Jesuit Hollywood [Shaun Willcock] (NotebookLM Deep Dive)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Imagine Hollywood. Not just, you know, the dream
factory we all think of, but more like a battleground.
A battleground? Yeah, it's a really striking
image. A place where these powerful,
kind of unseen forces have been fighting and maybe still are
fighting for control. Control over the messages, the
stories beamed into our homes, into theaters.

(00:21):
It definitely challenges how we usually think about just, you
know, watching a movie for fun. Absolutely.
So today we're doing a deep diveinto this really fascinating and
honestly pretty provocative account that tries to lay bare
this hidden war, this alleged war.
Our mission here is to explore these claims, claims of really

(00:41):
deep religious and political influences that have apparently
shaped American movies right from the early days through the
Golden Age and, well, right up to now.
And the material we're using forthis, it comes from a pretty
detailed analysis. It argues these influences
aren't just, you know, random accidents.
It claims they're the result of deliberate strategic moves by

(01:02):
powerful institutions, powerful ideologies.
So we'll be unpacking this specific perspective, looking at
its core arguments and some of the, well, startling evidence it
presents. And for you listening in, our
goal is really just to guide youthrough these claims.
They're quite intricate. We want to help you understand
this specific viewpoint, which, yeah, often leans into
conspiratorial territory about Hollywood's history.

(01:25):
We'll pull out the surprising Nuggets of insight from this
material, let you consider what it might mean for the movies you
watch. The messages may be hidden
inside them, but remember, and this is important.
Crucial, yeah. We're here just to convey the
ideas in the source material itself.
We're not endorsing them. It's about exploring this
particular narrative, this storyit tells.
A battleground of competing forces.

(01:46):
OK, so let's really unpack this central idea first, the source
says. Hollywood, basically its whole
history, has been this strategicbattleground for global
influence. Right.
It's not just culture, not just art.
It's framed as a genuine war forhearts and minds on a global
scale. And this account?
It starts its analysis way back around Hollywood's Golden Age

(02:09):
and then traces how things evolved.
It claims a primary goal for theRoman Catholic institution was,
well, huge, conquering the world.
Specifically targeting what it calls the Protestant world and
the tool for this conquest, the movies, leveraging the massive
power of this, you know, new andgrowing industry.

(02:29):
Now, it's important to be clear here.
The source itself says it does not support Roman Catholic
censorship. Right, it makes that point
explicitly. Even while it admits that, yeah,
for a long time that censorship probably did make movies more
quote moral than they might havebeen otherwise, Its goal, the
source clarifies, isn't about condoning immoral movies or
anything like that. It's just trying to illustrate

(02:50):
these historical events as it sees them.
So this particular narrative, itreally frames the entertainment
industry as like a direct playerin these big power struggles,
not just a mirror reflecting culture back at us.
Exactly. And what's fascinating is how
the source then brings in another major force onto this
supposed battlefield communism. Right described as another

(03:11):
sinister influence, and it oftencharacterizes this influence as
being dominated by Jewish communists.
That's a specific claim it makes.
Yeah, and the claim is that thiscommunist influence gradually
started to push out to displace the Roman Catholic presence.
It transformed the movie industry into something the
source called pro communist and often vehemently anti Roman

(03:32):
Catholic. OK, so this is where the
narrative gets really complex, right?
The Roman Catholic Institutions response, according to this
account, wasn't just to fight back harder in the old ways.
No, it describes A deliberate shift in tactics.
It alleges that the Jesuits, youknow, a key order within the
Catholic Church, actually started to support what they had
once fought against. Which sounds incredibly

(03:53):
counterintuitive. Totally.
And it's presented as being deeply confusing, especially
for, say, older Roman Catholics or anyone trying to follow what
the source calls these subtle, diabolically cunning Jesuit
tactics. And these tactics it claims are
absolutely crucial if you want to understand the massive shift
that happened in Hollywood and Rome's changing attitude towards

(04:16):
it all. It's.
Quite a framing. It presents these forces not as
just, you know, cultural ebbs and flows or market competition.
No it. Frames them as deliberate long
term strategic conflicts with huge global stakes, political
and religious. The key thing here is how deep
intertwine these alleged agendasare presented.

(04:36):
Entertainment becomes the battleground.
So where does that leave things now according to this source?
Well, the current situation thisaccount claims, features 2
immensely powerful competing forces vying for dominance over
Hollywood. On one side, Communism, often
dominated by Jewish communists, presently ascendant, and on the
other, Roman Catholicism, once the more powerful but presently

(04:59):
in a somewhat weaker position. And it wraps that part up by
saying the Vatican is, quote, doing all in its power to once
again triumph to the Jesuit order, architects of influence
and propaganda. All right, so if Hollywood is
this battleground, who are the strategist, the key players?
Our source paints a very specific and, yeah, provocative
picture of 1 alleged force, the Jesuit order.

(05:21):
It gets right into their origins.
They're supposed real purpose. It starts with Ignatius de
Loyola, born 1491. Spanish Basque describes him as
having a well debauched life as a soldier before becoming a
fanatical Romanist. Claiming visions of God and
Mary, apparently. And he wrote the Spiritual
Exercises, which the source points to as the Jesuits core

(05:42):
textbook. And here's a detail the source
really emphasizes about their founding.
Loyola started the Society of Jesus in 1534, but according to
this account, the members vowed obedience to Loyola before they
even got papal approval. Which the source interprets how?
It suggests Loyola had commissions of his own, implying
maybe he only sought the Pope's blessing if it became absolutely

(06:04):
necessary, a kind of a backup. Plan.
OK so given that alleged origin story, what is the source claim
was the Jesuits fundamental mission?
What were they really after? The core purpose, according to
this specific viewpoint, is laidout pretty starkly to convert
the world to Roman Catholicism. Simple as that.
And the methods. The source claims they have not
hesitated to use every means, both fair and foul, especially

(06:27):
foul. It explicitly mentions things
like lying, cheating, murder, even revolution if it served the
purpose. And their top priority, it
alleges, has always been the destruction of Protestantism,
which is framed as part of Satan's ages long war on the
Church of the Living God. The source identifies Rome
itself, citing some Bible versesas the center of Satan's

(06:49):
assault. And the Jesuits are positioned
as. As a new and deadly weapon
against what it calls biblical Christianity, it's a very
specific, very charged framing. So this historical foundation,
as the source presents it, it paints a particular picture of
how the Jesuits operated, right,and how they got involved in
culture. Exactly.
It says right from the start, 16th century, they were deeply

(07:09):
involved in theater. They recognized early on the
power of entertainment to influence minds and change
society. Ahead of their time, in a way.
You could say that the source even quotes another work saying
the Jesuit stage played an important part in the evolution
of the theater, owing especiallyto the great prominence given to
stage management and production,suggesting they really

(07:31):
understood media centuries before film.
So they saw theater as a tool, basically.
Direct tool, Yeah, to promote Jesuit religious propaganda to
the masses. And this became even more
important, the source claims, astheater started moving beyond
being just a Roman Catholic thing, you know, Protestant and
secular theater started popping up.
So they needed to counter that. They felt a theatrical counter

