumberofpropositionsendorsedbythemembersofthe
conference,specifically:

-Themembersoftheconference,respectfuloftheauthorityoftheChurch,are
convincedthatthenormsestablishedinthepastarenotdefinitivebutremain
openforfurtherdevelopment(Point#2).

-Themembersoftheconferencedonotfindconvincingtheargumentsfrom
reasoncustomarilyadducedtosupporttheconventionalposition.These
argumentsdonotmanifestanadequateappreciationofthefindingsofphysiology,
psychology,sociology,anddemography,nordotheyrevealasufficientgraspof
thecomplexityandtheinherentvalueofsexualityinhumanlife(Point#3).

-Themajorityofthememberswereoftheopinionthatthereisdependable
evidencethatcontraceptionisnotintrinsicallyimmoralandthatthereforethere
arecertaincircumstancesinwhichitmaybepermittedorindeedeven
recommended(Point#5).

-Thememberswerepersuadedthatinmattersofpublicpolicyinamorally
pluralisticsociety,Catholicswhilerenderingwitnesstotheirbeliefsneednot
forreasonsofprivatemoralityopposegovernmentalprogramsofassistancein
familylimitation,providedthattheconsciencesofallcitizensarerespected
(Point#7).

Thelastpointwasespeciallyimportant.Itwasoneofthesuggestionslaid

downbythePopulationCouncilasaconditionforfundingthe1962NotreDame
conference.Now,mirabiledictu,itappearedasifagroupof“responsible”
Catholicscholarshadarrivedatthesameconclusionallbythemselves,simply
byponderingtheexigenciesofCatholictheology.Withallofthecruciallinksin
termsoffundingandpersonneltuckedinvisiblebehindthescenes,thefactthat
thesameideaskeptcroppingupinsuchseeminglyunrelatedplaceswassimply
ascribedtothefactthatgreatmindsalwaystraveledinthesamecircles.Aswe
shallsee,thenotionthatCatholicsshouldnotopposegovernmentfundingof
contraceptiveswouldsoonrearitsheadagainbeforethesummerof‘65wasout.

Theideaswhichcameoutofthe‘65conferencewere,ofcourse,notthe

solepropertyofRockefellerandthePopulationCouncil.Bythesummerof‘65a
consensusofanumberofinterestedpartieswasemerging.Oneofthesignersof
theNotreDamestatement,forexample,wasaNotreDamegraduateandtrustee,
ThomasP.Carney.Carneywasatthetimeoftheconferencevice-presidentin
chargeofresearchanddevelopmentforC.D.SearleCompanyofChicago,a
majorpharmaceuticalhouseinvolvedinmarketingthebirth-controlpill.When
thedeliberationsoftheNotreDameconferenceonbirthcontrolbecamepublic,
onepersonwhowasparticularlyoutragedatNotreDame’sduplicitywasa
lawyerfromHarrisburg,PennsylvaniabythenameofWilliamBentleyBall.Ball
wasalsolegalcounselforthePennsylvaniaCatholicConference,anditwasin
thiscapacitythathewrotetoArchbishopJohnKrol,headoftheconference,and
ordinaryoftheArchdioceseofPhiladelphia.Claimingthattheconferenceat
NotreDame“doesnotmakemytaskanyeasier,”Ballrelatedtheexperienceofa
Catholicphysicianwhoattendedtheconference“andwassickenedbywhathe
heard”which“involvedaunifiedattackonthepositionwhichYourExcellencies
havetaken,eventothepointofreferringtomeinapreparedpaper.”

“Theconference,”Ballcontinued,“waschairedbyaNotreDamegraduate

namedCarney,whoisvicepresidentofSearle,perhapstheleadingmanufacturer

ofcontraceptivesintheUSA.”

WhenitcametothediscussionofbirthcontrolatNotreDame,thefield

washardlylevel,norweretheobserversdisinterested.Inadditiontoacademics
eagerforgrants,pharmaceuticalcompanieslikeSearlehadrepresentativesatthe
conferencetoinsureafavorableoutcome.NotreDameseemstohavebeen
happywiththecollaboration.In1967,ThomasCarney,whograduatedfrom
NotreDamethirtyyearsearlierwithadegreeinchemistry,wasappointedtothe
boardoftrustees;in1969hewasgivenanhonorarydegree;inMayof1971he
wasawardedtheEdwardFrederickSorinAward,thehighestawardgrantedby
theNotreDameAlumniAssociation.

TheGrueningHearings

OneindicationthattheeffortsofRockefellerandthePopulationCouncilwere
havingtheireffectwasthefactthatthegovernmentwasstartingtogetinvolved
ontheirsideoftheissue.PresidentJohnson’sendorsementofpopulationcontrol
inthe1965StateoftheUnionmessagewasfollowedsixmonthslaterinJuneof
1965withGriswoldv.Connecticut.Throughoutthesummerof1965,Sen.Ernest
GrueningofAlaskachairedaSenatecommitteewhichheldhearingsonwhat
wascomingtobetermedthe“populationexplosion.”Thehearingswere
orchestratedwithtwomajoreffectsinmind:firstofall,thepopulacewasto
havethedangersofoverpopulationimpressedonitinthediresttermspossible,
andsecondly,therewastobevirtualunanimityamongthoseaddressingthe
Grueningcommittee.Thefactthattherewerenodissentingvoiceswastogive
theimpressionthataconsensusofthebestandthebrightestalreadyexistedand
thattheonlythingleftfortheSenatetodowastoputtherecommendationsofthe
population-controlsolonsintoaction.

Thepredictionswerenothingifnotdire.Theteemingmasseswere

portrayedasanimminentdisaster,somethingonthelevelofnuclearwar;how
wewereallgoingtostarvetodeathinamatterofyearsandhowtheUnited
Stateshadtobecomeinvolvedimmediatelytostopthisimpendingcatastrophe.
“Deluge”wasatermfrequentlyheard.SenatorGrueninghimselfopinedthat
“[I]fourpopulationgrowthdoesnotstabilize,wemayreasonablyassumethat
wewilllosethefreedoms,privileges,andgoodlifeweenjoytoday.”Senator
JosephS.ClarkofPennsylvania,bringerofNewDealpoliticstoPhiladelphia,
whosesecondwifewasontheboardofPlannedParenthoodofPhiladelphia,
wasbythemid-’60satirelessproselytizerforgovernment-funded
contraceptives.“Inmyopinion,”saidSenatorClarkbeforetheGruening
hearings,“withtheexceptionoftheproblemofwarandpeace,thisisthemost
criticalmatterwhichconfrontsourcountrytoday.”

RobertC.Cook,presidentofthePopulationReferenceBureau,toldthe

Grueninghearingsthat“thepointofdemographicnoreturn”was“notfarinthe
future.”Fortheuninitiated,thepointofdemographicnoreturnwas“thatmoment
whenmushroomingpopulationgrowthmakesdisintegrationanddespair
unavoidable.”GeneralWilliamH.Draper,Jr.vicechairmanofPlanned
Parenthood-WorldPopulation,toldthecommitteethatheconceivedof
populationasa“bomb”whichmustbedefused“sothatmankinddoesnot
multiplyitselfintooblivion.”

“Likecancercellsmultiplyinginthehumanbody,”Drapercontinued,

changinghismetaphorbutnotthepathologicalconditionithopedtoportray,“it
will,unlesssloweddown,destroyourpresentdaycivilizationjustassurelyas
wouldanuclearconflict.”

Notsurprisingly,JohnD.RockefellerIII,chairmanoftheboardofthe

PopulationCouncil,testifiedalso.Justasunsurprisingly,Rockefellertoldthe
SenatorfromAlaskathat“noproblemismoreurgentlyimportanttothewell-
beingofmankindthanthelimitationofpopulationgrowth.Asathreattoour
future,itisoftencomparedwithnuclearwarfare.”

TheEntryofWilliamBall

OntheeveningofAugust10,WilliamBentleyBall,legalcounselforthe
PennsylvaniaCatholicCouncil,aNavyveteranofWorldWarII,andalawyer
fromHarrisburg,Pennsylvania,thestate’scapital,watchedtheNBCevening
newsinastateofdisbelief,listeningtoStuartUdall,formerlyoftheDepartment
oftheInterior,andAlanGuttmacherofPlannedParenthoodannouncethatthe
hearingswereproceedingsmoothlyandthatsofarnooppositionhadsurfaced.
That,ofcourse,waspreciselythepointoforchestratingthehearingssothatonly
thepro-population-controlsidegotheard.ButBall,whowasresponsiblefor
representingtheChurchintheStateofPennsylvania,waswonderingifthe
peopleattheNationalCatholicWelfareConferenceinWashingtonhadn’tfallen
asleepattheswitch.WasitreallytruethattheCatholicswereplanningtositthis
oneout?,Ballwondered.Afewphonecallsindicatedthatthiswaspreciselythe
case,andhewastakingthetimetoregisterhisalarmwithArchbishopKrol,his
boss.

BallwroteKrolaletterduringthesummer,andI’llsummarizeitinone

sentencethatdidappearinthisletter:“WhereistheCatholicChurch?”Hewas
referringspecificallytothehearings.Everybody,buteverybody,wasshowingup
atthesehearingsandtheywereallsingingthesametune:“We’reallgoingto
die!We’reallgoingtostarvetodeath!”OnepersonafteranotherandBillBallis

thinking,“WhereistheCatholicChurch?Whyisn’ttheCatholicChurchcoming
forthandsaying‘thisisridiculous.’”

DuringthetimeinwhichtheNCWCdidnothing,ostensibly“awaiting

furtherindicationsfromRome,”theGrueninghearingsspenttheentiresummer
givingtheimpressionthatthecaseinfavorofgovernment-fundedcontraception
wasvirtuallyunanimous.Asthesummerpasseddaybydaywithnoresponse
fromtheCatholics,Ballcouldhardlycontainhisamazement.

“Icannotbelieve,”BalltoldKrol,“thatafterfiftyyearsofpreaching

againstbirthcontrol,thebishopsoftheUSAhavehandedPlannedParenthooda
totaltriumph...Yetthatisthefact.Thereislittlepointinprotestingtheuseof
statefundsforbirthcontrolbythePennsylvaniaDepartmentofHealthwhen
nationalCatholicpolicyhassanctionedsuchuse.”

BalltestifiedbeforetheGrueningCommitteeonAugust24,butitwas

clearthathefeltdemoralizedfromthelackofsupportfromtheNCWCin
Washington.Ball’stestimonywasapowerfulindictmentofgovernment-
sponsoredbirth-controlplansasdetrimentaltothecitizens’freedomsand
covertlyeugenicaswell.HamstrungbyboththeVatican’sprohibitionontheone
handandanincreasinglyprohibitivenotionoftheseparationofchurchandstate
proposedbythesecularistsontheother,Balldidabrilliantjobofportraying
government-sponsoredbirthcontrolasathreattocivilfreedoms.Ball’s
argumentwasbasedonSupremeCourtcases.FromGriswoldheestablishedthe
righttoprivacyandfromtheEngelandSchemppcases,hetalkedaboutthe
freedomfromgovernmentcoercionwhenreligiousissueswereconcerned.Ifthe
SupremeCourtcouldarguethatprayerorBiblereadinginschoolwas
intrinsicallycoercivetothosewhodidnotsharetheJudeo-Christianviewand,
therefore,animpermissibleinfringementontheseparationofchurchandstate,
thenasocialworkerprobinghisclient’sviewsonsexualityandprocreation
couldhardlybeconstruedaslessinvasiveorlessofabreachofthatseparation.
Thiswastrueofanyoneonwelfare,accordingtoBall,butitwasespeciallytrue
ofCatholicsonwelfare,orinanyothercapacityaffectedbyapublicentity.

AccordingtoBall’stestimony,“themainfeaturesofthebillposeserious

dangerstocivillibertywhileofferingnogenuineprospectofrelievingthe
problemsofpoverty,crowdinganddiseasewhichtheypurporttosolve.”
Beyondthat,birth-controlprogramswerenecessarilycoercive,asthattermwas
definedintherecentschoolprayerdecisions.Thiswassobecausethemain
targetgroupinbirth-controlprogramshadalwaysbeenthepoor.Tellinga
personheisfreetorejecttheprofferedbirthcontrolisnotamelioratedby
addingthatheisfreetorefuse.Theveryfactthatthegovernment,whichisthe

sourceoftheperson’slivelihood,isofferingtheservicesmeansthatthe
governmentfeelsthatthecontraceptiveisagoodthing,andbyextensionthatthe
welfarerecipientwoulddowelltoaccept.Itisbyitsnaturecoercive.Forthe
Catholic,thestateisintrudingintoaspherearoundwhichitjusterectedavery
highwallofseparation.

IftheCourtweresincereinitsconcernovertheseparationofchurchand

state,itdoubtlesswouldhaveacceptedBall’sargument.Withthebenefitof
hindsight,however,itisdifficulttoseesincerity.Thedoctrineofprivacy,
invokedbyJusticeDouglasin1965,wasusedsevenyearslatertojustifythe
decriminalizationofabortion,butitwasnotusedtostopthegovernment’sever-
deepeninginvolvementinfundingcontraceptives.Thelessonseemsplainenough
inretrospect.Privacymeanttheprotectionofsexualliberationagainstthethreats
posedtoitbyorganizedreligion.Eventually,thedoctrineofprivacywouldbe
invokedtoprotecttwohomosexualscaughtinflagrantedelictoinanautomobile
parkedonastreetinAlbany,NewYork.Thedoctrineofprivacywasusedto
strikedownthatstate’slawprohibitingsodomy.Itwasjustonemoreexampleof
howthetermsthesecularstateusedtowidentheacceptanceofsexualliberation
couldneverbeusedatfacevaluetothreatenthatliberation.

OnecouldfaultBallfornaiveté,butthatwouldinviteunduecynicism,

especiallyinlightoftheevidenceofthetime.In1965itwasnotapparentthat
JusticeDouglaswasnotsincerewhenhereferredtomarriageassomething
sacredandprivateinGriswold.Ballwassimplyusingthelanguageavailableto
himasalawyer,inacountrythatostensiblyplacedgreatregardinthenotionof
rulebylaw.

Ballalsomentionedthefactthatinrecenttimesboththecourtsandthe

legislatureshadsimultaneouslybroadenedthedefinitionofsocialwelfareand
narrowedthepowerofgovernmentoverindividuals.Commontobothwasa
“concernfortheweakermembersofsociety...mostrecentlythisconcernhas
beenmoreemphaticallyextendedtothecriminallyaccused,thealien,theNegro
andthepoor.”Gruening’sbillwascallingforsomethingwhichwentcontraryto
bothtrends.“S.1676,”accordingtoBall,“is,plainlyandsimply,abillforthe
establishingofadomesticandinternationalbirthcontrolprogramandforthe
creatingofpermanentfederalgovernmentalorgansforthecarryingoutofthe
same.”Ballcomplainedthatnotonlywouldsuchanentitybeofitsnature
intrusiveandcoercive,hewentontosaythattheonusofitsintentwouldfallon
theNegro.

“Thenoteofracialeugenicism,”Ballcontinued,“isinescapableinthe

proposalofS.1676...InthishourofthepainfulemergenceofourNegrobrothers

intotheAmericansociety,surelythisconsiderationshouldbeweightedinthe
balancewiththeassumedbutunprovedbenefitsofS.1676’sbirthcontrol
proposal.”Ballconcludedbysayingthewholebillreflectedthepsychologyof
“theWhiteMan’sBurden”andshouldberejected.

OntheSunday(August29,1965)immediatelyfollowingBall’stestimony

attheGrueninghearings,PatrickCardinalO’Boyledeliveredasermonon“Birth
ControlandPublicPolicy”atSt.Matthew’sCathedralinWashington.The
sermongotwidespreadcoverageinthepress,anditsinfluencewasfeltin
Washington.TheChurchinthepersonofArchbishopO’Boylewastakingastand
onthepovertyprogramandtheattemptbythegovernmenttodealwiththeplight
ofthepooringeneralandtheNegropoorinparticularthrougheugenicmeans.
ThesermonwasaclearattemptonO’Boyle’sparttodrawalineinthesand,and
thelinehadtodowiththesituationofbirth-controlprogramsintothebudgetof
theWaronPoverty.