(07:53):
reformation was needed. They set up their own Roman
Catholic stage drama specifically to counter the anti
papist effects. And how did they do that
practically? Their strategy was apparently
quite direct. Fascinate the public with
brilliant settings, scenic effects and complicated
technical apparatus. Basically, draw people away from

(08:13):
the other troops. The Protestant school plays with
spectacle. And it worked.
Well, the source claims by the mid 17th century, something like
300 Jesuit colleges across Europe we're putting on these
dramas to promote Roman Catholicism.
That's a pretty extensive network.
And this wasn't just a European thing.
No. The source details their global
efforts to using plays on mission fields India, Japan,

(08:36):
Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay to attract audiences, impress
them with Catholic teachings, itsays the mission heads became
these competent producers, dramatists, theatre managers,
even training students to be actors for PR basically.
And this is where they're alleged tactical flexibility
comes in again. Yeah, this is interesting.
In Mexico and Peru, they supposedly even put on plays

(08:58):
that portrayed the European Catholic conquerors in a poor
light. Why would do that?
To appeal to the native populations, according to the
source, demonstrating that for them the end always justifies
the means. And back in Europe, they knew
they they had to adapt too. They realized plays had to
constantly improve, appeal to the worldly tastes of the people

(09:18):
to keep them interested, keep their influence.
This idea of lowering morals. The source presents that as
foreshadowing, A tactic they'd supposedly use later in
Hollywood. It paints the Jesuits as
incredibly pragmatic, really long term thinkers, willing to
bend, adapt their methods, even introduce worldly tastes or
critique conquerors, all for thebig goal.

(09:40):
Global Catholic conversion. A sophisticated understanding of
media power way before movies 3 The architects of Hollywood.
Early studio moguls. OK, so let's shift focus now to
the actual architects of Hollywood itself, the founders.
Our source points out something pretty striking the Jewish
immigrant origins of so many of the big studio heads.

(10:01):
Yeah, It really emphasizes that common background.
It paints this picture of a brand new industry being built
by this, well, quite diverse group of entrepreneurs.
Right, like Carl Lamel found under of Universal Pictures,
German Jewish immigrant. And his goal apparently was to
change the image of movie theaters.
He didn't want them seen as these dark places of iniquity.
So he named his theater the White Front.

(10:22):
He aimed, the source says, to make films that would uplift the
movie industry and make it respectable, a specific kind of
vision. Then you have Adolf Zukor at
Paramount Pictures. Hungarian, Jewish immigrant.
He was after quality feature films, artistic films.
Aiming for what? Higher class, genteel America,
not just the working folks. Though he's described as a

(10:44):
Republican, the source characterizes his films as
sophisticated. They would whisk them away to a
world of Sheen and sex, full of innuendo and abandoned.
That's a bit of a contradiction there, maybe.
The source includes a quote froma Paramount executive saying we
were always trying to lift public taste a little bit, but
then contrasts it with the observation that Paramount
Pictures didn't ennoble the audience.

(11:06):
They whisk them away. So yeah, maybe attention.
There and William Fox Fox Film Corporation, also a Hungarian
Jewish immigrant, described how.As loud, ambitious, aiming for
cheaper entertainment for the masses became a millionaire
fast, the source notes. He wanted to climb the social
ladder but was always aware of his Jewish getter boy roots.

(11:26):
OK. And the big one?
MGM Metro Goldwyn Mayer, headed by Louis B Mayer.
Russian Jewish immigrant famously wanted his studio to be
just the biggest, the greatest and the best.
He joined a middle class conservative Jewish temple,
apparently later started, you know, hobnobbing with
industrial, political and religious leaders.
Including someone significant. Yeah, the powerful Roman

(11:46):
Catholic newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who
apparently admired Mayer, consulted him.
Mayer, the source claims, believed in quality films with
moral messages upholding family virtue.
America. The America he imagined, maybe.
Then there were the Warner Brothers.
Harry, Sam, Albert Jack, sons ofa Polish Jewish immigrant, got

(12:08):
rich quick moving from showing movies to making them.
And Columbia Pictures, founded by Harry Cone, described as a
Jew at war with the world. Spiteful, vengeful, a bully, the
source says. And interestingly, it notes he
really admired Mussolini. The Italian fascist dictator
even decorated his office like Mussolini's.
Wow. So it's this incredible mix of

(12:29):
people, right? Different values, different
business plans. It does make you wonder, how did
this specific group come to dominate this huge new industry?
And how did their individual styles shape early movies?
That's a really crucial questionthe source implicitly raises.
And it then makes another claim that many of these Hollywood
Jews like Lamel, the Warners, Mayer, Fox, they consciously

(12:52):
turned their backs on Orthodox Judaism, allegedly joined
organizations like Magnin's Benign Breath more for a kind of
secularized religion or philanthropy or just status,
never because of any real religious feelings.
The source claims. It suggests they deliberately
tried to distance themselves from their religious roots as

(13:13):
much as they could. But that changed.
Well, according to the source, as Nazis started rising in the
30s, they softened in their stance.
They showed more interest in supporting the Jewish political
cause in Palestine, especially the younger generation.
Who's driving that? A key figure mentioned is Mendel
Silverberg, described as a powerful Jewish lawyer with
Republican connections. He chaired the Community

(13:34):
Committee, which later became the Community Relations Council,
focused on fighting anti-Semitism, even though he
himself was apparently only nominally Jewish.
And there's specific detail about Louis B Mayor's
connections. Right.
His daughter Edith is quoted saying he was very Catholic
prone and loved the Catholics. He was apparently a close friend
and admirer of Cardinal Francis Spellman.

(13:56):
The powerful New York Cardinal had a large portrait of Spellman
in his library. Why the admiration?
The source claims Mayor admired Spellman and Roman Catholicism
for their power and importance. Identified with the Pope even,
and supposedly he'd use this friendship with Spelman to stop
his movies from getting banned. It's.
Such a complex picture, isn't it?
This mix of religious background, trying to assimilate

(14:19):
political needs, personal relationships, all shaping this
massive industry from the very beginning, according to this
particular account. A really tangled web Yeah 4
Early film censorship, The battle for morality and control.
OK, so we have this picture. Powerful studio bosses, mostly
Jewish immigrants, often secularized building Hollywood.
But here's the paradox our source presents.

(14:42):
It claims that despite them creating and running the
studios, the actual control control over what movies got
made was for decades in the hands of the Roman Catholic
Church. Which immediately makes you ask,
well, how did that happen? Was it, you know, direct control
or something more subtle, Leveraging anxieties, social
norms? Right, the source itself asks,
how was it possible that in Protestant America the Roman

(15:05):
Catholic religion came to dominate the movie industry?
It points out that early 20th century Protestants, many having
fled what they saw as people, persecution and tyranny in
Europe, still had a strong memory of that.
They viewed potpourri, the source says, as abhorrent,
contrary to the Bible, contrary to America's founding
principles. So there was inherent suspicion

(15:25):
there already. Definitely.
So how did the mechanism for control or alleged control
start? Well, the legal groundwork for
censorship was laid pretty early.
The first actual film censorshiplaw, according to the source,
was Chicago November 19, O 7 Acquired permits, denied them
for anything deemed immoral or obscene.
And the courts upheld this. Yeah, the Illinois Supreme Court

(15:48):
did. The reasoning was interesting.
Movies were cheap, easily accessible to children in the
lower classes, so they needed special oversight.
So the industry tried to regulate itself.
They tried, yeah, like the National Board of Censorship in
New York 19 O 9. But states like Pennsylvania,
Kansas, Ohio, they set up their own boards anyway, seeing the
New York one as too liberal, toopermissive.
Then came a really crucial legalmoment.

(16:10):
Mutual Film Corporation versus US Supreme Court, 1915.
This was huge, the film makers argued.
Look, movies are part of the press.
They deserve First Amendment free speech protection.
And the Supreme Court said. Nope, they ruled movies were
quote, a business pure and simple, originated and conducted
for profit like other spectacles.

(16:31):
Not part of the press, not organs of public opinion, just
commercial products. Which meant which meant states
or even the federal government could regulate them.
No free speech shield. How does our source view that
1915 ruling? Very critically calls it
incorrect, self contradictory. It argues well movies do 'cause
moral evil so the premises flawed.
But it also says free speech should have limits, but only

(16:53):
regarding like physical harm, property damage.
Not morality. Not morality enforced by the
state. No, it argues the state
shouldn't get involved in matters of religion.
It cites this Gallio principle from the Bible.
Acts 18 governments Job is just law and order against physical
threats. Intervening in religion or
morality, it says, is wrong. So it calls the courts ruling

(17:15):
far from ideal and far from sensible.
So you can see how the source views this ruling.
It basically established movies as just commerce, not protected
speech, which is so different from how we think today.
And it argues this legal vulnerability opened the door
for, well, problematic religiousinterference.
Exactly this legal weakness pluspublic anxieties created an

(17:37):
opportunity and the source points to early Roman Catholic
successes in fighting films theyfound objectionable.
Like what? Well, interestingly, the silent
film Intolerance from 1916 by DWGriffith, who the source notes
was a Freemason with KKK sympathies.
It calls it one of the most intriguing portraits of
Catholics in cinema history because while it showed Catholic
intolerance, it also apparently was celebrating Catholic virtue

(18:00):
and exposing Protestant pretenseand hypocrisy.
A complex example. OK, what about more direct
interventions? During World War One there were
these educational films by the American Social Hygiene
Association. Fit to Fight about STD's, End of
the Road about illicit sex for soldiers.
Roman Catholic priest John J Burke from the National War

(18:20):
Council protested strongly, tried to stop their release,
demanded cuts. Some cuts were made, then Fit to
Fight was updated as fit to win for the general public.
Martin Quigley, the Catholic owner of Exhibitors Herald, we
mentioned was totally against them.
Burke apparently influenced Commissioner John F Gilbert to
come out with guns blazing. A Court of Appeals sided with

(18:42):
Gilbert, leading to bans. The source marks this as really
significant. The Catholic War Council's
campaign against these films marked the Roman Catholic
Church's first significant success in combating films it
found objectionable. And this all happened before the
big scandals hit Hollywood. Right.
Then came the Fatty Arbuckle scandal in 1921.
Hollywood was already being rocked by scandals.

(19:04):
Directors dying. Drug use, sordid love nests as
the source puts it. But the Arbuckle accusation,
rape and murder was the most lurid incident.
It solidified Hollywood reputation as a sun drenched
Sodom. Even though it was acquitted.
Even though it was acquitted, yeah, public outrage was so
intense, his films were withdrawn.
And this really fueled the callsfor the industry to clean house,

(19:27):
to do something about its image.What's fascinating here, as you
pointed out, is how the source highlights this may be
unexpected alliance forming between the Protestant
censorship head Will Hayes, who we'll get to, and the Roman
Catholic hierarchy. Right.
It suggests this kind of strategic coming together,
despite their obvious theological differences, because
they shared a common goal controlling Hollywood's moral

(19:48):
output, especially after these scandals blew up.
Which brings us right to Will Hayes and the MPPDA, the Motion
Picture producers and distributors of America.
Yeah, the studio owners picked him.
William Harrison Hayes. Lawyer.
Postmaster general, Republican National Committee chairman.
Described as a conservative Republican.
A staunch Presbyterian. By him.

(20:09):
They thought he'd be ideal. He was an outsider, not from the
industry. He'd oppose state censorship,
which they hated. But he'd also hopefully put the
people at ease about movie morality.
His office became known simply as the Hayes Office.
But the source claims he wasn't acting alone, morally speaking.
No, it claims Hayes had the powerful Church of Rome on his

(20:30):
side, but interestingly, very few Protestant churches
supported him. Why?
Because many Protestants back then were far more opposed to
films per SE, just the whole medium.
So Hayes actively sought Catholic support.
Yes, according to the source, groups like the International
Federation of Catholic Alumni, the IFCA, Hollywood producers

(20:50):
were apparently more than willing to make any cuts or
changes the IFCA suggested, evenabout negative depictions of
Roman Catholicism. And how did Protestants react to
this? It's not.
Well, according to this account,this courting of Catholic
interests angered them. Publications like the Texas 100%
American accused Hayes of playing into the hands of the

(21:11):
Catholic hierarchy. National Republic asked why
Protestant ministers always seemto be portrayed as a Sapper, as
Sissy in movies. The Church Man, a Protestant
journal was scathing, called Hayes a seller of swill and an
office boy for producers who areturning society into a brothel
house. And the source just flatly says
these charges were true. Did Hayes have personal

(21:34):
connections, too? Yeah, he became very friendly
with Cardinal Patrick Hayes of New York, who publicly backed
Hayes against Protestant critics.
Cardinal Hayes declared Hayes's work help movies stand out like
a shining light of great potential goodness in America.
Which the source takes issue with.
Right. It comments that Rome's idea of
shining lights and goodness is very different from biblical
teaching. So this perspective really makes

(21:56):
you think, how could a staunch Presbyterian end up leading an
organization that seemed, by this account, more aligned with
Catholic interests than Protestant ones?
The source suggests it was pure pragmatism, A strategic alliance
to fend off government censorship V the Hollywood
Production Code, a Jesuitical masterpiece.
OK, so this alliance, this context, leads us directly to

(22:19):
the Hollywood Production Code. The source sees this as a
pivotal, almost defining moment.The earlier attempts at self
regulation, like the 13 points from 1921, they hadn't really
stopped the calls for state censorship, had they?
No, they were seen as pretty ineffective.
And this is where Martin Quigleycomes back in.
Remember the devout Roman Catholic influential trade
journal owner? The source credits him with

(22:41):
brokering a deal between Fox Studios and the Church for a
film about the Eucharistic Congress.
He saw it as a missionary project, and his reasoning, the
source claims, was simple. The industry bosses would be too
afraid to oppose any united Roman Catholic action against
immoral films because it would cost them money.
Bottom line, money talks. So Quigley sets the stage, but

(23:03):
who actually wrote the code according to this source?
The primary author identified isDaniel, Lord SJA, Jesuit priest,
allegedly using notes from Quigley from Joseph Breen who
we'll get to, and a couple of other Jesuit priests dining and
parsonies. This code from 1930 was way more
comprehensive than anything before it.
And what was its stated purpose?Or rather, what purpose does the

(23:25):
source attribute to it? Well, its function was clear.
Regulate Hollywood movies for decades 1930 right up to 68.
The aim was to make sure films stressed that the church and the
source is clear. It means the Roman Catholic
Church here, along with government and family, were all
vital to an orderly society. They shouldn't be undermined.
So reinforcing certain values. Exactly.