“IntheUnitedStates,”O’Boylebegan,“progressinthefieldofracialand

socialjusticehasbeennothingshortofphenomenal.”O’Boyle’ssermonwas
intendedtoputWashingtononnoticethatnomatterhowphenomenal,nomatter
how“holy”acausethecivilrightsmovementhadbecome,theCatholicChurch
wasnotgoingtotolerateitasafrontforadvancingpublicacceptanceofbirth
control.

ImplicitinO’Boyle’schallengewasarebukeoftheaccommodationist

policesoftheNCWC.“CommitteesoftheCongressandotherpublicbodies,”
O’Boylesaid,“hearingnoofficialexpressiontothecontrary,haveassumedthat
‘silencegivesconsent’andhaveinitiatedprogramsintrudingontheprivatelives
ofcitizens—programsinwhich,toputitbluntly,thegovernmenthasno
business.”InadditiontobreakingwiththepoliciesoftheNCWC,O’Boyle
calledintoquestionthenotionofpopulation“explosion,”concedingatthevery
mostthat“theremaywellbeatthismomentareasofrelativeoverpopulationin
certainpartsofthiscountry—theso-calledNegroghettosofsomeofour
northerncities,forexample.”Evenifthiswerethecaseonawidespreadbasis,
O’Boylemadeitclearthatbirthcontrol,especiallyinprogramssponsoredby
thegovernment,wasnotgoingtoalleviatesocialproblems.

“Aprogramofsuchdubiousbenefitisclearlyoutweighedbyitsnegative

side,whichinvolvesathreattotheAmericanfamily,specificallyasaresultof
thegradualintrusionofgovernmentintotheprivatelivesofitscitizens.”Taking
hiscuefromBall,O’BoylecitedSupremeCourtcasestobolsterhisarguments.
JusticeBrandeis’s“righttobeleftalone”wasgivenmodernapplicationin
Griswoldv.Connecticut:“Now,”concludedO’Boyle,“ifthegovernmentis

enjoinedbythisdecisionfromforbiddingthepracticeofbirthcontrol,it
logicallyfollowsthatitislikewiseforbiddentopromoteit.”O’Boylethenwent
ontoattacktheGrueningbillspecifically,ifnotbyname.

Inspiteoftheseunmistakableconstitutionalroadblocks,abillisnow

beforetheSenatesub-committeeonForeignAidexpendituresthatwould
formallyanddirectlyinvolvethefederalgovernmentinbirthprevention
programs,includingthedisseminationofinformationandmaterialsatpublic
expense...Inanumberofcities,therehavebeenattemptstolinkpromotionof
birthcontrolwiththenewantipovertyprogram,onthetheorythat,asonesenator
putit“thepooraremorelikelythananyothergrouptohavelargefamilies.”

‘That,”O’Boylethunderedfromthepulpit,“isnotthegovernment’s

business.Thechoiceofhowmanychildrenacoupleshouldhaveisthesole,
personalresponsibilityofthespouses.Itisnotlesstheirresponsibilityifthey
happentobepoor.”

Thelineinthesandwasclear.TheChurchwouldsupportthecivilrights

movement’sWaronPovertyandtheconcomitantexpansionofthewelfarestate
onlyifthatexpansionremainedwithintheboundsofthemorallaw.Oncethat
linewascrossed,thegovernmentcouldexpectoppositionfromtheCatholics.
This,ofcourse,ispreciselywhatthesecularistshadfearedallalong.
RockefellerandhisminionsatthePopulationCouncilwereonlyinterestedin
Catholicswhowerewillingtorelegatetheirmoralbeliefstotherealmof
personalpredilection.Thishadbeenthesinequanonforfundingthe
contraceptionconferencesatNotreDame.ItwasalsoattheheartoftheNCWC’s
strategy.

O’Boylewas,ineffect,arguingforanhonestinterpretationofthe

separationofchurchandstate,andonsexualmattersthisispreciselywhatthe
Churchwouldnevergetbecause,invirtuallyallimportantaspects,the
separationofchurchandstatewasnothingmorethanapretextforthe
establishmentofthesecularagendaasthelawoftheland,andsexualliberation
asafrontforeugeniccontrolwas,astimewouldshowwithincreasingclarity,
oneofthesecularists’non-negotiabledemands.

“Foragovernmentagent,”O’Boylestated,“toinquirerespectingdetailsof

theirsexuallife,orinanywaytosuggesttothempracticesrespectingsexwhich
maydoviolencetotheirreligiousbeliefs,isaclearviolationofthesacredright
ofprivacywhichtheSupremeCourtheldtobeinviolate.”O’Boylewasarguing,
inotherwords,thatitwasinconsistenttobanprayerasaviolationofreligious
beliefsbutatthesametimepromotecontraception.Thiswas,ofcourse,true,but

thisself-contradictionlayattheheartofthesecularagenda.

“Ingreatissuesofthiskind,”O’Boylecontinued,

whereopinionissharplydividedthefirstandmostimportantconsiderationinsearchingfor
asolutionisthepreservationoftheGod-givenrightofconscience.Catholics,forexample,
havenorighttoimposetheirownmoralcodeupontherestofthecountrybycivil
legislation.Bythesamereasoning,theyareobligedinconsciencetoopposeanyregulation
whichwouldelevatetothestatusofpublicpolicyaphilosophyorpracticewhichviolates
rightsofprivacyorlibertyofconscience.Thecitizen’sfreedomcutsbothways...In
situations,likethis,involvingseriousmoralissuesinwhichpeoplestrivetoformaright
conscience,theroleofgovernmentisclear—strictneutrality...Themomentthe
governmentpresumesto‘giveadvice’inthisdelicatearea,itopenstoinfluencingthefree
decisionofitscitizens.Andfrominfluenceitonlyashortsteptocoercion.

Unfortunately,ArchbishopO’Boyle,likeallthebishops,wasfightinga

warontwofronts.Inadditiontowarningthegovernmentawayfromfunding
birth-controlprograms,hehadtoadmonishtheCatholicstoadheretothe
Church’sposition.“ACatholic,”O’Boyleclaimed,turningtothesecondfront,
“acceptsvoluntarily,bytheveryfactofhismembership,theofficialteachingof
theChurchinmattersoffaithandmorals.And,mydeargoodpeople,the
Church’steachingwithregardtocontraceptionhasbeenbothclearand
consistent.”Asanindicationthatthatteachingwasnotgoingtochange,O’Boyle
quotedthestatementofPopePaulVIthat“wedonothaveasufficientreasonto
regardthenormsgivenbyPopePiusXIIinthismatterassurpassedand
thereforenotbinding.”

“Ifnextweek,”O’Boyleaskedinconcludinghishomily,

youwereaskedtosacrificeoneofyourchildrentoeasethe“populationexplosion,’which
onewouldyouchoose?...Surelyintheglorioushistoryofthisgreatnation,wehavefound
betterguidestotheGreatSocietythanthefourhorsemenofartificialbirthcontrol,
abortion,sterilizationandeuthanasia...Thisisthephilosophyofdefeatismanddespair.

AccordingtoBall,thebishopshadahistoricopportunityinthefallof

1965.Butlargelyasaresultofthefoot-draggingoftheNCWClegalstaff,the
wintermonthspassedandtheChurchhas“takenanhistoricnon-step.”ByMay
of1966,Ballfeltthat“manywilllookbackwithhorroruponwhatcanonlybe
describedasanhistoricdefault.”EspeciallygallingwasthefactthattheNCWC
wasfleeingfromaverybeatableopponent,from“alegionofkapokdragons,”as
heputitinalettertoKrol.IftheChurchwereabletopresentthecasethat
governmentbirthcontrolcreatedathreattotherightofprivacy,Ballfeltthata
largesegmentofpublicopinionmightbewonover.ButBallfoundhimselfmore
oftenthannotengagedinaone-mancampaign,whiletheNCWCwasclaiming
thatitwasabsurdtofeargovernment’sinvolvementinthebirth-controlissue.
Thisfaction,Ballcomplained,wassofearfulof“imposingCatholicmorality”
onothers,thattheywereopeningthedoortoabortion,sterilization,andracial

CHAPTERSEVEN

TheGateOpensfromWithin

PortraitofaDissembler:Fr.RichardMcBrien

Inthe1960sFr.CharlesCurranwastheMaginotLineofdissentinthiscountry.
LikeHansKuengbeforehim,hetookafixedpositionandstayedwithittothe
end.NeitherCurrannorKuengwerewillingtomakeanydoctrinalconcessions
beforetheSacredCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith.Theirpositionwas
thattheywererightandtheChurchwaswrong,andtheywerewillingtostandby
thatfixedpositionuntiltheend,untiltheChurchhadnootheroptionbutto
declarethemnolongerCatholictheologians.

Fr.Curranwasonlywillingtocompromisewhenitcametodecidinghow

hewastobeemployedatCatholicUniversity.Hewaswillingtoacceptthe
compromiseworkedoutbyCardinalBernardin,wherebyhewouldcontinue
teachingmoraltheologybutnotcourseshavingtodowithsexuality—courses
hehadn’ttaughtforyears.Whenitcametothepossiblemorallicitnessof
sodomy,abortion,contraceptionandotherissues,heremainedasintransigentas
MartinLutherhadonotherissues.“Hiersteheich,ichkannnichtsanders”
couldhavebeenCurran’smotto,exceptthattheprofessorfromCatholicUwas
moreinterestedinsodomythanjustification.Oncehetookastandforthe
licitnessofsodomy—undercertainnuancedcircumstances,ofcourse—
CardinalRatzinger’sjobwasmadeeasy.

That’swhatmadetheCurranaffairsuchaneat,clear-cutcase.Curran

admitted,ineffect,thatwhathewaspreachingwasnottheteachingofthe
Church.Oncehedidthathebecameastationarytarget;oncehehadbecomethe
MaginotLineofdissent,hewaseasilyoutmaneuvered.Hismistake,ifyouwant
tolookatitthatway,wasthathedefinedhispositiontooclearly.Hehad,in
effect,learnednothingfromtheguerillawarsofthe20thcenturyandnothing
fromtheguerillawarfarethathasbeengoingonintheChurchsincetheendof
theSecondVaticanCouncil.Inasense,hewasmadeobsoletebytheveryforces
hehadhelpedsetintomotion.

Butlet’sforonemomentsupposehehadtakenadifferentcourse.Suppose

hehadexpressedawillingnesstochangehiswritingsinfutureeditionswith
evenmorenuancedclarificationsthatwouldseeminglyremoveanything
objectionablefromthepointofviewofCatholicmorality.Suppose,totakethis
lineofspeculationonestepfurther,thathehadbeensmartenoughtodothisearly

onsothathehadnevergottenintoaconflictwithsomeoneascleverand
intractableasCardinalRatzinger.Supposehehadinsteadmaneuveredhimself
intoapositionwherehewasbeinginvestigatedbytheAmericanbishopsinstead
oftheVatican.SinceAmericanbishopscanneverdoanythingontheirown,he
wouldhavebeeninvestigatedbyacommitteeappointedbytheNational
ConferenceofCatholicBishops,andsincecommitteesinvariablyproduce
documentsthatreflectthelowestcommondenominatorofthoughtonagiven
issue,itisconceivablethat...

RatherthanspeculateanyfurtheraboutwhatmighthavehappenedtoFr.

Curran,itwouldbebettertofocusonasimilarcasethatactuallydidhappen.
ThecaseI’mreferringtodealtwiththelateFr.RichardMcBrien.OnJuly5,
1985,theCommitteeonDoctrineoftheNationalConferenceofCatholic
BishopsissuedastatementonFr.McBrien’sbookCatholicism.Thestudyhad
begunin1981andhadincludednumeroussessionswiththepriesthimselfand
“othertheologianswhomeitherheor[thebishops]havechosen.”Thereport
characterizedthewholeprocessas“apositiveeffortatexercisingwhatwe
believetobeamodelofcooperativeecclesialconcernfortheintegrityofthe
faith,thepastoralneedsofpeopleandthescholarlyreputationoftheauthor.”
Thecommitteewentontoaddthat“Fr.McBrienhascooperatedfully.Hehas
alreadymadeanumberofclarificationsintheStudyEditionandhasexpressed
hisreadinesstomakestillfartherchangesasneeded”[myemphasis].The
committeecalledattentiontochangesthathadbeenmadeintheStudyEdition
whileexpressingthe“hopethatsubsequenteditionswillincorporatethe
clarificationsnecessarytoremoveanyremainingambiguitiesintheexpression
ofCatholicteaching.”

InapassagethatwouldbecomerelevanttotheCurrancaselessthana

yearlater,thecommitteetookpainstoreassertthecompetenceofthe
Magisterium,eveninareaswheredoctrinehadnotbeensolemnlyproclaimed.
Thecommitteethenwentontostateexplicitlythefollowingpoints—points,we
aretold,“withwhichFr.McBrienagrees”:

InadditiontothosedoctrineswhichhavebeentaughtbytheMagisteriumoftheChurchin
theextraordinarywayofinfallibledefinition,theordinaryteachingofthePopeandthe
bishopsinunionwithhimpreservesmanyrevealedtruthswhichhaveneverbeensolemnly
definedbutwhich,nevertheless,areinfalliblytrueanddefinable.Thesearetruthswith
cannotberejectedorneglectedwithoutinjurytotheintegrityoftheCatholicfaith,because
theyareeitherexplicitlycontainedinHolyScriptureor,althoughonlyimplicitinSacred
Scripture,theyhavebeentaughtuniversallyandcontinuously,areprofessedintheliturgy,
andarebelievedandwitnessedbythefaithfulasdivinelyrevealed.Intheareaofmoral
doctrine,somehavecalledattentiontoatheoreticalpossibilityoferrorinsomeChurch
teaching.TheChurchdoesindeedenjoyinfallibilityinitsordinaryanduniversalteaching
(LumenGentium25;Canon749[1983Code]).Butevenwhenateachingmaynotbe

infalliblyproposed,itenjoysmoralcertainty;and,consequently,hasanormativeroleinthe
formationofChristianconscience.Themoralinstructionofthefaithfulshouldcarefully
andeffectivelyexplaintheauthoritativenatureofChurchteachingandthereasonsforthis
teaching.Thisinstructionshouldnotleavetheteachingdefenselessbeforeobjections
whichotherwisemayreceivegreaterplausibilitybecauseoftheirconformitytosecular
attitudes.

InhisfinalresponsetoFr.Curran’sclaimthathewasonlydissentingfrom

“non-infallibleteaching,”CardinalRatzingerwouldtakevirtuallythesame
position.“Yourbasicassertion,”RatzingerwroteinaletterdatedJuly25,1986,
andaddressedtoFr.Curran,

hasbeenthatsinceyourpositionsareconvincingtoyouanddivergeonlyfromthe“non-
infallible”teachingoftheChurch,theyconstitute“responsible”dissentandshould
thereforebeallowedbytheChurch.Inthisregard,thefollowingconsiderationsseemtobe
inorder.

Firstofall,onemustremembertheteachingoftheSecondVaticanCouncilwhichclearly
doesnotconfinetheinfalliblemagisteriumpurelytomattersoffaithnortosolemn
definition.LumenGentium25states:“When,however,they[thebishops],eventhough
spreadthroughouttheworld,butstillmaintainingthebondofcommunionbetween
themselvesandwiththesuccessorofPeter,andauthenticallyteachingonmattersoffaith
ormorals,areinagreementthataparticularpositionoughttobeheldasdefinitive,then
theyareteachingthedoctrineofChristinaninfalliblemanner.”Besidesthis,theChurch
doesnotbuilditslifeuponitsinfalliblemagisteriumalonebutontheteachingofits
authentic,ordinarymagisteriumaswell.

LessthanoneyearbeforetheCurranaffairwastomakeheadlines,

McBrienwasonrecordinthestatementoftheCommitteeonDoctrineofthe
NationalConferenceofCatholicBishopsasacceptingCardinalRatzinger’s
position.However,oncethecasecamebeforethepubliceye,McBrientook
exactlytheoppositeposition.InanarticleintheObserver,theNotreDame
studentnewspaper,McBriensaidtheVatican“Overplayeditshand.”“McBrien
alsosaid,”thearticlecontinues,“thatnoneofCurran’sdissentingpositions,
includingdisagreementwiththeChurchonartificialbirthcontrol,involve
‘infallible’Churchteachingandarethereforeopentodissent.”