(23:46):
Films should reinforce religiousteaching concerning morals, the
source notes. Lord himself said films were
entertainment for the multitudesbut had a special moral
responsibility, so they couldn'thave the same freedom as, say,
plays or books. What were the specific rules?
No lowering moral standards. Right.
No creating sympathy for criminals, adulterers, no

(24:08):
attacking society. Score values you had to uphold
the sanctity of marriage, the fairness of the justice system,
the honesty of police, respect for government, a pretty clear
moral framework. But how does our source
interpret the nature of this code?
It condemns. It pretty strongly calls it,
from beginning to end, a Roman Catholic code, a Jesuit code.

(24:28):
Its main goal, it argues, was toexert Roman Catholic and Jesuit
control over Hollywood. The morality wasn't just general
morality. It was specifically Roman
Catholic morality, not biblical morality, as the source defines
it. And its commitment to the Church
meant making sure films always painted Roman Catholicism in a
very good light. The source calls this whole set
up a very dangerous thing. And a key part of this

(24:50):
interpretation is the alleged secrecy around who wrote it.
Yeah, that's a major claim that Lord's authorship was basically
kept more or less a secret by Hayes's office until 1934, when
it came out in America Magazine,the Jesuit publication.
Why the secrecy? To avoid scaring non Catholics,
the source claims to prevent increasing the fears and

(25:11):
apprehensions of non Catholics and strengthening the
opposition. So the official story was
different. Apparently, Martin Quigley
himself publicly said the code was created after intensive
study by members of the industryand church leaders, leaders in
the field of education, representatives of women's
clubs, educators, psychologists,dramatists and other students of
our moral, social and family problems.

(25:33):
And the source says. Calls that statement not by any
means a true statement. Attributes it to a Jesuits
attitude to lies and deceit if it serves the cause and points
out Lord later admitted to Variety that he wrote it, which
the source then calls a lie and a violation of the commandment
against lying. Adding a Jesuit priest has never
been shy to lie if it will advance the cause of Rome.

(25:54):
So just to unpack this, this perspective basically argues
that one of Hollywood's most important moral frameworks was
actually a deliberately hidden Jesuit design tool of control
aimed at pushing a specific religious agenda.
It really highlights this idea of a deep hidden conflict under
the surface. Yeah, that's the core argument.

(26:15):
But implementing it wasn't smooth sailing initially.
The code faced real enforcement problems at first.
The studios just ignored it. Pretty much according to the
source it says it was almost ignored.
Joseph Breen in 1932 complained from LA.
Nobody out here cares for the code.
And this is where the source quotes Breen using those

(26:35):
incredibly offensive anti-Semitic terms for the
Jewish studio head Lozi Jews. Dirty lice, scum of the earth
accusing them of debauching America.
So the people behind the code knew they had a problem.
Right. The devout Roman Catholics who
had created it knew that something had to be done, and
fast, because they saw the code as promoting Roman Catholic
morality. So they started pushing hard to

(26:56):
get broader Roman Catholic support.
How did they do that? Rita McGoldrick praised the code
on the radio, but as instructed by Jesuit Parsons, hid its
Catholic origins. Joseph Breen reached out to
Catholic newspapers for support.Parsons rallied readers of
America magazine. There were some internal
squabbles. Apparently Quigley didn't trust
Hayes. Quigley was mad.

(27:17):
Lord took money for writing the code, but eventually key figures
like Cardinals Mundolin and Hayes endorsed it, and their
endorsements were published significantly in America, The
Jesuit magazine. Can you give an example of the
kind of friction that existed even with the code in place?
Well, the source mentioned Scarface, the 1932 film.
The director Howard Hawks put crosses everywhere, trying to

(27:39):
give a religious context to the gangster's crimes.
His mother was shown as an Old World papist.
But that didn't work. Not for Italian Roman Catholics,
apparently. They felt it besmirched their
religion and their ethnicity. They were not impressed.
So it really shows that stark contrast, doesn't it, between
the, you know, the internal goals and the public face the
code and how, according to this source, deep anti-Semitism was

(28:03):
bubbling just beneath the surface in those Catholic
censorship circles early on. 6 Joseph Breen, dictator of movie
morals. OK, let's really focus on Joseph
Breen now. The source gives him quite the
title. Dictator of movie morals.
Who was he exactly? Described as an Irish papist, he
was hired by Will Hayes back in 1931 as his assistant.

(28:26):
His specific job description, according to the source, was to
be a well connected and media savvy Roman Catholic layman.
Why? What was his function?
To maintain friendly relations with the Roman Catholics who are
always up in arms over somethingor other emanating from
Hollywood. So he was the go between the
indispensable middleman. He'd report back to Hayes on the
Papist mood, but Catholics wouldalso approach him to put

(28:46):
pressure on Hayes. A strategic position.
Very strategic and his biographer the source quotes
apparently wrote something quiterevealing.
The MPPDA only provided his day job.
The Church of Rome held his immortal soul.
Wow. He would render unto Hayes do
service, but his true mission was to convert Hollywood.

(29:08):
This was framed as his life's goal.
He wanted a Roman Catholic Hollywood.
And he became powerful. Virtually all powerful, the
source says. The Supreme Inspector General of
American Cinema. And yeah, those unofficial
titles really stick. The Hitler of Hollywood, The
Mussolini of American films, Thedictator of movie morals.
That's incredible power. Is there evidence of that?

(29:30):
Well, the source quotes Harry Warner reportedly telling his
studio staff if Joe Breen tells you to change a picture, you do
what he tells you. If anyone fails to do this, and
this goes for my brother, he's fired.
That sounds pretty powerful. How is he viewed by others?
Non Catholics, the source says, sent him letters calling him an
agent for the Pope, a spy for the Papists, and the sources
comment on that. They were right, for he was

(29:52):
certainly there to do Rome's work.
It also mentions again his collaboration with Martin
Quigley on that Eucharistic Congress film, viewing it as a
missionary project to spread Roman Catholicism to the ends of
the earth. So this perspective really
portrays Breen not just as a guyenforcing rules, but as a
dedicated agent, an agent of theRoman Catholic Church put inside

(30:14):
Hollywood specifically to achieve a religious mission.
That's exactly the picture painted and a really critical
part of Breen's early story, according to the source.
Were those strong anti Jewish feelings?
We touched on that quote earlier.
Right, 1932 complaining nobody out here cares for the code.
Yeah, and then writing to Wilfred Parsons, the Jesuit,
using those awful slurs. Lousy Jews, dirty lice, scum of

(30:36):
the Earth accusing the Jewish studio bosses of debauching
America with their movies. And the source claims this
wasn't just Breen. No, it says such anti Jewish
sentiments were not unique to Breen back then, before World
War 2. And it alleges this attitude was
very much encouraged by the Roman Catholic institution
itself, which it describes as having been rabidly anti Jewish

(30:57):
for centuries. So Breen was just reflecting his
environment. The source says he was merely
spouting the anti Jewish hatred so prevalent within his church
at the time. Then it adds an ironic twist.
Ironically, his accusations often based on truth about what
Jewish communists were doing, which adds another layer of
complexity to this narrative's claims.
But then the source describes a shift in Breen's views, an

(31:19):
apparent about face regarding Jews.
Yeah, this apparently happened towards the end of the 1930s as
World War 2 was starting. The main reason?
Nazism. How so?
Well, despite his own church as the source claims,
enthusiastically backing Hitler,Mussolini and Franco, brain
himself as an American was extremely anti Nazi.
American Catholics raised with American ideals just couldn't

(31:42):
see anything good in Hitler, according to this account.
So his American identity clash with his religious one, perhaps?
That's how the source seems to frame it, and his sympathy for
Jewish people suffering such terrible atrocities at the hands
of the Nazis apparently grew. Also a statement from Pope Pius
the Oven it is not possible for Christians to take part in.
Anti-Semitism reportedly made a profound impression on Breen.

(32:05):
Did this lead to any action? Yes, in 1939 Breen supported the
Committee of Catholics to Fight anti-Semitism.
So did Daniel Lord and Martin Quigley.
Interestingly, Breen even issueda public statement which got
reprinted in the Hollywood Anti Nazi Leagues paper, stressing
how important it was for Catholics to use our energies
and stemming the tide of racial bigotry and hostility.

(32:26):
It really highlights the complex, maybe contradictory
alliances and hatred swirling around.
Doesn't know how. anti-Semitism,anti communism, Rome shifting
positions, Breen's own Americanism.
It all seems tangled together inthis account.
Absolutely a very messy picture of competing idea, theologies
and loyalties within one powerful figure. 7th the Roman
castic Legion of Decency. Romes grip on Hollywood.

(32:49):
OK, so the code exists, Breen isin place.
But by 1933, the source says, itwas clear to the key players,
Lord Quigley Breen, that the code just wasn't working
effectively. Right.
Public anger about movie immorality was still high.
And the code itself, well, it was not being enforced
consistently. So what do they do?
Breen took action. He did, according to the source.

(33:11):
He apparently persuaded Romish Bishop John Cantwell to put
pressure on bankers, specifically non Jewish bankers,
the source notes, to lean on thefilm industry.
Why then? It was a tough year financially
for Hollywood 1933. Plus, Hitler's rise in Germany
was making the Hollywood Jews the studio heads, uneasy, so

(33:32):
they were perhaps more open to changing their ways.
Timing was key. Did Bishop Cantwell make
threats? He warned that America's Romish
bishops might release a joint pastoral letter condemning
Hollywood. That was the big stick, and it
seemed to work. Initially, most studio heads
agreed to stick to the code moreclosely.
Paramount even hired its own Roman Catholic censor.

(33:52):
But Breen and Quigley weren't convinced.
No, they suspected the Deer Studio bosses would just slip
back into their old ways. Eventually.
They felt something more organized, more powerful was
which led to the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency.
Blacklists of objectionable movies started circulated more
formally. Daniel Lord, the Jesuit priest,
wrote another piece in 1934. The motion pictures Betray

(34:15):
America accused Hollywood of themost terrible betrayal of public
trust, saying it depicted a whole philosophy of evil.
And this Legion of Decency, how powerful did it become,
according to the source? Extremely powerful.
The source makes a really bold claim here.
From 1934 until about 1953, no major Hollywood studio was

(34:35):
prepared to stand up to Rome. Its grip on Hollywood was total.
Total grip. That's strong language.
It is, and it summarizes this whole period with that
provocative phrase we mentioned earlier.
Truly Hollywood was the Jewish owned business selling Roman
Catholic theology to Protestant America.
It really underscores the audacity of the claim, this idea
that a huge multimillion dollar industry was essentially under

(35:00):
the thumb of an outside religious group.
This deep dive is really trying to show the alleged mechanisms
behind that control. Exactly how they supposedly
achieved and maintained that grip for nearly two decades. 8
Hollywood's Golden Age Romanism in film 1930s Nineteen 40s So
let's look at that period. Hollywood's Golden Age, roughly

(35:20):
the 1930s into the 40s. According to the source, this
was the time when Roman Catholicism really triumphed on
screen. How did that manifest?
Well, films very frequently showed Roman Catholic
characters, often immigrants, especially from quote Papist
Ireland, living in those old neighborhood ghettos where the
church, priests, schools, even songs was totally dominant.

(35:40):
And there were specific hit movies that pushed this.
Oh yeah, lots of successful pro Catholic films came out.
The source attributes this directly to Roman Catholic
advancement efforts trying to romanize America via Hollywood.
Like which one? Think Boys Town from 38 or
Angels with Dirty Faces same year.
That one's described as a real triumph for Rome.
It supposedly established the whole movie priest hero

(36:02):
archetype. You had Irish American actors
Pat O'Brien, James Cagney, ensuring the Catholic rituals
felt authentic. Even though the producer,
director, writer were Jewish. Exactly.
That's the kind of collaborationthe source points to.
Another one, The Fighting 69th 1940 called a pro Irish and thus
pro papist film, just rimming with stereotypical Irish

(36:24):
soldiers and Irish priest chaplain Father Francis J Duffy.
He became the prototype for movie chaplains in pro war
films. There was some internal debate
about that one, though. Yeah, an interesting side note,
A priest, Devlin, from the Los Angeles Legion tried to get
Warner Brothers to cut Father Duffy, saying things that
sounded like religious indifference.
You know, all religions are good.
We're all going to heaven by different routes.
Devlin found it hard to explain Rome's actual teaching on

(36:47):
tolerance to the producers because the source claims Rome
had no true teaching on tolerance given its history of
persecution. Other big ones Newt Rockney, All
American, 1940. That one, The Song of Bernadette
1943, described as a Roman Catholic epic about Marian
visions, A collaborative effort between Roman Catholics and

(37:08):
Jews. The source says the novel's
author, Franz Werfel, was Jewish, sheltered by Catholics
fleeing the Nazis. The Catholic hierarchy
apparently went all out to promote it.
The director, Henry King, a papist Mystic, supposedly
thought actress Jennifer Jones'saura was something spiritual
from heaven, not just a spotlight.
And then maybe the most impactful 1 going my way 1944.

(37:31):
Huge impact. According to this account, Bing
Crosby as Priest O'Malley presented this new kind of
Romanism popular with everybody,Catholics, Protestants.
He seemed like just an ordinary American.
So it changed perceptions. It revolutionized the way people
viewed the Popish priesthood, the source claims presented.
This tolerant, progressive, sports loving Catholicism made
it seem cheery, light, happy, easygoing.

(37:52):
This was seen as a huge thrust forward to Roman Catholicism in
the United States. A nun, Mary Mataleva, even
acquainted it with the Catholic way and the American way.
And the source warns about its effect.
Yeah, it warns. This film drastically soften
Protestant attitudes towards Roman Catholicism, which again
using its own specific theological terms, it calls the

(38:13):
Great Whore. Other examples The Bells of
Saint Mary's, 1945. The Fighting Sullivans, 1944.
Both fit the pattern. The Fighting Sullivans portrayed
Catholic Americans as loyal heroes fighting Nazis, despite,
the source alleges Rome's own pro Nazi stance during the war.
It's fascinating how the source presents this Hollywood actively

(38:35):
romanizing America through movies, even using Jewish talent
OR twisting history like in Robin Hood to ignore greedy
bishops, all to fit this allegedpro Catholic agenda.
It paints a picture of very deliberate cultural engineering
through entertainment. But this golden age wasn't
entirely smooth sailing for thisalleged Catholic control.
There were clashes, challenges, especially around World War 2

(38:56):
and afterwards. Like what?
Well, the source points to the reluctance of some Jewish
executives to openly oppose Nazism initially.
Those first generation moguls, it says, try to turn their backs
on their Jewish roots. Adolf Zukor felt Hollywood
should just stick to entertainment alone, avoid
politics. Why the hesitation?