InoneofhisweeklycolumnswhichappearedonApril25,1986,entitled

“Catholicismàlacartehasever-changingmenu,”Fr.McBriencriticized“right-
wingpracticingCatholics”and“left-wingformerCatholics”because“both
believethatthereisadefinable,clear-cutsetofrulesbywhichallCatholics
mustlive.”Tobothofthesegroupsofextremistsheofferedthealternativeof
“Catholicismàlacarte,”practicedby“liberal-to-moderateCatholics”who
decidewhichoftheChurch’srulestheyintendtofollow.McBrienmockingly
demandedacopyofthesetofrules,thebreakingofwhichmakesoneaselective
Catholic:

Butwhatexactlyaretheserules?Apartiallistwillnotsuffice.Weneedthecompletelist.
IfbreakingonlyonerulemakesoneaselectiveCatholic,thenwehavetoknowevery

rule.Otherwise,wemightbedeceivedintothinkingthatsomeoneisreallya“good
Catholic”becausetheykeeptwentythreerulesweallagreeupon,when,infact,theyare
breakingsomeotherruleswerenottakingintoaccount.Sotheorderofbusinessisto
locatethesetofrules.Whereisit?Whatrulesdoesitactuallycontain?

InhisinterviewwithVittorioMessori,publishedasTheRatzingerReport

(1985),CardinalRatzingermentionedthistypeoflegalismastypicalofwhathe
called“bourgeois”Christianity.Whencommitmenttothefaithdies,allthatis
leftistheburdenof“rules”andtheroleofthecompassionatetheologianistoget
peopleoutfromunderneaththisburden.“InaworldliketheWest,”Ratzinger
says,“wheremoneyandwealtharethemeasureofallthingsandwherethe
modelofthefreemarketimposesitsimplacablelawsoneveryaspectoflife,
authenticCatholicethicsnowappearstomanylikeanalienbodyfromtimeslong
past,asakindofmeteoritewhichisinopposition,notonlytotheconcretehabits
oflife,butalsotothewayofthinkingunderlyingthem.Economicliberalism
createsitsexactcounterpart,permissivism,onthemoralplane.”Accordingly,“it
becomesdifficult,ifnotaltogetherimpossible,topresentCatholicmoralityas
reasonable.Itistoodistantfromwhatisconsideredtobeobvious,asnormalby
themajorityofpersons,conditionedbythedominantculturewithwhichnota
few‘Catholic’moralistshavealignedthemselvesasinfluentialsupporters.”

AsifdeterminedtofulfillCardinalRatzinger’sprophecies,Fr.McBrien

usedmetaphorsfortheChurchthatrevealhisecclesiologyassimplyavaliant
formofconsumerism:

Liberal-to-moderateCatholicswhodon’torderthe“completedinner”arealsoaccusedof
beinglessthanfullyrespectfultowardthewaiters(read:thebishops),theheadchef(read:
thePope),andeventhefoundingowner(read:theLordhimself).Theydon’talways
accepttherecommendationofthewaiterandtheysometimesevensendthemealbackto
thekitchen.Andyettheywilllavishpraiseontheheadchefwhenheservessomething
theylike,andtheyleavebigtipsforthewaiterwhenthathappens.

ButthecrucialissueisnotthatFr.McBrienequatedmembershipinthe

Churchwithorderingamealatarestaurant:itiswhetherheacceptsLumen
Gentium25.Theanswer,itwouldseem,isthatitdependsonwhoisaskingthe
question.WhenFr.McBrienwasunderinvestigationbythebishops,heaccepted
it;whenhewasclearedandwasnolongerunderinvestigation,hedidnot.

Actuallyhispositionwasevenmore“nuanced”thanthat.Inaninterview,I

onceaskedhimaboutthisdiscrepancyinhispublicutterances.

“DoyouagreewithLumenGentium25?Catholicsmustdisplaya‘loyal

submissionofthewillandintellect’to‘theauthenticteachingauthorityofthe
Romanpontiffevenwhenhedoesnotspeakexcathedra.’”

“Sure,”Fr.McBrienresponded.

“Well,isn’tthattheheartofwhattheCurrancaseisallabout?Yousaidat

acertainpointthatnoneofCurran’sdissentingpositions,includingdisagreeing
withtheChurchonartificialbirthcontrol,involveinfallibleChurchteachingand
thereforeareopentodissent.”

“Right.”

“Well,doesn’tthatcontradictLumenGentium25?

“Thattext,”answeredFr.McBrien,“isnottalkingabouttheologians.That

isatechnicaltext,andasamatteroffactthehistoryofthattext,ofarticle25,is
anindicationthattheywantedtorepeatsomethingfromHumaniGeneris,which
saidthatoncethepopehadspokentherecanbenofurtherdiscussion.Andthey
deliberatelydidnotincludethatinthefinaltext,soyouhavetounderstandthe
historyofthattext.That’sthewholepointthatI’vemadeintheseinterviews.The
roleofatheologianisnotthesameastheroleofaregularmemberofthe
Church.”

IfFr.McBrienwastryingtomakethatpointinhisinterviews,thereisno

indicationheattemptedtomakeitwhileunderinvestigationbythebishops’
committeeondoctrine.Infact,onetheologianonthecommitteecharacterized
himas“veryconciliatoryandverycompromising,willingtoworkwiththe
committee.”WhenIinformedthattheologianofthediscrepancybetween
McBrien’scurrentpositionon“thereligiousrespectofintellectandwill”called
forbybothLumenGentium25andCanon752,andthepositionhetookbefore
thebishops’committee,hecameupwithaverysimpleexplanation:“Itsounds
likedoubledealingtome,”hesaid.

JustwhattypeofpersonFr.McBrienishehimselfmakesclearinthebook

Journeys:TheImpactofPersonalExperienceonReligiousThought(1975),an
anthologyofautobiographieseditedbyGregoryBaumthatcouldserveasthe
Who’sWhoofdissentinthiscountry.PlacednexttotheravingsofRosemary
RadfordRuether(“IfeltIwasonmoresympathetictermswiththeBa’al
worshippers.IknewthatBa’alwasarealgod,therevelationofthemysteryof
life,theexpressionofthedepthsofBeingwhichhadbrokenthoughintothelives
ofpeopleandgavethemakeytothemysteryofdeathandrebirth...Ontheother
handYahwehhaddeplorablyviolentways,andalotofevilhadbeendoneinthe
nameofChrist...AsforthedefectsofBa’al,weretheymorespectacularthanthe
defectsofthebiblicalGodormessiah,orperhapslessso?”),Fr.McBrien’s
littlememoirseemstamebycomparison,butitisnolessrevealing,evenifthe
mainthingitrevealsisthatthepriestfromHartfordwantedtodrawaveilover
hisintentions.“Nobodylikestobefoundout,”hewrote,quotingErikErikson,

andmuchoftheireinthisotherwiseunexceptionalmemoirisdirectedatthose
whoblewhiscover.Afteradescriptionofhowsmoothlyhiscareerwasgoing,
McBriendescribedthetroubleshehadwhenhewasfoundoutintheearly‘70s,
when,asheputit,“mymorestrictlyecclesiasticalconnectionsbegantofrayat
theedges”:

TwoeventsinMarchof1972mayhavedonemoretoeffectthischangethananyother
factors.First,IkeynotedtheannualconventionoftheNationalFederationofPriests’
CouncilsinDenver.IwaspilloriedonthefrontpageofTheWandererformyassorted
heresies,andworse.Theconservative-to-reactionarywingoftheCatholicChurchwas
alertedtomypresenceinadramaticallynewway.Fromthatpointon,Iwasregularly
floggedintheirjournalsandpapers.Andtheirassortedpressures,nodoubt,havedeterred
severaldiocesesandreligiouscommunitiesfrominvitingmetolecture.Lawyerscallthisa
“chillingeffect.”

Thesecondeventwasmysigningofaninternationaltheologicalstatement,drafted
principallybyHansKueng,onthepresentstateofreformintheCatholicChurch.I
thoughtittobeanessentiallypositiveandconstructivedocument...Butitwasperceived
verydifferentlybyextremeconservatives,andevensomemoderates.

ShortlyafterHansKuenghadhiscanonicalmandatetoteachtheology

withdrawnbytheVatican,McBrieninvitedhimtoNotreDameandwelcomed
himthereasa“fellowCatholictheologian.”Yet,foralltheseexpressionsof
solidarity,theeffectivenessofMcBrien’sstrategydependedonhisabilityto
distancehimselffrompeoplelikeKuengandRosemaryRadfordRuetherwhile
pursuingtheirgoalsfromasafedistanceintherear.Anessentialpartofhis
strategywastocreatetheimpressionthathewasmiddle-of-the-road.Thereally
effectiverevolutionarywouldbecarefulnevertomovebeyondorevencloseto
anythingthatsmackedofextremism,untiltherewereenoughextremiststo
comfortablypopulatethemiddleoftheroad,thenhecouldadjusthisposition
accordingly—anothernotchtotheleft,butalwayssafelybehindthevanguard.
Hisgeniuswouldconsistinmakingyesterday’spreposterousdemandsseemlike
today’smoderation.

InaspeechtotheWomenintheChurchconferenceinWashingtonin

October1986,McBriendidjustthat.Hebeganhisspeech,ashesooftendid,by
describingwhathesawasthetwoextremesinthewomenandtheChurchissue.
OntheonehandwehavetheWomanchurchseparatists,andontheotherhandwe
havetheVatican,eventhoughhewentontoaddthat“theopponentsofsexual
equalityintheChurcharenotinthehierarchyortheclergyalone.”Fr.McBrien
neveractuallycameoutandadvocatedtheordinationofwomen.Heallowedthe
audiencetoinferthatfromhisleadingrhetoricalquestions:“Arewomen
excludedfromsignificantministriesintheChurch?”heroared,andtheeasily-
manipulatedfeministsroaredbackintheaffirmative.Moreimportantly,hegave
theimpressionthattheordinationofwomenwasnowamiddle-of-the-road

position.

Hewasalsoamanwholearnedhowtodealwiththevarious

constituenciesintheChurchinthemannerofaneffectivepolitician.Atapress
conferencefollowinghisspeechonwomenintheChurch,hesaidofabortion:“it
wouldbealoteasierformetogoaroundbeatinguponhomosexualsandwoman
havingabortions,becauseIcan’tfollowthoserulesanyway.I’mnota
homosexual,andI’mcertainlynotawoman.”Whenspeakingone-on-one,
however,toareporterfromtheNationalCatholicRegister,apaperhe
consideredasrepresenting“theCatholictraditionalistsofourday”(Journeys),
hetookastricterviewofthematter:“Abortionisaveryserioussin.It’san
attackuponinnocentlife.Inotherwords,Iagreewiththebishopsandtheir
wholeapproachtolifeissues.”Inhisspeechtothefeministsafewmoments
before,however,hetookaslightlydifferentviewofepiscopalauthority.He
criticizedlayCatholicswho“neverexplainwhythebishopshaveanyparticular
competenceinmattersofsexualethics[sustainedlaughterandapplause],
especiallyinmatterspertainingtomarriageandhomosexuality,forexample.”
[Morelaughterfromtheappreciativecrowd].

ItshouldcomeasnosurprisetofindthatFr.McBrienwasconcerned

aboutthestateofaffairsinCatholicacademebecause,giventhewaythings
went,hemovedfrombeinginthemiddleoftheroadtobeingonthefrontlines.It
wasachangemirroredinMcBrien’sownutterances.Atthebeginningofthe
Curranaffairheandtheotheranonymoustheologiansweretalkingasiftheir
pressure,coupledwiththehelpofsomeAmericanbishops,mightbringabout
compromise.WhenhopesforthatweredashedbyRatzinger’sobdurateness,a
newtackbegantoemergeinhiscolumns.Nowhewasbasicallyconceding
CatholicUtotheenemycamp.InhisspeechinWashingtononOctober16,1986
hereferredtoitas“whatwasthenknownastheCatholicUniversityof
America”tosustainedlaughterandapplausefromthefeministaudience.Ina
columnwhichappearedonSeptember11,1986,hedescribedtheaftermathof
Curran’sremovalinAugust.“Bythen,”hewrote,“theCatholictheological
communityintheUnitedStateshadalreadydiscountedtheoutcome,muchlike
[sic]WallStreetdiscountsanegativeeventweeksormonthsbeforeitactually
occurs.”

McBrien’snewstrategywastoemphasizethefactthatCatholicUwasa

pontifica1ly-chartereduniversityandtoclaimthatsimilarVaticanactionswould
havenoeffectatCatholicuniversitieslikeNotreDame,whereFr.McBrien
taught.InanarticleintheNotreDamestudentnewspaperdatedOctober8,1986,
weread:

TherecentVaticanremovalofaCatholicUniversitytheologian’steachingpostwouldbe
“legallyimpossible”atNotreDame,accordingtoFr.RichardMcBrien,chairmanofthe
theologydepartment.McBriensaidamovelikethebanagainstFr.CharlesCurran’s
teachingatCatholicUniversity,Washington,D.C.,couldnotberepeatedherebecause
NotreDameisindependentlyownedandoperatedunderalayboardoftrusteesand
subjecttostatelawandrulesofaccreditation.

CitingCatholicUniversity’slonestatusasaVaticancharteredAmerican

university,McBriensaidCurran’sremovalwaspartlymotivatedbyhis
“vulnerability”toVaticancontrol.“If(Curran)wereatNotreDame,they
couldn’thavegottenathim,”saidMcBrien.“Theycouldhavecondemnedhim,
theycouldhavecensored[sic]him,buthe’dstillbeteaching.”

“Well,you’resayingineffect,then,thatNotreDameisnotunderthe

controloftheVatican,”IsaidinaninterviewwithFr.McBrienafewdaysafter
hisstatementappearedinthestudentnewspaper.

“That’scorrect,”heanswered.“It’snotundertheircontrol,andwe’re

talkingnowintechnicalterms.It’snotunderthecontroloftheVaticaninthe
samewaythatCatholicUniversityinWashingtonis.”

“WhendidthisseparationfromRome’sauthoritytakeplace?”

“Idon’treallyknow.Fr.Hesburgh,Ithink,madereferencetoityesterday.”

InhisfinaladdresstothefacultyonOctober13,1986,Fr.Hesburghgave

alonghistoryoftheuniversityinwhichhenotedthat“In1967,byofficialaction
oftheCongregationoftheHolyCross,theperpetualsuccession[grantedbythe
IndianaStateLegislature]wasdecreedtoincludeamajorityoflaymenand
laywomenasTrusteesoftheUniversity,thisactiondulyrecordedbythe
SecretaryofStateofIndiana,”atwhichpointhedepartedfromhispreparedtext
andadded,“itwasapprovedbytheVaticanbyspecialdecree.Theymay
somedayregretthat.”Hisasidewasgreetedbygenerallaughterfromthe
assembledfacultymembers.

WhenIpressedhimforanexplicitformulationofthebreakfromRoman

authority,McBrienchangedhisposition.

“Itnevertookplace,”hesaidofthesplit.“TheUniversityofNotreDame

wasneverunderRome.”

“IsitaCatholicuniversity?”

“Yeah,”McBrienresponded,“butyoucan’tmaketheassumptionthatthe

onlywayyoucanmakeaCatholicuniversityistohaveaVaticancharter.”

Theassumption,however,wassolelyinMcBrien’smindandnotthatof

hisquestioner.Canon808ofthe1983CodeofCanonLawstatesexplicitly,“no
universitymaybearthetitleornameCatholicuniversitywithouttheconsentof

thecompetentecclesiasticalauthority.”Thecanonimmediatelyprecedingthat
one,Canon807,statesunequivocallythat“theChurchhastherighttoerectand
tosupervise[myemphasis]universitieswhichcontributetoahigherlevelof
humanculture,toafulleradvancementofthehumanpersonandalsotothe
fulfillmentoftheChurch’steachingoffice.”