(39:17):
Fear. Fear of drawing attention to
themselves as foreigners controlling this huge industry.
Fear of losing money from European distribution.
This apparently clashed with younger, more left wing, maybe
communist Jewish writers who wanted Hollywood to take a
strong militant stance against Hitler.
Eventually, some conservatives, like Louis B Mayer, did speak

(39:37):
out. And then the war itself created
new pressures. Right.
The Roosevelt administration setup the OWI, the Office of War
Information. They wanted to use movies for
wartime propaganda. The OWI director even said the
easiest way to inject a propaganda idea is to let it go
in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they
do not realize they are being propagandized.
That manual became like a secondHollywood code during the war.

(40:00):
How did Breen react to this? He was anti Nazi, you said.
He was, but he had a decidedly antipathy towards government
propaganda, which the source links to his Roman Catholicism.
Why? Because Pope Pius the 12th was
allegedly pro Nazi and anti communist.
Breen was worried about the US alliance with Soviet Russia,
with Stalin, and he was concerned about Hollywood making

(40:21):
decidedly pro communist films like Mission to Moscow or Song
of Russia. The source claims Hollywood's
influence made leftist causes and pro Marxist positions seem
fashionable. So tensions were rising, and
there were direct challenges to the censors too.
Definitely the two faced woman controversy in 1941.
The PCA passed it but the Legionof Decency and Archbishop

(40:41):
Spelman were furious, condemned it as a near occasion of sin,
led to bands cuts and that angered a lot of people who felt
the Roman Church which had such.Power and the infamous outlaw
film, 1943 but wider release later, right?
Howard Hughes. He refused to get a PCA seal for
it went beyond any previous filmand exposing or emphasizing the

(41:02):
female form. He just released it himself
through independent theaters. Huge backlash.
Massive Roman Catholic protests kneeling wide bishops blasted
the film. Cardinal Doherty in Philadelphia
threatened a year long boycott of any theater showing it.
But the film made a fortune. What did that signal according
to the source? Two things.
One, moral standards of the American public in general were

(41:24):
deteriorating rapidly. And two Roman Catholics
themselves were no longer as subservient to their bishops and
priests as they had been. Some priests didn't even know
about the legions condemnation. David O Selznick also pushed
back, didn't he? He did with Gone With the Wind
in 39. Breen wanted the line.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give adamn.
Cut. Selznick, described as strongly

(41:47):
a post movie censorship, fought back, appealed, pointed out the
word had been used elsewhere. Will Hayes actually overruled
Breen and let the lines stay. Breen apparently faced a lot of
mockery over that. And dual in the sun in 46.
That was a huge battle. The PCA initially called it
utterly unacceptable. Why Illicit sex?
Murder for revenge, implied rape, even a hint of nude
swimming, plus a vulgar religious figure called the Sin

(42:09):
Killer. So Selznick had to make changes.
Lots of changes, rewrites, adding moral values like severe
punishment for the criminals just to get PCA approval.
PCA officials even went to the set to check costumes for
modesty demanded cuts. But even with the PCA seal
influential Catholics were having none of it Called it
plush pornography. Did they attack the film?

(42:31):
Yeah, a Catholic critic, WilliamMooring, said it violated the
code by making you sympathize with sinners.
And the other studios refused tohelp Selznick fight the Legion.
They were scared of losing money, called him completely
yellow. Selznick was forced to edit it
again, adding a prologue and epilogue actually written by the
Legion to make sure everyone knew that sin is sin.

(42:51):
Wow, what about Forever Amber 1947?
That time, 20th Century Fox actually went on the offensive
against the Legion for the firsttime since 36.
Cardinal Daugherty. Other bishops threatened
boycotts. Again.
Catholic war veterans picketed. Fox defied them initially, and
it did well in cities, but ruraltheaters felt the pressure.
In the end, the film made a great deal less than its

(43:13):
production costs. The source blames the Legions
campaign, plus the fact that PCAcensorship had cut out too much
of the juicy stuff people wantedfrom the book.
Oh, and the screenwriter, Lardner Junior, got subpoenaed
by HUAC for alleged communist ties around the same time, just
adding to the pressure. Even historical films weren't
immune. Captive from Castile, 1947.

(43:34):
Right. Based on a novel depicting
torture during the Spanish Inquisition, the script got
changed. The director, Daryl F Zenik,
eventually added the good priestand downplayed the Church of
Rome's role in the Inquisition to some extent.
The Legion gave it an A2 rating,meaning morally unobjectionable
for adults. A whitewash essentially,

(43:54):
according to this view. You really get a sense in this
account of a constant push and pull, don't you?
A relentless kind of subtle war for control.
Money, religion, politics all clashing, adapting, concessions
made, but also outright defiancestarting to bubble up.
Yeah, the cracks were definitelystarting to show in that alleged
total grip and decline of Roman Catholic dominance and shifting

(44:15):
battlegrounds. 19 Fifties, 1960s.
All right, so let's move into the 1950s and 60s.
Our source argues. This is where we see the real
decline of that Roman Catholic dominance and the battlegrounds
start to shift. New challenges pop up.
A big one was foreign films starting to come into the US
more often made by directors, some more Catholic actually, but

(44:36):
they weren't bound by Hollywood's production code.
So they showed more. Yeah, often far more immorality,
as the source puts it. Explicit sex, murder, drug
suicide, Things Hollywood couldn't touch.
Martin Quigley was worried thesefilms would deteriorate even
further morally and just undermine the whole authority of
the PCA and the Legion if they got popular here.

(44:58):
And then came a specific film controversy that led to a huge
legal change. The Miracle 1948, an Italian
movie. The Legion condemned it as
sacrilegious and blasphemous. The New York State censors
banned it. But the distributor fought back.
They did challenge the ban, which ironically gave the film
tons of publicity, made it really popular.
The ACLU, newspapers, they defended the film.

(45:19):
It went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1952.
Landmark ruling, the Supreme Court reversed its own 1915
decision. It declared that movies were
expressions of ideas and therefore protected by the 1st
Amendment freedom of speech, so they could not be censored just
for being sacrilegious. What was the impact of that

(45:39):
according to the source? Huge catastrophic results to
Americans morality, it claims, because movies could now be made
under press freedom guarantees. The Legion of Decency suffered a
huge blow, and apparently even many Roman Catholics turned
against it. Why?
Because they'd imbibed much of the spirit of a workanism, the
source says. Ideas like freedom of religion,

(46:00):
freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
This created a real dilemma for Roman America.
Even the Catholic magazine Commonweal criticized its own
church for its ancient siege complex, using threats rather
than persuasion, making non Catholics feel like they're
being treated like children by an alien force.
And the source connects this back to that Gallio principle.
Yeah, it sees the ruling as affirming that principle.

(46:22):
No one religion's views can be enforced by the government over
others, preventing religious persecution.
The source strongly endorses this idea that government
shouldn't meddle in religion, only maintain public order
against physical harm, contrasting it with what it sees
as America's current drift away from that principle.
So this really raises the question, how did this Supreme

(46:43):
Court decision change the game in Hollywood, shifting
censorship from morality police to free expression?
And how did the Catholic institution have to adapt its
strategy? Exactly.
It forced a major rethink. Meanwhile, other things were
happening to the HUAC Sea hearings.
The anti communist investigations resumed in 51 led
to more blacklisting. How did the studio heads react

(47:05):
this time? Frightened, the source says they
fired suspected radicals, liberals and communists to avoid
boycotts. Even fired some anti communists
who just happened to end up on blacklist.
A climate of fear? But even amidst this, could pro
Catholic film still succeed? Apparently yes.
The Miracle of Fatima 1952. The Legion actually gave it AC
rating condemned, though some priests initially opposed that

(47:28):
that rating. But the film was a box office
hit anyway. Huge numbers of Catholics took
their kids, even in Papist strongholds.
It proved, the source says, thata filmmaker could challenge the
Legion and still make a lot of money.
So the cracks in the Legions authority were getting wider.
Definitely, we see more examplesof outright defiance.
The Moon is Blue 1953 United Artists said they distribute it

(47:52):
even without a PCA seal and evenif the Legion condemned it.
What did the PCA do? They found it violated the code,
but Breen knew denying a seal would severely undermine his own
authority. It was tricky.
Interestingly, 2 Legion priests overruled the women from the
IFCA group and condemned the film anyway, partly because
Quigley was pushing them. Was there a big boycott?

(48:12):
Priest Little urged one, saying the Legion's strength was going
to be tested. Tested.
Cardinal Spellman in New York backed the boycott.
But, and this is significant, the majority of bishops in the
United States did not showing the Catholic Church was no
longer speaking with the United Voice.
Did the film do OK? Yeah.
Despite some regional boycott success, the film critic for
Saint Joseph's magazine, described as a Catholic family

(48:35):
monthly, actually praised it as wholesome, a clear sign things
were changing. Then Howard Hughes struck again.
He did. The French line, also 53,
starred Jane Russell Hughes released it without a PCA seal,
completely ignoring Breen's warnings about costumes needing
more covering, And he deliberately premiered it in
Saint Louis, Jesuit Daniel Lord's hometown, a city with

(48:56):
tons of Catholics. Just thumbing his nose at.
Them pretty much the sources Hughes simply ignored.
Breen ignored the MPAA board of directors and released the film
to the public anyway. How did the church react
locally? With cloak and dagger tactics,
the source claims priests privately telling Catholic
theater owners they couldn't receive sacraments if they

(49:16):
showed the film, threatening eternal damnation.
The source calls this hypocritical, sly, sinister and
nasty. Were there protests?
Yeah, feeder managers got vulgarand obscene letters and calls
from Catholics objecting, which the source uses to call them
immoral hypocrites. But despite all the condemnation
from bishops, large numbers flocked to see it, even in

(49:37):
strongly papist areas. It was a box office success.
Hughes, the source says, was thumbing his nose at the censors
and thereby Dr. Another nail into the coffin of Roman
Catholic controlled films censorship.
Fast forward a bit. Boccaccio 70 in 1962.
By then, the Legion's own internal reviewers mostly
thought it was OK, moral and theme and decent in treatment,

(49:59):
at least for adults. But Priest Little still wanted
it condemned. The distributor.
Levine just went ahead and signed contracts with major
theater chains without waiting for Legion or PCA approval.
And the theaters went along withit.
Lowe's theaters actually told the priests they were no longer
interested in code seals for films, Widget Books said.
A Legion condemned rating or no rating at all means nothing to

(50:21):
them. That was a huge blow, the source
concludes. For all intents and purposes,
the Legion was finished. And Breen himself.
He could no longer face up to the task.
Retired from the PCA in 1954 after two decades dominating it,
he'd sought to impose his Roman Catholic morality on Hollywood
and had succeeded for years, inspecting over 7000 scripts and

(50:42):
films. But the tide had turned.
Even Martin Quigley had to admitdefeat.
Yeah, even though he got a papalmedal, Saint Gregory in 1956, he
was forced to concede to Cardinal Spellman that the
Legion of Decency is able no longer to exert its previous
practical influence. Why?
Because Catholics, like everyoneelse, were motorized and mobile,

(51:03):
refusing to genuflect on command.
The source sums it up. The American spirit of liberty,
of thought and independence had come into conflict with the
Roman Catholic spirit of rigidity and top down
authoritarianism. It really paints a picture of
defiance from film makers, but also internal conflict within
the Catholic hierarchy itself. Right?
Traditionalists versus these progressive Jesuits looking for

(51:24):
new ways to stay relevant. A clear turning point where the
old control methods just weren'tworking anymore.
Absolutely. The game was changing.
Which brings us directly to thisnew Jesuit tactic, as the source
calls it, and this broader liberalisation happening within
the Roman Catholic stance on media.
Right. The source points to an article
from the 1950s by a Jesuit priest, John Courtney Murray.

(51:46):
Published with ecclesiastical approval, it signaled an
internal shift regarding movies,and the source claims the
Jesuits were really leading thischange.
What was the core of this new tactic?
Basically recognizing the old ways.
Boycotts, pickets, yelling aboutmortal sin, threats, they just
didn't work anymore. The world had passed the lesion
by. A new world required new

(52:07):
methods, methods that were far more subtle.
Who's behind this shift? Led by what the source calls
intellectually progressive Jesuits names like John G Ford,
Harold C Gardner, Gerald Kelly, plus a non Jesuit Francis J
Connell, their thinking was censorship is too oppressive,
Catholics won't be morally defiled by seeing films about
adultery or divorce or crime. And maybe more importantly, the

(52:29):
old tactics just made the Roman Catholic Church look foolish and
old fashioned. So time for a change.
Time to change tactics, yeah. To keep promoting Roman
Catholicism, keep combating Protestantism, but in a new way.
And this new approach got formalized.
Yes, in Vatican 2's Decree Intermurifica Decree on the
Means of Social Communication from 1963.

(52:50):
The source presents this as a really fundamental document that
guides rooms attitude even today.
What did it? Say well, Section 26 talks about
freedom to express ideas and attitudes.
But, and this is key for the source, it immediately adds a
condition so long as the common good and public morality be not
endangered. How does the source interpret

(53:10):
common good? As meaning whatever is good for
Rome. So, it argues, Rome was trying
to control free speech by allowing it only as long as
Roman Catholicism or any of its works was not criticized.
What else did the document say about media workers?
Section 13, the source argues, reveals where their loyalties
should lie. They're supposed to use their
positions in the mass media to serve Rome without delay and as

(53:34):
energetically as possible, and also forestall projects likely
to prove harmful to the Church. The source then asks
rhetorically. Should we be surprised then,
that Roman Catholicism was oftenportrayed in such good light in
movies and on television after this?
What about propaganda? Section 29 justifies propaganda
campaign if it serves the truth,which the source equates to

(53:54):
Rome's truth, and if its goals and methods respect human
dignity and serve the public interest.
Section 30 rejects propaganda that deliberately misrepresents
the real situation, a standard The source immediately turns
back on Catholic media itself, comparing its reasoning to
atheist communists. And secrecy is that.
Yes, Section 42 says the right to information is not limitless.