Allofthisissaid,itshouldbenoted,underthechapterheading“Catholic

UniversitiesandOtherInstitutesofHigherStudies;”thenormsspecifically
covering“EcclesiasticalUniversitiesandFaculties,”institutionslikeCatholic
University,areenumeratedinthefollowingchapter.

TheLando’LakesStatement

Shortlyafterbeginninghispontificate,ashisfirstofficialdocument,PopeJohn
PaulIIissuedastatementonCatholichighereducationknownasSapientia
Christiana.Theprimacyofthedocumentinhispontificategivessomeindication
oftheimportancethepopeattachedtoit.Intheinterveningyearsmuchhas
happened,muchofitbeyondthekenofthosewhowerearoundin1978when
KarolWojtylabecamepope.Forthefirsttimeinanyone’smemoryanattempt
wasmadeonthepope’slife;theworldwidecommunistconspiracy
headquarteredintheSovietUnioncollapsed,rearrangingthepoliticallandscape
onehadbecomeaccustomedtoforalmosttheentirebreadthofthe20thcentury.
Butsomethingsjustdon’tchange,andthestateofCatholichighereducationis
oneofthem.OnJanuary30,1999,Revs.J.DonaldMonan,S.J.ofBoston
CollegeandEdwardA.Malloy,C.S.C.ofNotreDameUniversityannounced
thattheyhadrejectedthelatestattemptbytheVaticanandtheAmericanbishops
tobringCatholicuniversitiesinlinewiththeCodeofCanonLawpursuanttoEx
CordeEcclesiae,whichtheVaticanhadissuedin1990.Bytakingthisaction
MalloyandMonanandtheAssociationofCatholicCollegesandUniversities
putRomeonnoticethatitwasstill1978.ThepontificateofJohnPaulIImay
havebroughtdowntheSovietempire,butithadyettoreachfirstbaseindealing
withtheChurch’scollegesanduniversities,whichseemeddeterminedtopersist
intheirresistancetoChurchnorms.Duringthesummerof1995,atameetingof
theheadsofthosecollegesattheUniversityofNotreDame,theimpassewas
clear.ThepresidentssteppedtothemicrophoneonebyoneandaskedCardinal
PioLaghitochangetherequirementwherebybishopswouldcertifywhether
theologianswhotaughtatCatholiccollegeswereinfactCatholic.Whichmeant
changingthe1983CodeofCanonLaw,whichmeantdoingsomethingbeyond
CardinalLaghi’spower.Hence,theimpasse.

Thehistoryofthisconflictgoesbackto1967whenFr.Hesburgh,then

presidentoftheUniversityofNotreDame,placedtheuniversityunderalay

boardoftrustees,effectivelyremovingitfromChurchcontrol.Themanifesto
whichjustifiedthistransferofpropertyoutofChurchcontrolwasknownasthe
Lando’LakesStatementanditspecified,amongotherthings,that“theCatholic
universitymusthaveatrueautonomyandacademicfreedominthefaceof
authorityofwhateverkind,layorclerical,externaltotheacademiccommunity
itself.”Twenty-fiveyearsafterthatfact,IaskedCardinalKrolofPhiladelphia,
themanresponsiblefortherevisionoftheCodeofCanonLaw,howhe
understoodLando’Lakes,andKrolrepliedthatitwas“alienationofChurch
property.”Fr.Hesburgh,intheopinionofCardinalKrol,hadstolenNotreDame
fromtheChurch.

IhavealreadypointedouttheironiesinvolvedintheLando’Lakes

statement.AtthesametimethatFr.Hesburghwasobjectingtotheimpositionof
externalauthority“ofwhateverkind,layorclerical,”hewasgrovelingatthe
feetoftheRockefellersfortheirmoneyandwouldgrovelfurtherwhen
foundationmoneybecamefederalmoneyattheendofthe‘60s.Fr.Hesburgh
didn’tobjectto“externalauthority”whenthePopulationCouncilspecifiedwho
couldbeinvitedtothesecretconferencesitsponsoredoncontraceptionatNotre
Dameduringthemid-’60s,nordidheobjectwhenthePopulationCouncil
specifiedwhattheywereallowedtotalkabouteither.NeitherHesburghnorhis
assistantGeorgeShusterraisedapeepofprotestwhenthePopulationCouncil
specifiedwhichbooksweretobeplacedonthetablesorwhentheRockefeller
interestsspecifiedthatCatholicsofaconservativestripewerenottobeinvited
totheconference.Outsideauthoritymeantonethingandonethingonly,itmeant
Rome’sconcernthatNotreDamewasteachingtheCatholicfaith.Thisconcern
didnotapplytotheRockefellerinterests,whowereavidlyworkingto
underminetheCatholicChurch’steachingoncontraceptionandusingNotre
Dameasatooltodotheundermining.

TherehasbeenarunningbattlebetweenRomeandNotreDameeversince

theLando’Lakesstatementin1967.In1972,Romefinallygotaroundto
respondingtoLando’Lakesstatementbyissuingitsownstatement,“The
CatholicUniversityintheModernWorld,”whichaffirmedthat“toperformits
teachingandresearchfunctionseffectively,aCatholicuniversitymusthavetrue
autonomyandacademicfreedom”withoutexplainingjustwhat“trueautonomy
andacademicfreedom”meantandhowRome’sdefinitionmightdifferfromthat
ofFr.Hesburgh.

In1976,whentherevisionoftheCodeofCanonLawwasunderway,

discussionaboutthenatureoffreedomandautonomywassubsumedintothe
debateovertheeducationcanonsintheCode,specificallycanons810and812,

whichspecifiedrespectivelythatprofessorsmustexhibit“probityoflife”and
thattheologiansmustobtainamandatefromthebishop.In1976theNCEA
issuedadocumenton“RelationsofAmericanCatholicCollegesand
UniversitieswiththeChurch,”whichattemptedtobridgethegap,giving,of
course,prioritytoautonomyoveraffiliation.TheU.S.bishopsdidmuchthe
samethingin1980intheirpastoralletteronCatholicHigherEducationandthe
PastoralMissionoftheChurch.

Allofthesedocumentsandalotofpersonallobbying,however,didnot

preventthepromulgationoftheNewCodeofCanonLawin1983,acodewhich
retainedthecanonswhichweredisputedbytheAmericans.Asanexampleofthe
lobbyingjustprevioustotheadoptionoftheCode,Fr.HesburghflewtoRomea
numberoftimes.Inoneparticularlybizarreincident,HesburghaccostedJohn
CardinalKrolontheViaConciliazioneandtoldhimtodroptheeducation
canonsfromtheCode.Thecanons,needlesstosay,didnotgetdroppedand,asa
result,negotiationsreachedanimpasse.TheCodeistherockonwhichall
subsequentcompromisesfloundered.Thecollegeanduniversitypresidents
wouldnotbackdownfrominsistingoninstitutionalautonomywhileatthesame
timecallingthemselvesCatholicastheydefinedtheterm,andtheVaticanwould
not,infact,couldnot,budgeonitspointsbecausetheyhadbeenwrittenintothe
lawoftheChurch.

In1985Romeissuedits“SchemaonHigherEducation,”thefirstdraftof

thedocumentwhichPopeJohnPaulIIwouldissueonAugust15,1990underthe
nameExCordeEcclesia,promptingFr.HesburghtotakeapagefromBernard
Shaw,whoclaimedthataCatholicuniversitywasacontradictioninterms,and
say,“TheterribledilemmaisthatthebestCatholicuniversitiesarebeingasked
tochoosebetweenbeingrealuniversitiesandbeingreallyCatholic,Whenin
facttheyarealreadyboth.”Orneither,perhaps.OnNovember29,1993the
presidentsofthefourteenlargestCatholicuniversitiesissuedaletterinwhich
theyannouncedthat:

theseinstitutionswiththeirtraditionsoffreedomandinstitutionalautonomy,withlimited
assistancefromtheStateandwithoutjuridicalcontrolofthelocalbishopshavewonfor
themselvesadistinguishedplaceamongpeerinstitutionsineducatingstudentswiththe
deepenedunderstandingandpracticeoftheirCatholicfaith.

TheirapodicticstatementcontradictedtheexperienceofCatholicparents

whosenttheirchildrentoCatholiccollegesatgreatfinancialsacrifice
oftentimesonlytowatchtheirchildrenlosetheCatholicfaithbythetimeof
graduation.

CHAPTEREIGHT

TheChurchandtheNewAmericanism

AmericaastheModeloftheModernState

InanaddresstotheCuriaonDecember22,2005tocommemoratethe40th
anniversaryofendoftheSecondVaticanCouncil,PopeBenedictXVIclaimed
that“theCouncilhadtofindanewdefinitionoftherelationshipbetweenthe
Churchandthemodernage.”

AccordingtoPopeBenedict,

thisrelationshipstartedoutdifficultlywiththeGalileotrial.Itbrokecompletely,whenKant
defined“religionwithinpurereason”andwhen,intheradicalphaseoftheFrench
Revolution,animageofthestateandofmanwasspreadthatpracticallyintendedto
crowdouttheChurchandfaith.TheclashoftheChurch’sfaithwitharadicalliberalism
andalsowithnaturalsciencesthatclaimedtoembrace,withitsknowledge,thetotalityof
realitytoitsoutmostborders,stubbornlysettingitselftomakethe“hypothesisofGod”
superfluous,hadprovokedinthe19thcenturyunderPiusIX,onthepartoftheChurch,a
harshandradicalcondemnationofthisspiritofthemodernage.Thus,therewere
apparentlynogroundsforanypositiveandfruitfulagreement,anddrasticwerealsothe
refusalsonthepartofthosewhofelttheyweretherepresentativesofthemodernage.

PopeBenedictsaidthattheexampleoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawas

thekeythatallowedVaticanIItoreconciletheChurchandmodernity.Atthetime
thattheVaticanCouncilwasconvened,PopeBenedictcontinued:

ItwasbecomingclearthattheAmericanRevolutionhadofferedamodelofthemodern
statethatwasdifferentfromthattheorizedbytheradicaltendenciesthathademerged
fromthesecondphaseoftheFrenchRevolution.

AmericabecamethetacitmodeluponwhichDignitatisHumanae,the

Vaticandocumentonreligiousfreedom,wasbased.UnmentionedinPope
Benedict’stalkwastheconnectionbetweenthisideaofAmericaasthe“model
ofthe[benign]modernstate”andthewritingsofFr.JohnCourtneyMurray.

HenryLuce,theCIA,andFatherMurray

Asof1960itlookedasifAmericahadmadethesuccessfultransitionfroma
Puritan/EnlightenmentregimerunbyProtestantstoonerunbyCatholics.Aswe
haveseen,onJuly4,1962,theyeartheCouncilopened,thosewhoattendedthe
IndependenceDaycelebrationinPhiladelphiacouldlistentospeechesfroma
Catholicmayor,aCatholicgovernorandaCatholicpresident,afteran
invocationbyJohnCardinalKrol,oneoftheVaticanCouncil’schief
administrators.

ItlookedasifPaulBlanshard’snightmarehadbecomeareality—

AmericahadbecomeaCatholiccountry.Butlookscanbedeceiving.Fr.John
CourtneyMurraylandedonthecoverofTimemagazinejustastheCouncilwas
openingbecausehewasaprotégéofHenryLuce,who,asheadofTime/Life,had
closelinkstotheCIAandwas,ineffect,PropagandaMinisterfortheAmerican
Empire,thenknownasthe“freeworld.”

In1953theCIAlauncheditsdoctrinalwarfareprogramagainstthe

CatholicChurch.TheprogramwascreatedbyaGeorgetownUniversity
professor,EdwardLily,butitsmainimplementerswereHenryLuce,publisher
andfounderofTimemagazine,JohnCourtneyMurray,theJesuitwhoadvised
LuceonCatholicmatters,andC.D.Jackson,theCIAagentwhowastheCIA’s
liaisonwiththeTime/Lifepublishingempire.

Jacksonrealizedtheyneededabasicnarrativetoguideevents,so

throughoutthe1950sheandLucehadusedthepagesofTimetoproducethat
narrative.TheyhadcastMurrayasthesufferingservant,aprogressivevictimof
thebackward-lookingandtraditionalistRomanCuria,ledbyCardinalOttaviani.
AnyonewhodefendedOttaviani,suchasMsgr.JosephCliffordFentonandFr.
FrancisJ.Connell,bothofwhomtaughtattheCatholicUniversityofAmerica,
wereignoredorportrayedashard-headedandbackwardthinking.Time
portrayedJohnXXIIIasanessentiallyAmericanistPope.JacksonandLuce
createdtheexpectationthatbigchangeswerecomingfromtheCatholicChurch.

Lucehadarrangedtohavehiswife,thefamousCatholicconvertand

protégéofBishopFultonSheen,ClaireBootheLuce,becomeambassadorto
Italyinthe‘50ssothathecouldkeeptabsontheChurchinwhatwasturningout
tobeacrucialbattlefieldwithCommunism.NeitherHenry,whonever
converted,norhiswife,werehappywiththeChurchasanallyinthecrusade
againstCommunism.TheoperatingsystemfortheAmericanEmpirewasknown
asCapitalism,andCatholics(especiallyItalianCatholics)werenotoriously
squishywentitcametosupportingCapitalism.AmintoreFanfani,oneofthe
pillarsofthepro-AmericanChristianDemocraticPartyinthe‘50s,hadeven
claimedinthe‘30sthatCatholicismandCapitalismwereincompatiblein
Protestantism,CatholicismandCapitalism(1935),whichhewroteinthewake
ofthestockmarketcrashandthepublicationoftheencyclicalQuadragesimo
Anno,theChurch’sattempttodealwiththeeconomiccrisis.

Beginningin1963,Murray,Luce,andJacksonusedtheCIA’sdoctrinal

warfareprogramtodisrupttheSecondVaticanCouncilandturnitintowhat
PopeBenedictXVIwouldlatercall“theCounciloftheMedia.”Church
documents,nomatterwhattheyactuallysaid,weretransformedbybeing
refractedthroughthelensofTimemagazinearticles.Murraycontinuedthis

psychologicalwarfarecampaignbywritingthenotestotheAbbottedition
translationofDignitatisHumanae.Thosenotesgavetheimpressionthatthe
CatholicChurchnowacceptedtheAmericanversionofreligiouslibertyandthe
separationofchurchandstate.

WiththehelpofFr.Murray,whohadbecomeintoxicatedbyhisproximity

topowerandtheLSDhetookwithClaire,LuceandtheCIAsetouttoengagein
thesocialengineeringoftheCatholicChurchviatheirmeddlingintheVatican
Council.Ex-JesuitseminarianRobertBlairKaisergothiredasTime’sVaticanII
correspondent,andTimeconfectedacouncilofitsownmaking.Inhisroleas
Timemagazine’sVaticanIIcorrespondent,KaisercameincontactwithMalachi
Martin,stillanotherJesuit,whowasworkinginthepayoftheB’naiB’rithand
theAmericanJewishCommitteetoinfluencetheoutcomeoftheCouncil.The
storiesofKaiserandMartinhavebeentoldinmyTheJewishRevolutionary
SpiritanditsImpactonWorldHistory(2008).TheMurraystoryisdealtwith
indetailinDavidWemhoff’sJohnCourtneyMurray,Time/Life,andthe
AmericanProposition:HowtheCIA’sDoctrinalWarfareProgramChangedthe
CatholicChurch(2015).Takentogetherthesetwoaccountscontextualizethe
spiritoftheCouncil,whichwentontohaunttheCatholicChurchfortherestof
thecentury.

JohnCourtneyMurrayandReligiousFreedom

TheChurchhasfailedconsistentlybecauseforthepastfiftyyearsshehasbeen
intellectuallycrippledbyasetofbadideasthatinsuresfailure.Themainbad
ideaattheheartofthisproblemisreligiousfreedom.Thearchitectofthatbad
ideawasJohnCourtneyMurray.

EveryoneknewthatJohnCourtneyMurrayhadsomethingtodowiththe

re-definitionoftheCatholicpositiononreligiousfreedom.Everyoneknewthat
hewrotethenotesfortheAbbotteditionofDignitatisHumanae,notesthat
fundamentallydistortedthemeaningofthatdocument.Murray’snotes
emphasizedthevalueoftheFirstAmendmentandimmunityfromcoercion.His
commentsomittedthepassagesfromDignitatisHumanaethatMsgr.Fenton,
editoroftheAmericanEcclesiasticalReview,believedsavedthedocument
fromheresy,namely,thattheDeclaration“leavesuntouchedtraditionalCatholic
doctrineonthemoraldutyofmenandsocietiestowardthetruereligionand
towardtheoneChurchofChrist.”Healsoleftoutofhiscommentariesany
mentionoftheplaceofthedivinelawintheconscienceofaCatholicandinthe
conscienceofmen.FaithfultohisAmericanhandlers,Murray’scomments
gesturedtowardsSovietCommunismastheonlytruethreattotheliberty
advancedbytheAmericanProposition.

WhatnooneknewuntilthepublicationofDavidWemhoff’sbookisthe

extentofMurray’scollaborationwithHenryLuce,Time/Life,andtheCIAin
cripplingtheCatholicChurchbyimposingonitafalseunderstandingof
religiousliberty.

By1967—theyearHenryLucedied—Murray’sdeliberatelydistorted

interpretationofDignitatisHumanaehadbecomethenormamongAmerican
bishops.IndescribingtheEnglisharistocracywhowerebentonlootingChurch
propertyinthe16

century,R.H.Tawneywrotethatthey“hadtheirteethinthe

carcassandweren’tgoingtobewhippedoffbyasermon”(Religionandthe
RiseofCapitalism[1926]).ThecabalofCEOsandtheirhomosexuallackeys
nowhavetheirteethinthecarcassoftheAmericanrepublic,andtheyaren’t
“goingtobewhippedoffbyasermon”onreligiousliberty.

TheAmericanbishopsandanyoneelsewhothinksthatmarriageshouldbe

betweenamanandawomanneedtoknowthesourceofthebadideathathas
crippledtheChurchforthepastfiftyyears.ThesourceofthatbadideaisJohn
CourtneyMurray,S.J.,whoconfectedhisdistortednotionofreligiouslibertyin
collaborationwithHenryLuce,headoftheTime/Lifeempire,andtheCIA’s
doctrinalwarfareprogram.DavidWemhoff’sbookgivesadetailedexplanation
ofhowHenryLucecoordinatedeffortsoftheCIA,theTime/Lifeempire,and
JohnCourtneyMurraywithhisalliesatthehighestlevelsoftheCatholicChurch,
tochangethedoctrineoftheCatholicChurchontherelationshipbetweenchurch
andstate.Thisstrugglebeganinearnestin1948andreacheditsculminationat
theSecondVaticanCouncilwiththepromulgationofthedocument,Dignitatis
Humanae,knownastheDeclarationonReligiousLiberty.Catholicdoctrinedid
notchange.DefeatedattheCouncil,theAmericanistsusedtheirmediapowerto
winthebattleoverwhogottointerprettheCouncilwithdisastrous
consequencesforboththeChurchandtheworld.AsRobertBlairKaiser,Time’s
RomecorrespondentduringtheSecondVaticanCouncilputit:“Timetooksides.
Timereporterswerereportersaswellasparticipant-observerstoinfluencethe
schemas[ofVaticanII]...Murraywasamysteryman...Murraywasamemberof
aconspiracy.”

In1967theNewYorkTimesrevealedthelong-establishedlinksbetween

theLuceempireandtheCIA.ItrevealedtheCIA’sinvolvementincreating
culturalandreligiousfrontorganizationstoadvanceAmericanforeignpolicy.
Thesefrontgroupsattimesmasqueradedasrepresentingthevoicesofconcerned
citizens.LuceandMurraywereprimemoversintheAmericandoctrinalwarfare
programmeanttomaketheCatholicChurchmoredociletotheneedsofthe
AmericanEmpire.WithMurrayasthesalesman,Lucewasabletocreatethe

publicitycampaignthatwouldmaketheclaimthatthe“Americanpropositionis
quitecongenialtotheCatholicreality”(Wemhoff).

Murray’sdistortionofDignitatisHumanaewasevenmoredevastatingfor

Europe,wheremanynationshadgrantedtheCatholicChurchspecialstatusas
theestablishedreligion.In1975Francodied.AfterhisdeaththeCIA’sdoctrinal
warfareprogram,basedonMurray’sinterpretationofDignitatisHumanae,was
usedtodestroythemoralandsocialorderinSpain.

BecausethemajoritywithintheChurchandtheCatholicintelligentsiahad

naivelyadoptedtheessentialsoftheAmericanProposition,Spainwasultimately
defenselessagainsttheculturalonslaughtthatoccurredonceeconomic
liberalismintheformoftheHarvardBusinessmodelanditsphilosophical
corollariesinvadedtheculture.TheCatholicsinSpainfailedtounderstandthe
consequencesofembracingMurray’slibertarianism,andthekindofplutocratic
controlthatwentalongwithit.Theyfailedtorealize,forexample,thatMurray’s
understandingofmodernmanwasverymuchconditionedbyhisown
conversationswiththeLucesandGeraldHeard,agroupofoligarchic
representativeswhothemselvesheldtoanevolutionaryanddrug-induced
understandingofhumanconsciousness.Theyfailedtoseethatembracingthe
libertarianphilosophyfortheeconomicandpoliticalordereventuallyledto
acceptinglibertarianismwithrespecttotheentiresocialorder.Scripturesteach
usthatpartoflifeisthewaragainstthepassions,andlibertarianismrejectsthat
war.

Msgr.FentonandFr.ConnellhadpredictedthatanyCatholicsocietythat

embracedtheAmericanPropositionwouldsoonfindtheChurchdisappearingin
thatsociety,becausetheteachingonreligiousfreedomwasaportalthrough
whichAmericanagentscouldentertheChurchandthestatetosubvertthesocial
order,andtomakethatnationmoresusceptibletotheoligarchswaitingtotakeit
over.Thatsociety,Msgr.Fentonthought,wouldfinditselfincapableof
defendingthemoralorderintheareaofmarriage,letaloneahostofotherareas
ofsociallife.Everythingwouldbecomesubjecttothewilloftheoligarchs,
dependentonhowtheywantedtoexerttheirinfluence.

SpainisaclassicinstanceofwhathappenswhenaCatholiccountry

acceptstheAmericanPropositiondisguisedasDignitatisHumanae.In
November,2010,PopeBenedictXVItraveledtoaSpainthathadlegalized
homosexualmarriage,introducedfast-trackdivorce,andmadeabortionlegal
andavailable.InwhatwasformerlyaCatholiccountry,only13percentofthe
faithfulattendedMassweeklywhile56percentneverattendedMass.ThePope
wastreatedtoa“kissin”bymorethan100homosexualsinBarcelona.Asthe

commentatorsnoted,thiswasquiteachangefromtheFrancoera,whichended
35yearsearlier.Socialcollapsewasaccompaniedbyeconomiccollapsewith
unemploymentconsistentlyremainingover25percent.Asifthatweren’tbad
enough,theSpanishembraceofAmericaneconomiclibertarianismhaddone
littletoimprovetheinequalitiesinSpain,whichhavegrownlargerinrecent
years.

ThischangetookplaceintheaftermathoftheSecondVaticanCounciland

canbeseenbestintheconstitutionthatSpainadoptedin1975afterthedeathof
GeneralissimoFranciscoFranco.AsDavidWemhoffputsit,theSpanishforeign
ministerpersonallydeliveredaletterfromFrancotoPopePaulVIcomplaining
oftheliberalization(i.e.,Americanization)oftheclergyandthenegativeimpact
itwashavingonSpain.Thepleahadnoeffect.Instead,theSpanishhierarchy
issuedadocumentthatfavoreddemocraticpluralism.Agroupofpriestsand
laityformedagroupcalledChristiansforSocialism.BishopAntonioAnoveros
ofBilbaoofficiallyexcommunicatedapolicemanwhobeatanactivistpriest.
DetainedpriestscausedaprisonriotinZamorathatresultedindestructionof
furnitureandfixtureswhilegarneringecclesiasticalsupportaroundthecountry.
“ItwasconceptuallyextremelydifficultfortheleadersoftheSpanishregimein
theiroldagetograspthattheChurchnolongerthoughtinsuchtraditionalterms,
andtheverylastyearsoftheirlivesweretothisextentatimeofbewilderment.”
WithoutthesupportoftheChurch,Franco’sregimecouldnotreproduceitself,
andthestatehesavedduringthe1930swouldnotliveonmuchbeyondhisdeath.
Inhisfarewellmessagebroadcasttothenationshortlybeforehisdeathin
November1975,FranciscoFrancoexhortedhisfellowSpaniards:“whenthe
hourcomesformetosurrendermylifebeforetheMostHighandappearbefore
Hisimplacablejudgment,IpraythatGodmayreceivemegraciouslyinHis
presence,forIsoughtalwaystoliveanddieasaCatholic…Donotforgetthat
theenemiesofSpainandofChristiancivilizationarealert.”

ThenewSpanishconstitutionabandonedtheconfessionalstate:

TheCortesGeneralesinPlenaryMeetingsoftheCongressofDeputiesandtheSenate
ratifiedthenewSpanishConstitutiononOctober31,1978.ThepeopleofSpainratifiedthe
ConstitutioninareferendumonDecember7,1978,andKingJuanCarlosIsanctionedthe
SpanishConstitutiononDecember27ofthatsameyear.Thenewconstitutionwasa
byproductofVaticanII,guaranteeingamongotherthingsthat“ThereshallbenoState
religion.ThepublicauthoritiesshalltakethereligiousbeliefsofSpanishsocietyinto
accountandshallconsequentlymaintainappropriatecooperationwiththeCatholicChurch
andtheotherconfessions.”SpainadoptedaConstitutionbasedontheAmericanviewof
ChurchandStaterelations,withaheavydoseofAmericanstylereligiousliberty.
Liberalism,ortheAmericanideology,becamethebasisoftheConstitutionwhichelevated
theprimacyoftheindividual.TheDivinePositiveLawofChristwouldbetaken“into
account”butwouldnotbethebasisofSpanishlaw.

TheimageofAmericaasthebenignEnlightenmentstatewasapowerful

illusioncraftedbyJohnCourtneyMurrayincollaborationwiththeLuceempire
andtheCIA,andthisillusiongaveyoungperitilikeJosephRatzingerthehope
thattheChurchcouldfindamodusvivendiwithmodernity.

VaticanIIwasalegitimateexerciseoftheMagisteriumoftheCatholic

Church.Forthreeyearstheworld’sbishopsporedoverproposalspreparedby
bothsaintsandsubvertersandhammeredoutdocumentswhichdidnotcontradict
theCatholicfaith.TheHolySpiritsawtothat.WhattheHolySpiritdidnot
condonewasthedefactoadoptionbytheChurchofthenotionthatAmericawas
theidealstate.ThisalliancebeganafterWorldWarIIandwasknownasthe
anti-CommunistCrusade.ItsufferedamomentarydivorcewhenPaulVIinitiated
hisversionofOstpolitikandsentFr.DraganovicbacktoZagreb.Thenthe
estrangedloversreunitedmorepassionatelywhenKarolWojtylabecamepope
andtheanti-Communistcrusadeenteredintoitsfinalmostsuccessfulphase
duringhispontificate.

BecauseofrolewhichTimemagazineplayedininterpretingVaticanII,

especiallytheDecreeonReligiousLiberty(DignitatisHumanae),theCatholic
Churchbecameinextricablyweddedtoapoliticalagenda.ItwasanAmerican
politicalagendabecauseAmericawastheparadigmuponwhichDignitatis
Humanaewasbased.ThisisessentiallywhatGeorgeWeigelmeantwhenhe
saidthatPopeBenedictXVIwastryingtopreservemodernity.Modernityfor
bothmenmeantDignitatisHumanae,andDignitatisHumanaemeansultimately
Americaistheparadigmaticstate.Soaccordingtothecunningofhistory,the
Churchinvolveditselfinsupportofoneparticularregime(namely,thebenign
EnlightenmentstateknownasAmerica)inthenameofextricatingitselffromthe
historicalentanglementsofthepast,whereitidentifiedwithanotherparticular
regime(theancienrégimeinFrance,theRomanEmpire,theJewishethnos,
etc.).AstheFrenchsay,“Plusçachange,plusc’estlamêmechose.”

Nineteensixty-five,theyearinwhichtheSecondVaticanCouncilended,

wasalsotheyearinwhichtheCatholicChurchabandonedthetraditional
teachingontherelationshipbetweenchurchandstate.Insteadofclaiming,as
PopeLeoXIIIhad,thattheChurchwastothestatewhatthesoulwastothe
body,theChurchnowacceptedtheAmericanseparationofchurchandstateas
something,notjusttobetolerated,butsomethinggoodinitself.

TheresultsofthisdecisionhavebeendisastrousforboththeChurchand

theworld.TheCatholicChurchhaslosteverybattleintheculturewarsforfifty
yearsnow.BeginningwiththecollapseoftheLegionofDecencyandthe
Griswoldv.Connecticutdecisiondecriminalizingthesaleofcontraceptives,the

Churchhassufferedonedefeatafteranother,culminatingintherecentObergefell
decisionstrikingdowneverylawwhichspecifiedthatmarriagehadtobe
betweenamanandawoman.

It’snotasiftheChurchhasn’ttried.TheManhattanDeclarationisagood

caseinpoint.LaunchedinSeptember2009attheMetropolitanClubtomuch
mediafanfare,theManhattanDeclarationwasthebrainchildofPrinceton
ProfessorRobertGeorge,incollaborationwith“conservativeevangelicalslike
theborn-againWatergatefelonChuckColson,”MetropolitanJonah,theprimate
oftheOrthodoxChurchinAmerica,and“morethanhalfadozenofthiscountry’s
mostinfluentialRomanCatholicbishops,includingArchbishopTimothyDolan
ofNewYork,ArchbishopJohnMyersofNewark,andCardinalJustinRigaliof
Philadelphia...,[who]drafteda4,700wordmanifestothatpromisedresistance
tothepointofcivildisobedienceagainstanylegislationthatmightimplicate
theirchurchesorcharitiesinabortion,embryo-destructiveresearchorsame-sex
marriage.”

AtaWashingtonpressconferencetwomonthsafterthelaunchingofthe

manifesto,ProfessorGeorgesteppedasidetoletJustinCardinalRigaliof
Philadelphiamakethecaseforthenaturallawoppositiontogaymarriageby
claimingthatmarriageentaileda“conjugalunionofmanandwoman,ordained
byGodfromthecreation,andhistoricallyunderstoodbybelieversandnon-
believersalike,tobethemostbasicinstitutioninsociety.”Sixyearsafter
makingthisdeclaration,theSupremeCourtapprovedtheverythingthatthe
ManhattanDeclarationandCardinalRigalidisputedwhenitapprovedgay
marriage.

Withhindsight,it’snotdifficulttounderstandwhythishappenedbecause

immediatelyafterdenouncinggaymarriage,CardinalRigaliendorsed“religious
liberty,whichisgroundedinthecharacterofGod,theexampleofChrist,andthe
inherentfreedomanddignityofhumanbeingscreatedinthedivineimage,”
withoutanyunderstandingofthefactthattheconceptofreligiouslibertywas
createdbytheCIApreciselytomarginalizehisauthorityasabishopofthe
CatholicChurch,whichspeaksinfalliblyonmattersoffaithandmorals.Itmay
betruethatthethreepillarsoftheManhattanDeclarationreston“principlesthat
canbeknownandhonoredbymenandwomenofgoodwillevenapartfrom
revelation”andthat“theyareprinciplesofrightreasonandnaturallaw,”but
onlytheChurchhastheauthoritytointerpretthedivinelawinfallibly.By
becomingoneofthousandsofsignatoriestoaninterdenominationalmanifesto,
Rigalidilutedthatauthority,playedrightintothehandsoftheFoundingFathers,
whopromotedtheproliferationofsectstodivideanddiluteChristianity,and

doomedtheirinitiativeagainstgaymarriagetoultimatefailure.

BenedictXVIandModernity

InhisDecember2005addresstotheCuria,PopeBenedictsingledoutthree
questionsthattheChurchneededtoanswerifshewantedtoachieve
rapprochementwiththemodernworld:

Firstandforemost,itwasnecessarytodefineinanewwaythe

relationshipbetweenfaithandmodernscience;thisregarded,however,notonly
naturalsciences,butalsohistoricalsciencesbecause,inacertainschool,the
historical-criticalmethodclaimedforitselfthefinalwordsontheinterpretation
oftheBibleand,demandingfullexclusivenessforitsunderstandingofSacred
Scriptures,itopposed,onimportantpoints,theinterpretationthatthefaithofthe
Churchhadelaborated.

RapprochementinthisinstancemeantthattheChurchcouldstilloppose

thingslikeinvitrofertilization,whichistosaytechnicalapplicationsthat
contradictedthemorallaw,butitleftscience’sbogus“science”uncontested,as
wheninhisinterviewwithPeterSeewald,LightoftheWorld:ThePope,the
ChurchandtheSignsoftheTimes(2010),Ratzingerswallowstheunproven
HIV-causes-AIDShypothesishook,lineandsinker,andtriestobaseChurch
policyonbadscienceandwhatamountedtoablackoperationthatpickedup
wherethefailedpopulationcontrolprogramsofthe‘70sleftoff.

“Secondly,”PopeBenedictcontinued

itwasnecessarytodefineinanewwaytherelationshipbetweentheChurchandthe
modernstate,whichmaderoomtocitizensofvariousreligionsandideologies,acting
impartiallytowardsthesereligionsandsimplytakingontheresponsibilityfortheorderly
andtolerantcoexistencebetweencitizensandfortheirfreedomtoexercisetheirreligion.

RapprochementinthisinstancemeantanuncriticalacceptanceofAmerica

astheparadigmaticgoodEnlightenmentstate,andalltheembarrassmentthatwas
causedwhenAmericafinallywentrogueafterthefallofCommunismanddraped
themantleofevilempirearounditsownshoulders.

Tothis,thirdly,wasconnectedinamoregeneralwaytheproblemof

religioustolerance—aquestionthatcalledforanewdefinitionofthe
relationshipbetweenChristianfaithandreligionintheworld.Inparticular,in
thefaceoftherecentcrimesoftheNational-Socialistregimeand,ingeneral,ina
retrospectivelookonalonganddifficulthistory,itwasnecessarytoevaluate
anddefineinanewwaytherelationshipbetweentheChurchandthefaithof
Israel.

RapprochementintheareaofCatholic-Jewishrelationscreatedan

insurmountablediscontinuity,whichPopeBenedict,eveninlightofthehostile
receptionhereceivedonhistriptoIsrael,refusedtoacknowledge.Catholic-
Jewishrelationshavetakenonanauraoftotalmakebelieveasitbecomes
increasinglyclearthatgoodrelationswiththeJewscanonlybepurchasedatthe
priceofnotproclaimingtheGospel.

BynowitshouldbeobviousthatAmericawastheanswertoallofthe

abovequestions.ItwasevenmoreobviousthatGermany(andvirtuallyevery
otherEuropeancountry,exceptPoland,whichwouldplayasignificantrole
later)hadbeendiscreditedinonewayoranother.GermanyandItaly,tolistthe
twomostobviousexamples,hadsuccumbedtofascism,ashadCatholicSpain.
Francehadbeenconqueredinamatterofweeks,leadingtoademoralization
whichfoundexpressioninpost-warexistentialism.England,thetraditional
enemyofallthingsCatholic,wasexhausted.CatholicAustriahadbeen
dismemberedafterWorldWarI,andtheremnantsofitsformerempirewerenow
(aswasAustriaitselfuntilthemid-’50s)behindtheIronCurtain.Russia,of
course,whichhadbeentakenoverbyJewishBolshevismin1917,hadbythe
timeoftheCouncilenteredintotheCommunistequivalentofitsdotage.Infact,
America,andAmericaalone,wastheonlypossiblecommondenominator
betweenthethreeareasPopeBenedictindicated.Benedictsaidasmuchwhenhe
wrote:“Byadoptingadecreeonreligiousfreedom,theSecondVaticanCouncil
recognizedandmadeitsownanessentialprincipleofthemodernstate.”By
“modernstate,”ofcourse,BenedictmeantAmerica.

Asaresult,theChurchundertheleadershipofJohnPaulIIandBenedict

XVIadoptedapro-Americanpoliticalagenda,whichhaswroughtandcontinues
towreakuntoldhavocwiththeCatholicfaith.InhisVaticanIIanniversary
address,PopeBenedictunderstatedthecasewildlywhenhestatedthat“Itis
clearthatinallthesesectors,whichtogetherareoneproblem,some
discontinuitieswouldemerge.”Itispreciselythispoliticalagendawithallofits
discontinuitiesintow,which,timeandtimeagain,rearsitsuglyheadinLightof
theWorld.

AsatacitadmissionthattheprojectofVaticanII,namely,reconcilingthe

Churchandmodernity,hasfailed,Benedictwrote:

thosewhoexpectedthatwiththisfundamental“Yes”tothemodernage,alltensions
wouldmeltaway,andthatthis“openinguptotheworld”wouldrendereverything
harmonious,underestimatedtheinnertensionsandcontradictionsofthemodernage...

WhatheshouldhavesaidisthatheandJohnPaulIIandtherestoftheir

generationintheChurchunderestimatedtheradicalgulfseparatingthe
revolutionarymovementknownasmodernityfromtheLogosoftheCatholic

faith,andthattheirunderestimationwasbasedonamisrepresentationof
AmericaconfectedbyJohnCourtneyMurray,Time/LifeandtheCIA.

TheChurchhashadthispoliticalalbatrossarounditsneckforgoingon

fiftyyearsnow.AndBenedictshowednoindicationofunderstandinghowheand
hisgenerationofChurchmengothornswoggledbyablackoperation.Nordidhe
seehowthepoliticalmodelofreconciliationwithmodernitythatheandhis
generationofChurchmenadopted,theonewhichinformsLightoftheWorld,
wasdoomedtofailurebecause1)itwasbasedonafalseunderstandingof
America;2)becauseitwasbasedonafalseunderstandingofmodernity;and3)
becauseitwas,nomatterwhatJohnCourtneyMurraysaid,incompatiblewith
theCatholicfaith.

Intheinterestofbrevity,let’sjustdealwithassertion#2.Modernitymay

haveseemedAmericanwhentheCouncilwasconvened,butitwas
predominantly(atleastinits20thcenturyphase)Jewish,asYuriSlezkine
demonstratesinhisbookTheJewishCentury(2004).Ultimately,thetwo
alternativesbecameafalsedichotomyasJews,withthepassingoftheWASP
rulingclass,tookoverAmericanculturallife.Bythemid-’70sthetakeoverwas
complete.“TheModernAgeistheJewishAge,”accordingtoSlezkine,“andthe
twentiethcentury,inparticular,istheJewishCentury.”Modernity,accordingto
Slezkine,“isabout...dismantlingsocialestatesforthebenefitofindividuals,
nuclearfamiliesandbook-readingtribes(nations).”Modernity“isabout
everyonebecomingJewish.”Duringthisera,“Churchesbecamemorelike
synagogues.”Capitalismshowedthat“therewasapeculiarkinshipbetween
JewsandtheModernAge,thattheJews,insomeveryimportantsense,werethe
ModernAge.”

TheEnlightenment,ofcourse,wasthevehiclethatbroughtabouttheriseof

modernityandwithittheincreasinghegemonyofJewsoverWesternculture:

AstheMarquisd’ArgenswrotetoFredericktheGreatonbehalfofMosesMendelssohn,
“AphilosopherwhoisabadCatholicbegsaphilosopherwhoisabadProtestanttogrant
theprivilege[ofresidenceinBerlin]toaphilosopherwhoisabadJew.”Tobebadinthe
eyesofGodwasagoodthingbecauseGodeitherdidnotexistorcouldnotalwaystellbad
fromgood.FortheJews,thefirstsuchcornersofneutralityandequalitywereMasonic
lodges,whosemembersweretoadhere“tothatreligioninwhichallmenagree,leaving
theirpracticalopinionstothemselves.”Whenitappearedasiftheonlyreligionleftwas
theoneinwhicheveryoneagreedsomepracticalopinionsbecame“publicopinion,”and
Jewsbecameimportant—andverypublic—opinionmakersandopiniontraders.

BecauseofhisunderstandingofAmericaandVaticanII,PopeBenedict

XVIwasincapableofseeingthisJewishrevolutionarytakeoverofEuropean
cultureasabadthing.Asresult,thepeoplewhosharehispro-American,pro-
modernpoliticalworldviewhavetolookforscapegoats,andtheyinvariably

CHAPTERNINE

WhereNowintheChurch?

WhatisNottheProperResponse:Liberalsand“Traditionalists”

Thetraditionalistsandtheliberalscontinuetoattackeachotherandarealso
verycriticalofRome.ThenegotiationsbetweentheVaticanandtheSocietyof
St.PiusXcontinue,butthereisnosignofanyfirmagreement.Several
misgivingsaboutaresolutionoftheissuesbetweenthetwosideswere
expressedinanarticlewrittenbyEberhardSchockenhoff,professorofmoral
theologyattheUniversityofFreiburg,whichappearedintheApril2010issueof
theGermanJesuitmagazineStimmenderZeit.InitSchockenhoffclaimed“that
therealdisagreementbetweentheChurchofRomeandtheLefebvristsdoesnot
concerntheMassinLatin,buttheteachingofVaticanII,especiallyon
ecclesiologyandonfreedomofconscienceandreligion.”Schockenhofffears
thatthereadmissionoftheSSPXwilldoomhisinterpretationofVaticanIIand
alloftheprojectsofthepastforty-someyearswhichhavebeenbasedonit.
Schockenhofffearsthat“exegeticalmanipulationoftheconciliartexts”will
allowbothRomeandtheSSPXtomarginalizethetruemeaningoftheCouncilby
misrepresentingwhatSchockenhoffconsidersgenuinereformsaspost-conciliar
misunderstandingsandabortedexperiments.Thiswouldallowan“anti-modern
protestmovementbasedonpre-conciliarCatholicism”tobesmuggledintothe
Church.Itwouldalsomarktheend(althoughSchockenhoffdoesn’tsaythis)of
thehegemonyoftheGermanprofessors,whoseinterpretationhasbeendominant
butfadingsincetheendoftheCouncil.TheinfluenceoftheGermanprofessors
fadedevenmore,paradoxically,duringthepapacyofBenedictXVI(the
quintessentialGermanprofessor).Schockenhoffcomparesthenegotiationswith
theSSPXto“ahermeneutictightropewalk,whichattemptstosquarethecircle.”
Healsocomparesitto“playingwithfire.”Theissueisinterpretation:Whose
interpretationoftheCouncilisgoingtoprevail?Putanotherway,readmittingthe
SSPXwouldmeantheendofthehegemonyoftheGermanprofessors’
interpretationoftheCouncil,whichtheGermanprofessorsliketoportrayas“the
willofthemajorityoftheCouncilfathers”:

Byproposinganofficialinterpretation,anothermeaninggetsimposedoncentralconciliar
textsotherthanthemeaningwhichthewillofthemajorityoftheCouncilfathersintended.
What’satstakehereisthedirectionofthefuturepathoftheChurch,adirectionwhichthe
Councilchosewhenitdecidedtoopenitselfuptothemodernworld,whenitchose
ecumenicalsolidaritywiththeorthodoxandreformationchurchesaswellasdialoguewith
theJewsandotherworldreligions.

Themainpersonresponsibleforwantingto“squarethecircle,”i.e.,make

theCouncildocumentscompatiblewithbothmodernityandtraditionwas,in
Schockenhoff’sview,PopeBenedictXVI.ThecommentatorSandroMagister,
however,statesthat“inexplaininghowtointerprettheCouncilcorrectly,
BenedictXVIshowshowitdidinfactintroducenewdevelopmentswithrespect
tothepast,butalwaysincontinuitywith‘thedeepestpatrimonyoftheChurch.’
And,heclaims,asanexampleofthisinterplaybetweennewnessandcontinuity,
PopeBenedictillustratespreciselytheconciliarideasonfreedomofreligion:
themainpointofdivisionbetweentheChurchandtheLefebvrists.”

InthespeechreferredtoearlierPopeBenedicttriedtoexplainthe

ZeitgeistwhichwasregnantwhentheCouncilwasinsession.Aswehaveseen,
hereferredtothetaskoffindinganewrelationshipbetweentheChurchandthe
modernageandtheproblemsinvolvedinthis.

Thus,bothsidesbegantoprogressivelyopenuptoeachother.Intheperiodbetweenthe
twoworldwarsandevenmoreafterthesecondworldwar,Catholicstatesmenhadshown
thatamodernlaystatecanexist,whichneverthelessisnotneutralwithrespecttovalues,
butlivestappingintothegreatethicalfontsofChristianity.Catholicsocialdoctrine,asit
developed,hadbecomeanimportantmodelbetweenradicalliberalismandtheMarxist
theoryofthestate.

Asaresultofthisopeningtothemodernworld,discontinuitiesbeganto

emerge.CatholicsbegancondemningthingsthattheSaintsofpreviouseras
consideredpraiseworthy.Similarly,thingsthattheCouncilconsidered
praiseworthy—thingslikeSchockenhoff’s“dialoguewiththeJews”—would
havebeencondemnedasperniciousbyChurchFatherslikeSt.JohnChrysostom.
Beforelongthediscontinuitiesbecametoobigandtooimportanttoignore,oras
PopeBenedictputit:

Itisclearthatinallthesesectors,whichtogetherareoneproblem,somediscontinuities
wouldemerge.Althoughthismaynothavebeenfullyappreciatedatfirst,the
discontinuitiesthatdidemerge—notwithstandingdistinctconcretehistoricalsituationsand
theirneeds—didpreventcontinuityatthelevelofprinciples.

TheChurchnowfindsherselfintheprocessofreconcilingthose

discontinuities,anditisthisprocessofre-establishingcontinuitywithtradition
whichSchockenhoffseesasabetrayalofthemeaningoftheCouncil.TheSSPX,
ontheotherhand,seestheprocessofreconciliationasabetrayalofChurch
doctrine,anditisatpreciselythisimpassethatthenegotiationswiththeSSPX
stand.

PopeBenedictbelievedthattheCouncilsucceededatbeingbothnewand

connectedwiththepast:

BydefininginanewwaytherelationshipbetweenthefaithoftheChurchandsome
essentialelementsofmodernthinking,theSecondVaticanCouncilrevisedandeven

correctedsomepastdecisions.Butinanapparentdiscontinuityithasinsteadpreserved
andreinforceditsintimatenatureandtrueidentity.TheChurchisOne,Holy,Catholic,and
ApostolicbothbeforeandaftertheCouncil,throughouttime.It“pressesforwardamidthe
persecutionsoftheworldandtheconsolationsofGod,”announcingthecrossanddeathof
theLorduntilhecomes(cf.LumenGentium,8).

Yetthosewhoexpectedthatwiththisfundamental“Yes”tothemodernage,alltensions
wouldmeltaway,andthatthis“openinguptotheworld”wouldrendereverything
harmonious,underestimatedtheinnertensionsandcontradictionsofthemodernage;they
underestimatedtheinternaltensionsandthedangerousfragilityofhumannature,which
havethreatenedman’sjourneythroughoutallhistoricalperiodsandconfigurations.Given
man’snewpoweroverhimselfandovermatter,thesedangershavenotdisappeared;
instead,theyhaveacquiredanewdimension.Wecanclearlyillustratethisbylookingat
currenthistory.

AtthispointanuncannysimilarityemergesbetweentheSSPXandthe

liberalswhowanttokeepthemoutoftheChurch.BoththeSSPXandProfessor
SchockenhoffarearguingthattheirinterpretationofVaticanIIshouldbetakenas
normative.BoththeSSPXandProfessorSchockenhoff(fordifferentreasons)
wouldclaimthatPopeBenedictwas“attemptingtosquarethecircle,”by
thinkingthatmodernityandChurchtraditionwerereconcilable.BoththeSSPX
andProfessorSchockenhoffhavemadeaparticularinterpretationofaparticular
councilthelitmustestformembershipintheChurch.NeithertheSSPXnor
ProfessorSchockenhoffseemscapableofentertainingtheideathattheChurch
hadembarkeduponprojectsinthewakeoftheCouncilwhichwerebasedin
somesenseorotheronCouncildocumentsbutwhichwentwaybeyondwhatthe
Councildocumentsauthorized.“GesprächmitdemJudentum”ordialoguewith
theJewsisoneexamplecitedbySchockenhoffwhichhasledtoanalmosttotal
discontinuitywiththepast,somethingtheAmericanbishopsdiscoveredwhen
theyhadtorevisetheircatechism.ShouldtheChurchperdureinthisparticular
implementationoftheCouncil?Orshouldsheadmitthatthisandotherprojects
whichtheCouncilspawned,unlikethedocumentsthemselves,arenothingmore
thanfailedexperimentsbasedonaninadequateunderstandingofwhatwasreally
happeningduringtherevolutionary‘60s?IstheChurchcommittedtorepudiating
theGospelinthenameofdialogue?Onewouldhopenot,butthequestionneeds
tobecontextualizedbeforeitcanbeanswered.IfweidentifytheCouncilwith
“GesprächmitdemJudentum,”asProfessorSchockenhoffdoes,thenthe
answerisfarfromclear.Schockenhoffmightgosofarastoendorsepost-
conciliaraberrationsliketheclaimthat“theMosaiccovenantiseternallyvalid,”
aclaimbothmadeandrepudiatedbytheAmericanbishops,butwouldPope
Benedicthavegonethatfar?Probablynot.ButBenedict’strackrecordon
continuityinthisregardwasfarfromclear.Heseemedunawarethatdialogue
withtheJews,ascurrentlypracticed,entailsrepudiatingtheGospel,andthat
proclaimingtheGospelisantitheticaltodialoguewiththeJews.Asthingsstand,

theissueisfarfromresolved,andtheonlythingthatunitesboththeGerman
professorsandtheSSPXseemstobetheirbeliefthatPopeBenedictwas
determinedtosquarethecircle.

TheSSPXhasbeenclaimingforovertwentyyearsthattheissueisoneof

doctrine,specificallydoctrinalissuesconcerningVaticanII,andinthewakeof
theexcommunications,theyhadpersuadedRometoengageindialogueunder
thoseauspices,butitwasclearthatthisdialoguewouldgonowhere.Thisisnot
surprisingbecausedoctrinewasnevertheheartofthematter.Infact,by
allowingthedialogueondoctrinetoproceed,Romehadundermineditsown
position.Therealissueisschism,notdoctrine.Heresyisasinagainstdoctrine,
andinthenegotiationswhichfollowedtheliftingoftheexcommunications,the
SSPXwasengagedinanattempttoturnthetablesonRomeandconvincethem
thattheywereguiltyofheresy.BeforeenteringintodialoguewiththeSSPX,
RomewouldhavedonebettertowatchSSPXBishopFellay’sinterviewon
YouTube.Init,Fellaygetstotheheartofthematterwhenhesays,“TheChurch
hascancer.Wedon’twanttoembracetheChurchbecausethenwe’llgetcancer
too.”Thereareanumberofthingsonemightsayaboutsuchastatement.First,
cancerisnotcontagious.Secondly,thisimage—theChurchhascancer—can
befoundnowhereinthetraditionoftheChurch,notintheGospels,notinthe
ActsoftheApostles,notintheEpistlesandnotinthewritingoftheChurch
Fathers.Thereasonissimpleenough:itdoesnotandcannotcorrespondto
reality.

IfanyonehadanydoubtsabouttheSSPXbeinginschism,thisinterview

shouldhavelaidthemtorest.AsSt.Augustinepointedoutinbothhistreatises
onBaptismandontheDonatists,schismhasnothingtodowithdoctrine.Schism
isasinagainstcharity.Itinvolvesbreakingcommunionoutoffearof
contamination—whichispreciselyhowBishopFellayframedtheissueinhis
YouTubeinterview.TheSSPXbrokecommunionwiththeChurchwhen
ArchbishopLefebvreconsecratedfourbishops,includingFellay.Refusalof
communionoutoffearofcontaminationis,asanyonewhohasreadSt.Augustine
knows,theclassicexpressionofschism,butevidentlynooneinRomenoticed
thiswhentheybegantheirnegotiationswiththeSSPXbecauseinsteadofdealing
withtheissue,RomeembarkeduponthetheologicalequivalentofMission
Impossible,whichistosayatheologicaldiscussionofthedocumentsofVatican
withagroupofpeoplewhowereusingdoctrineasapretexttoavoidtalking
abouttheirownlackofcharity.

WhatRomeoverlookedwasthepsychologicalneedoftheSSPXtodivert

thenegotiationsintoadiscussionofdoctrine.Thatneedisbasedmoreonguilt

thananythinginthedocumentsofVaticanll.TheSSPXcommittedasinagainst
charitywhenArchbishopLefebvre,claimingthatastateofemergencyexistedin
theChurch,brokecommunionbyconsecratingthefourbishops.Their
justificationforbreakingcommunionisultimatelyirrelevantbecausetheChurch
isalwaystosomeextentinastateofemergencybecausetheChurchisalwaysat
themercyofthevenalandwickedmenwhorisetopositionsofpowerinit
becausesuchmenalwaysrisetopositionsofpowerinhumaninstitutions,butno
stateofemergency(realorimagined)everjustifiesbreakingcommunion.

UnityandDialogue

Whatconclusionsarewetodrawfromallthis?TheansweristhattheCatholic
mindhasbecomethecaptiveoftwobadideas,stemmingfromtwofailed
experimentslaunchedinthewakeofVaticanII,namelya)dialogueinplaceof
unity,andb)religiousliberty.Themainconclusionisthatunityisbetterthan
dialogue.WhentheCatholicChurchwasstrongandunified,shehadapositive
effectonAmericanculture,asforexample,whentheCatholicsofPhiladelphia
boycottedWarnerBrotherstheatersinthe1930sandforcedHollywoodJewsto
accepttheProductionCodeandbannudityandobscenityfromtheirfilms.Or
whenin1934Msgr.JohnRyanstooduptoMargaretSangerandtheRockefeller
interestsanddefeatedtheirplanforgovernment-fundedbirthcontrol.Oncethe
Churchchosedialogueoverunity,shelostwhateverpowershehadtoinfluence
thecultureandearnedonlythecontemptofherenemiesinreturn.

UnityintheChurchisnotsomeoptionalfeature,likewhitewalltiresona

car.ItgoestotheveryheartofChrist’sconceptionoftheChurchanditgoesto
theveryheartofthewoesthathavebeeninflictedontheworldsincethe
cataclysmicviolationofthatunitywhichfollowedfromtheeventsofthe
ReformationperiodandlaterattacksontheFaithuptothepresentday.

Unitywithyourfriendsandfellow-believers,inotherwords,isbetterthan

dialoguewithyourenemies.Ifweeverneededproofofthat,wehavealmost
fiftyyearsofexperiencewiththefailedexperimentknownasCatholic-Jewish
dialogue.IntheyearsfollowingVaticanII,dialoguebecamethemainvehiclefor
bringingtheCatholicmindunderJewishcontrol.Dialoguehasalsobecomea
synonymforsubversionofChurchteaching.Afteryearsofdialogue,theUSCC,
underthedirectionofCardinalKeelerofBaltimore,issuedajointCatholic-
Jewishstatementon“CovenantandMission”whichaffirmedthatJewscouldbe
savedwithoutacceptingChristastheirsavior.InMay2009thesamebishops
hadtoissuea“clarification”whichrepudiatedtheirownstatement.Itturnsout
that,uponreflection,thebishopsconcludedthattheMosaiccovenantwasno
longer“eternallyvalid,”andJewsdidhavetoconvertiftheywantedtobe

saved.Thebishops’voltefaceontheJewsisoneindicationthatafterfortyyears
theJewishcontroloftheCatholicmindisbeginningtofade.Overthepastfew
yearswehaveseenachangeofhistoricmagnitude.

Otherpeoplehavenoticedthesamething.Havingwatchedwith

amazementasHouseDemocratsaccededtotheU.S.Catholicbishops’demand
thatabortionfundingberemovedfromtheirhealthcarebill,PatBuchananwas
forcedtowonder,“IstheChurchMilitantback?”(Creators.com,2009).When
theChurchisunitedandactsonherown,unfetteredbyself-imposedpolitical
constraints,goodthingshappen.

TheStupakamendment,thebishops’successfulattempttogetabortion

fundingstrippedfromtheObamaAdministration’shealthcarebillisanexample
ofthebishopsactinginaunifiedmannerwitharesolvewhichtheyneverhad
duringthebirthcontrolbattlesofthe‘60sandwhichtheycouldnothave
musterediftheywereworkingunderRepublican-controlledrestraintsinconcert
withotherChristiandenominations.ItwasCatholicDemocratsintheHousewho
castthedecisivevoteagainstabortion.WorkinginconcertwithJewsagainst
abortionisunthinkable.

ReligiousLiberty

Aswehaveseenearlier,somehavetriedtodragreligiouslibertyintothe
discussion,butit’sclearthatCatholicdoctrineisgoingtosufferfromthe
inevitablepoliticalhorse-tradingthatthisinvolves.Insteadofassertingthe
historicaltruththattheChurchhasneverrepudiatedherrighttocoercethe
baptized,includingrecalcitrantpoliticians,someconservativescameoutin
favorofcivildisobedience,basedonthehistoricallyfalseclaimthat,“Through
thecenturies,Christianityhastaughtthatcivildisobedienceisnotonly
permitted,butsometimesrequired.”TheChurchcounseledpatienceand
sufferingandinextremecasesofmanifestinjusticetheoverthrowofwicked
regimes,butitnevercondoned“civildisobedience.”Thesourceofthisclaim
liesneitherinScripturenorTradition.

Ratherthanacceptahollowandspeciousreligiousfreedomandthe

dubiousprivilegeofgoingtojail,thebishopswoulddobettertoclaimthatthe
Churchhasneverbelievedinbeingboundbynon-coercionwhenitcomestothe
baptized.Strengthenedbythatprincipletheyshouldconcentrateonrestoringthe
unityofallbelievers,includingCatholicpoliticians,whowouldthenactmore
likeCongressmanStupakthanthelateSenatorKennedy.Dialoguedoesnothing
butweakenthisresolve.Thenetresultisdialoguewith“Catholic”universities
likeNotreDame—anotherfruitofVaticanIIandanothercolossalwasteof

time.

Whatistrueofabortionisalsotrueofthere-admissionoftheAnglicans.

Afteralmostfivehundredyearsofschismandalmostfiftyyearsoffruitless
palaver,PopeBenedictXVIre-admittedAnglicansdisgustedwithfeminist
bishopsandopenlyhomosexualclergywithoutawordofdialogue.The
ArchbishopofCanterbury,whofoundoutaboutthemergerwhentherestofthe
worlddid,wasthelastonetoknow.

Theideaof“religiousliberty”hasbeenequallydestructiveasdialogue.In

thefour-pageletterhewrotetotheAmericanbishopsonMarch2,2012,
CardinalTimothyDolanmentionedthephrase“religiousfreedom”nolessthan
fifteentimes.AftercitingthewordsofPopeBenedictXVI,Dolanclaimedthat
“BishopStephenBlaireandBishopWilliamLori,withsomanyothers,have
admirablykeptusfocusedonthisonepriorityofprotectingreligiousfreedom.
Wehavemadeitclearinnouncertaintermstothegovernmentthatwearenotat
peacewiththisinvasiveattempttocurtailthereligiousfreedomwecherishas
CatholicsandAmericans.Wedidnotaskforthisfight,butwewillnotrunfrom
it.”

Afterreadingthis,I’mtemptedtoaskshould“protectingreligious

freedom”beour“onepriority”?Orshouldendingabortionbeourpriority?Or
shouldevangelizationbeourpriority?Orshouldweworkfortheconversionof
ourenemies?Towhatextentdoestheacceptanceofreligiousfreedomcripple
theCatholicChurchincarryingoutitsmissionofevangelization?

AstheresultofadebatebetweenProfessorThomasPinkandFr.Martin

Rhonheimer,whichtookplaceinvivoattheCultureandEthicsconferenceat
NotreDamein2015,thereareessentiallythreepositionsonDignitatis
Humanae:1)itconstitutedabreakwithtraditionalChurchteaching,andthatis
goodbecause“reform”wasneeded,thepositionofFr.Rhonheimer,interpreting
thespeechdeliveredin2005bythethenCardinalRatzinger,2)Dignitatis
Humanaeconstitutedabreakwithtradition,andthatisbad,thepositionof
ArchbishopLefebvreandtheSSPX,and3)DignitatisHumanae,properly
understood,constitutesnobreakwithtradition,whichisProfessorPink’s
position.Pink,however,claimsthatinordertomaintaindoctrinalcontinuitythe
ChurchmustaffirmtherightoftheChurchtocoercethefaithful,somethingthat
CardinalRatzingersidesteppedandthatthefirstgroupisreluctanttoaffirm.As
aresult,theDignitatisHumanaedebatewhichhastakenplacebetween
RhonheimerandPinkbecameadiscussionofcoercion.Rhonheimerstruggles
mightilytoframeacoherentposition,butultimatelyfailsbecausehewantsto
havehiscakeandeatittoo.Atcertainpoints,heboldlystates,ineffect,“Yes,

therewasdiscontinuity,”buthethenquicklyemptiesthetermofitstheological
consequencesbyredefiningdiscontinuityas“reform,”which,byitsverynature,
isaformofcontinuity.But,aswiththerelatedterm“Reformation,”theterm
“reform”canbeusedtocoverupwhatisinfacthugelydestructive.Anyattempt
to“defendtheexistenceofanuninterruptedcontinuitybetweenpre-andpost-
conciliardoctrine...isunfounded.InthePope’saddressthereisnosuch
opposition...Rather,asheexplained,‘Incontrastwiththehermeneuticof
discontinuityisahermeneuticofreform...’Andinwhatliesthe‘natureofatrue
reform’?AccordingtotheHolyFather,truereformisfound‘intheinterplay,on
differentlevels,betweencontinuityanddiscontinuity.’”

Tosaythattheremustbebothcontinuityandruptureisacontradiction.

Pinkrespondedbysayingthatthecontradictionisrealandcannotbepapered
overbyreferencetoaself-contradictory“hermeneuticofreform”:

Inthenineteenthcentury,inencyclicalsfromGregoryXVI’sMirariVosin1832toLeo
XIII’sLibertasin1888,theCatholicChurchtaughtthatthestateshouldnotonlyrecognize
CatholicChristianityasthetruereligion,butshoulduseitscoercivepowertorestrictthe
publicpracticeof,andproselytizationby,falsereligions—includingProtestantism.Yetin
itsdeclarationonreligiousfreedom,DignitatisHumanae,theSecondVaticanCouncil
declaredthatthestateshouldnotusecoerciontorestrictreligion—notevenonbehalfof
thetruefaith.Suchcoercionwouldbeaviolationofpeople’srighttoreligiousliberty.This
lookslikeaclearchangeinCatholicdoctrine.TheChurchonceendorsedstatecoercion
onbehalfofreligioustruth,andnowshedenouncessuchcoercionasimmoral.

PinkthengoesontoposethequestionwhichRhonheimerwasatpainsto

dismiss:“Ifdoctrinalchangeispossibleonreligiousliberty,whynotonmatters
likesexualmoralityandmarriage?”Butoncetheissueofcoerciongetsresolved,
thecontinuity/discontinuityissuedisappearsbecause:

ThosewhobelievethatDignitatisHumanaedidchangeCatholicteachingseeinthe
declarationanewvisionofthedignityofthehumanperson.Thehumanpersonpossesses
anaturalrightnottobesubjecttoanyformofreligiouscoercion.Thisisarightagainst
coercionbyanyauthority,whetherstateorChurch,savewheresuchcoercionisrequired
toprotectjustpublicorder.Thisteaching,thoughnew,isbasedonthetraditionaldoctrine
oftheessentialmetaphysicalfreedomoftheactoffaith,whichalwaysruledouttheuseof
coercionasameansofevangelization.Onthisreading,theChurchusedthetraditional
doctrineaboutfaithtosupportanew,hithertodenieddoctrineofacomprehensiverightto
religiousliberty.WithVaticanII,theChurch’soppositiontomodernliberalism,centralto
nineteenth-centuryUltramontanism,wasfinallyendedthroughadecisivechangein
doctrine.

ButthisinterpretationofDignitatisHumanaeasarevisionnotjustofpolicybutof
doctrineisbasedonafundamentalmisunderstanding.Thedeclarationisnotastatement
aboutreligiouslibertyingeneralbutaboutaspecificallycivilliberty:religiouslibertyin
relationtothestateandothercivilinstitutions.Itdoesnotopposereligiouscoercionin
general,butcoercionbythestate.Thestateisforbiddentocoerceinmattersof
religion,notbecausesuchcoercionisillicitforanyauthoritywhatsoever,but
becausesuchcoercionliesbeyondthestate’sparticularcompetence(emphasis
added).

AndthatwascertainlynotbecausetheCatholicChurchopposedreligiouscoercionas
such.Rather,religiouscoercionmightbelegitimate,butonlyontheauthorityofthe
Church.TheChurchwastheonlybodywiththerighttocoerceonbehalfofreligioustruth:
toissuedirectives,andtobackthosedirectivesupbythethreatofpunishments.Thestate
couldactonlyastheChurch’sagent.Ithadnoauthorityofitsowninthismatter.

WecannowseehowDignitatisHumanaedoesnotchangedoctrineafterall.Religious
coercionbythestateisnowmorallywrong,andaviolationofpeople’srights,notbecause
religiouscoercionbyanyauthorityiswrong,butbecausetheChurchnolongerauthorizes
it.TheChurchisnowrefusingtolicensethestatetoactashercoerciveagent,anditis
fromthatpolicychange,andnotfromanychangeinunderlyingdoctrine,thatthe
wrongfulnessofreligiouscoercionbythestatefollows.…

Inshort:theteachingofVaticanIIonreligiousfreedomdoesnotimplyanewdogmatic
orientation,butitdoestakeonaneworientationfortheChurch’ssocialdoctrine—
specifically,acorrectionofitsteachingonthemissionandfunctionofthestate.The
Councilgavethesameimmutableprinciplesanewapplicationinanewhistoricalsetting.
ThereisnotimelessdogmaticCatholicdoctrineonthestate—norcantherebe—with
theexceptionofthoseprinciplesthatarerootedintheapostolicTraditionandSacred
Scripture.Theideaofa“Catholicstate”astheseculararmoftheChurchfallsoutside
theseprinciples,whichinfactsuggestaseparationbetweenthepoliticalandreligious
spheres.

ThereisachurchatthetopofMountAdamsinCincinnatiaswellastwo

angelsholdingabannerwhichreadsinGerman,“HeiligeMarie,betefuerdie
BekehrungdiesesLandes.”“HolyMary,prayfortheconversionofthis
country.”DidtheseGermanCatholicsgetitwrongwhentheycommissionedthat
artisttodothatmural?

(IexaminetheongoingdebatebetweenFr.RhonheimerandProfessor

ThomasPinkinmoredetailinthearticle“TheZombieStateanditsEnablers,”
inCultureWars,January2016,p.18.)

DialogueandtheJews

DialoguehasweakenedtheresolveofCatholics,butallofthisgoodwillhasled
tonoconcessionsonthepartoftheJewish-controlledpress.Ifanything,that
presshasbecomemorevirulentlyanti-Catholicinresponsetowhatthey
perceiveasCatholicweakness.Eventhebishops,themainapologistsforthe
failedexperimentknownasCatholic-Jewishdialogue,havestartedtotake
notice.ArchbishopTimothyDolantriedtoexplaintheCatholic/Jewishdouble
standardinanop-edpiecehesenttotheNewYorkTimes,whichtheTimes
refusedtopublish.Whenitcomestosexualabuse,theCatholicChurchis
subjectedtoa“scurrilous...diatribe”byMaureenDowd“thatrightlynever
wouldhavepassedmusterwiththeeditorshaditsocriticizedanIslamic,Jewish
orAfrican-American”faith,butwhentheNewYorkTimes“exposedthesad
extentofchildsexualabusesinBrooklyn’sOrthodoxJewishCommunity...forty
casesofsuchabusesinthistinycommunitylastyearalone,”wrotethe

archbishop,“thedistrictattorneysweptthescandalundertherug,andtheTimes
heldupthecarpet.”Inthearticlereferredtoabove,PatBuchananwentonto
mentionCatholic/Jewishrelationsasoneofthemainareasofchangein
Americanlife:

TheVaticanhasreaffirmedthatCatholicsininterfaithdialogueshaveamoralrightifnota
dutytoconvertJews,andreaffirmedthedoctrinethatChrist’scovenantwithhischurch
canceledoutandsupersedestheOldTestamentcovenantwiththeJews.WhenAbe
Foxman,screechowloftheAnti-DefamationLeague,railedthatthismarksaCatholic
returntosuch“odiousconceptsas‘supersessionism,’”hewaspolitelyignored.

TheAmericanbishops’repudiationofCardinalKeeler’s“Reflectionson

CovenantandMission”marksmorethanjustastunningreversaloffiftyyearsof
badtheology.Thatrepudiationhadglobalpoliticalimplicationsaswell,
implicationswhichbecameclearwhentheJerusalemPostrananarticleon
“whyIsraelislosingthePRwar.”AccordingtotheJerusalemPost,themain
reasonfortheprecipitousdropinIsrael’sapprovalrating(from70to40
percent)wasthe“resurgenceofreplacementtheology,”theirtermfor
supersessionism,i.e.,thetraditionalCatholicteachingthattheJewshavebeen
superseded,andthattheChurchistheNewIsrael.

Assomeindicationthatgreatmindsruninthesamecircles,IsubmitAbe

Foxman’soutragedresponsetothebishops’clarificationoftheKeelerstatement.
AbeFoxmanandIagreethatdialogueandevangelizationaremutuallyexclusive
alternatives.SincethebishopshavebeencommandedbytheGospelstogoand
baptizeallnations,theyhavenochoicebuttoabandondialoguebecause,as
Foxmanpointedout,it’stheantithesisofproselytism.

BoththeADLandCultureWarshaveconcludedthatCatholic/Jewish

dialoguehasfailed,andCatholicsarefinallyawakeningtothefactthatthis
dialoguehasfailedbecausetheJewshaveuseditfromthebeginningasacover
fortheirhiddenagendaofcontrol.Assomeindicationofwhatthosemotivesare,
allofthemajorJewishorganizationsrecentlysignedafriendofthecourtbrief
demandingthattheObamaadministrationallowtheCatholicChurchno
exemptionsofconsciencewhenitcomestohiringhomosexuals.

Actionsspeaklouderthanwords.Inspiteofallthedialogue,therewasno

collaborationintheareaofreligiousfreedomandfreedomofconsciencewhenit
cametothehealthbillandtheconcernsitraisedforCatholics.Beyondthat,the
intentbehindJewishsupportofthehomosexualagendabecamecrystalclear:use
“tolerance”tocreateahomosexualfifthcolumnwithintheCatholicChurch,one
which,becauseofthenatureofitssexualactivities,canbeusedtocreatea
wholenewseriesoflawsuits.WithElderBrotherslikethis,whoneeds
enemies?

AbeFoxmanwasoutragedbywhatheconsideredavoltefaceon

dialogue,butthesimplefactremained:wheneverthebishopsengagedin
dialoguewiththeJews,theyrepudiatedtheGospel.Conversely,wheneverthey
actedontheirownandreaffirmedtheGospel,theyinvariablyoutragedtheJews.
Thisleadsmetorefinemypreviousstatement:theChurchcanproclaimthe
GospelorshecanhavegoodrelationswiththeJews,butdialogue,whichisto
saybothatthesametime,isimpossible.

Whyisthat?Well,anyonewhohasreadtheGospelofSt.JohnortheActs

oftheApostlesorSt.Paul’sEpistletotheThessaloniansshouldknowthe
answer.It’sbecausetheJewsrejectedChrist,andinrejectingChristthey
rejectedLogos,andinrejectingLogos,theybecame,asSt.Paulputit,“enemies
oftheentirehumanrace.”Dialogue,inotherwords,isnotpossiblewithout
Logos.ThisrejectionoflogosingeneralandtheLogosmadefleshisnowthe
coreofJewishidentity,anditwillremainsountiltheyrejecttheirrejectionand
acceptChristastheirsavior.MichaelMedvedrecentlysaidthesamething.Ina
symposiumwhichappearedintheSeptember2009issueoftheAmericanJewish
Committee’spublication,Commentary,onNormanPodhoretz’sbook,Whyare
JewsLiberals?(2009),hewrotethat“FormostAmericanJews,thecoreoftheir
Jewishidentityisn’tsolidaritywithIsrael;it’srejectionofChristianity.”

MichaelMedvedhasarticulatedthefundamentalJewishidea.AsRichard

Weavertoldus,inhis1948philosophicalbookofthattitle,“Ideashave
consequences,”andoneoftheconsequencesofthefundamentalJewishideais
blasphemy.OverfortyyearsofdialogueledAmerica’sCatholicbishopsintoa
denialoftheGospel,butitdidn’tputastoptoJewishblasphemy.Atthesame
timethattheAmericanbishopsweretryingtoplacateAbeFoxman,LarryDavid
wasurinatingonapictureofJesusChristduringasegmentoftheHBOsitcom
“CurbYourEnthusiasm.”WhenDavid’sCatholicsecretaryusesthebathroom
afterhim,shemistakesDavid’surineforJesus’stearsandclaimsthatthepicture
isweeping.ThisblatantinstanceofJewishblasphemybroughtforthfundraising
lettersfromfire-breathingdefendersofthefaith,whodemandedthatCatholics
“takeaction”andsendinacontribution,buttheycouldn’tquitebringthemselves
tosaythatLarryDavidwasaJew,andthattheJewishpenchantforblasphemy
goesbacktothecentralJewishdocument,theTalmud,andthatallofthis
behaviorhastodowith,asMichaelMedvedputit,the“rejectionof
Christianity,”whichliesatthecoreofJewishidentity.

Noone,itseems,isallowedtoconnectthedots.Catholicscan’tconnect

thedotsforaverysimplereason;connectingthedotsleavesoneopentothe
chargeofanti-Semitism.FollowingtheappearanceofmyarticleonDeborah

LipstadtandHolocaustDenial(“DeborahLipstadtatNotreDame:Holocaust
DenialandThoughtControl,”CultureWars,May2009),theADLputmeontheir
mostwantedlist.ThismeansthatIhavemovedoutoftherealmof“dynamic
silence.”SincetheADLhasbeengettingthemagazineforyearsnow(Theyare,
infact,ourmostfaithfulreaders.Weneverhavetosendthemasecondrenewal
notice.),Icanonlyassumethatsomethingmusthavehappenedrecentlytobump
upmystatus.Whathappenedisverysimple:CultureWarshasbrokenthelock
whichhaskepttheCatholicmindunderJewishcontrolforthepastfortyyears.
TheADLnowrealizesthattheChurchisheadingintheotherdirectiononallof
theissuestheJewsconsiderimportant.Afterfortyyearsofunprecedented
advancesinsubversionandcovertwarfare,theJewsarefinallystartingtolose
theircontrolovertheCatholicmind.

Dialogueisafailedexperiment.Ithadnorootsintradition.Injustabout

everyinstanceitinvolvedthebishopsincompromisingtheGospel.Infact,the
mainrequirementfordialogueisawillingnesstosuppresssomeCatholictruth
ofimportancetothepersonengagedindialogue.Therewasalwaysanauraof
make-believesurroundingtheChurch’sdialoguewiththeworldwhichbeganin
thewakeoftheSecondVaticanCouncil.Themainelementofmakebelievehad
todowithwishingawaytheChurch’senemies.ItturnsoutthattheChurch’s
enemiesdidnotdisappearafterall.Instead,theyusedtheirfeignedstatusasour
friendstogainunprecedentedhegemonyovertheChurchtheynevergaveup
tryingtodestroy.

TheChurchFatherswerewiserthantheirsuccessorsinthisregard.They

understood,asAugustinesaid,that“Heretics,JewsandHeathenshavemadea
unityagainstUnity”(SermonsonSelectedLessonsoftheNewTestament).
Historyisanotherwordforthestoryofthisallianceanditswaragainstthe
Church.InspiteoftheillusionsgeneratedbytheSecondVaticanCouncil,nothing
haschanged.AsA.E.Housemanwroteaboutsoberingupafteradrinkingbinge,

Theworld,itwastheoldworldyet,

IwasI,mythingswerewet,…

Aswesoberupfromtheintoxicationgeneratedbythefailedexperiments

ofthe‘60s,weareleftwithcertainfundamentaltruths.Themostfundamentalis
thattherecanbenodialoguewithoutLogos.Theonlyantidotetorejectionof
Logosisrejectionofthatrejection,otherwiseknownasconversion.Since
dialoguehasmadeconversionimpossible,itistimetodispensewithdialogue
andreturntothetraditionthatpromotedevangelizationandconversionasthe
antidotetotheworld’sillsbecauseunitywithfellowbelieversismore

importantthantheabilitytochatteronendlesslywithourenemies.

WhatistheProperResponse?

Yes,theChurchwasderelictinnotpreachingtheGospel,especiallyonsexual
matters.Yes,theChurchchosetherapyoverthepenalsanctionsrequiredby
canonlaw.Yes,theChurchisbeingpunishedforfollowingtheadviceofthe
psychologists.Yes,thecurrentscandalsarebeingorchestratedbytheChurch’s
traditionalenemies,ProtestantsandJews,inordertodestroytraditionalcultures
andmaketheworldsafeforCapitalismandtheuniversalruleofMammon.But
whatistheproperresponse?

IfthecancerimageusedbyBishopFellayisfaulty,anti-traditionaland

unscriptural,whatimagedoescorrespondtothesituationoftheChurchinour
time?TheansweristhestoryinMark4:35-41,thestoryofJesuscalmingthe
storm:

Itbegantoblowagale,andthewaveswerebreakingintotheboatsothatitwasalmost
swamped.But[Jesus]wasinthestern,hisheadonthecushion,asleep.Theywokehim
andsaidtohim,“Master,doyounotcare?Wearegoingdown!”Andhewokeupand
rebukedthewindandsaidtothesea,“Quietnow!Becalm!”Andthewinddroppedand
allwascalmagain.Thenhesaidtothem,“Whyareyousofrightened?Howisitthatyou
havenofaith?”Theywerefilledwithaweandsaidtooneanother,“Whocanthisbe?
Eventhewindandtheseaobeyhim.”

TheChurchFathersareunanimousinsayingthattheboatistheChurchand

thattheboatisgoingtobetossedaboutbystorms,whichistosay,campaigns
orchestratedtodestroytheChurch.

St.HilaryofPoitierswritesthatChrist“bidsustobewithintheChurch,

andtobeinperiluntilsuchtimeasreturninginHissplendorHeshallgive
salvationtoallthepeople...Meanwhilethedisciplesaretossedbythewindand
thewaves;strugglingagainstallthestormsofthisworld,raisedbythe
oppositionoftheuncleanspirit”(DeTrinitate).

St.Augustinetellsusto“ThinkoftheboatastheChurch,andthestormy

seaasthisworld...Forwhenanyofawickedwillandofgreatpower,proclaims
apersecutionagainsttheChurch,thenitisthatamightywaverisesagainstthe
boatofChrist”(Sermon63).Wearetoremaininthatstorm-tossedboatuntil,
“whenthenightisnearlyended,Heshallcome,intheendoftheworld,whenthe
nightofiniquityispast,tojudgethequickandthedead”(ibid).

WhenChristfinallydoescome,accordingtoSt.Hilary,hewill

findHisChurchwearied,andtossedbythespiritoftheAnti-Christ,andbythetroublesof
thisworld.AndbecausebylongexperienceofAnti-Christtheywillbetroubledatevery
noveltyoftrial,theyshallhavefearevenattheapproachoftheLord,suspectingdeceitful
appearances.ButthegoodLordbanishestheirfearsaying,ItisI;andbyproofofHis
presencetakesawaytheirdreadofimpendingshipwreck(DeTrinitate).

Document Outline