(54:15):
It has to be balanced with the right of secrecy, especially if
necessity or professional duty or the common good itself
requires it. The source jumps on this,
interpreting it as Rome giving itself permission to use secrecy
for its own machinations, citingthe historical cover up of
clerical child abuse as an example.
And did it encourage Catholics to get involved in media?

(54:36):
Absolutely. Section One, O 6 warmly urges
bishops, priests, laypeople to write in the press or appear on
radio and television, or to collaborate in filming.
It stresses that this work has consequences that are far more
important than is usually imagined.
A clear call to action. Do we see films reflecting this
alleged new, more subtle approach?

(54:56):
The source points to examples like Lilies of the Field, 1963.
It had East German nuns escapingcommunism, a black Baptist
character, Mexican Catholicism released right during Vatican 2.
It embodied these themes of Catholics being equals with
Protestants, a more tolerant Romanism.
It helped to breakdown Protestant barriers to Romanism,
the source claims. There's a specific scene

(55:17):
mentioned. Yeah, where a nun beats the
Baptist character at quoting Bible verses, the source
interprets this as planting the idea that the Bible was, after
all, the basis of Romanism as well as of Protestantism, which
it calls fiction rather than fact.
Other films. The Shoes of the Fishermen,
1968. That one only makes sense in the
light of the post Vatican 2 church.

(55:38):
The source says it anticipated Pope John Paul the Second
promoted A radical new socialistic brand of Romanism.
Also mentions Heaven Knows Mr. Allison 1957, another pro
Catholic war film where a nun blesses, marines fight, and even
Ben Hur 1959 gets critiqued as dangerous precisely because it
appears so harmless and attractive, arguing it lacked

(55:59):
the book's religious message andthat Hollywood created its own
gods, like Charlton Heston's character becoming Hollywood's
new Messiah. And the discourse within
Catholicism was changing, too. Yes, Priest Little, who'd been a
hardliner, noted that issue seemed less simple and more
complex as he got older. After the Legion changed its
name to NC Co MP, he admitted ithad a reputation as a stubborn,

(56:21):
antiquarian, unrealistic defender.
He said Catholicism itself had changed.
The Pope wanted to move with thetimes.
Monsignor Sullivan, reflecting this liberal Romanism, said
Pious 12th encyclical open the door to a more tolerant view,
stating we cannot intrude upon individual responsibility and
conscience for adult Catholics. How does the source view that

(56:42):
statement? As base hypocrisy of Rome saying
it speaks in favor of things that actually opposes when it
suits its purposes. Always strategic in this view.
So this all leads to the end of the production code itself.
Exactly replaced by Sarah Ray, The Code and Rating
Administration in 1968. The end of formal censorship.
Censorship as it had existed. Who drove that change?
Jack Valenti, an Italian Roman Catholic, became MPAA president

(57:05):
in 1966. He wanted to destroy the code,
called it the odious smell of censorship.
His new code, in September 66, expunged the last vestiges of
Quigley, Lord Breen. Moral absolutism made parents
the arbiters of family conduct, designed to be in closer harmony
with the Moors, the culture of our society.

(57:25):
So in November 68, the old code is gone, replaced by the rating
system. We basically still have GM later
PGRX. Right and new people took over.
Eugene Doherty, a Catholic, replaced the old PCA head
priest. Sullivan replaced priest Little
at the Catholic Reviewing Officeand COMP.
Even Archbishop Crowell supported the new system, saying
the Church was committed to the Bill of Rights, including

(57:46):
freedom of utterance, which includes artistic expression.
Which the source dismisses. Calls it a sham.
States Rome has never been in favor of American freedoms.
It also describes ARA itself, the rating board, as a secret
society, a true Star chamber. So secret, a documentary maker
actually hired Pi is just to find out who was on the board.
So the final verdict from the source on this shift.

(58:07):
In effect, with the replacement of the code by the rating
system, censorship was now dead,It declares the code was dead,
censorship was dead, and the cultural war that had raged
between the Catholic Church and the movie industry was, at least
temporarily, over. What's fascinating is how this
perspective presents the end of censorship not really as a win
for free expression, but is Romejust changing tactics, shifting

(58:31):
to subtler, more tolerant methods to keep influencing
things in a new era? Which leads us to the next
phase. The post code battles yeah ex
Hollywood's post code era New forms of influence 19 seventies
2000s. All right, so the code is gone.
We're in the post code era, late60s, seventies right up into the
2000s and the source claims we see new kinds of influence at

(58:51):
play and maybe surprisingly a big shift towards films that
were anti Roman Catholic even getting into satanic or.
Yeah, it points immediately to Rosemary's Baby in 1968,
directed by Roman Polanski, described as a highly serious
lapsed Catholic fable. The main character, Rosemary is
an Irish American ex Roman Catholic girl haunted by

(59:12):
Catholic imagery. She gets pregnant by the devil
in a satanic black mass, and in her dream of this, all the
figures involved are Roman Catholics, even John and Jackie
Kennedy apparently. So the source sees this as a
direct attack. A frontal assault on the
religion of Rome, it claims, anda strong statement that God is
dead. Satan wins.
The source then makes that disturbing connection to the

(59:34):
real life murder of Polanski's wife Sharon Tate by Manson's
followers, one of whom reportedly said I'm the devil
and I'm here to do the devil's business.
A chilling link it draws. And this wasn't an isolated
film. No, the source argues, the late
60s, early 70s saw the surge of interest in witchcraft,
Satanism, the occult generally, and Hollywood didn't just tap

(59:55):
into it, it plugged into this fascination but also led the way
into it. Now free from the code, it
started attacking all things papist and also just assaulting
morality, decency and the truth of the Gospel according to this
perspective. What are some other examples?
The Omen 1976 and its sequels are highlighted.
Damien Omen the second The FinalConflict Omen the 3rd 81 These

(01:00:17):
horror movies, the source says, depicted the triumph of satanic
forces over Roman Catholic priests and ritual.
How were priests portrayed? As fools and comics.
Well, meaning maybe, but totallyunable to stop the forces of
darkness. Roman Catholicism itself was
shown as Christianity, utterly powerless, a religion of
superstition. The attack apparently

(01:00:37):
intensified in the sequel, Damien.
And in the third one, the final conflict, the demon character
actually mocks and sodomizes a statue of Rome's Christ.
Wow. Yeah.
And even though there's a sort of hollow victory for Christ at
the very end, the source emphasizes that you sat through
hours of celluloid depicting Satan's victories and power.
So this perspective really argues that once the code was

(01:00:59):
gone, Hollywood just swung the other way, immediately started
attacking the very institution that allegedly controlled it for
so long. Like it reflects this deeper,
almost spiritual battle over good and evil playing out on
screen. That's exactly the argument.
And this era also saw a Really critiques of Irish American
Catholicism, specifically it's perceived hypocrisy.
How are they depicted now? As depraved, the source says, it

(01:01:22):
claims young Irish American Catholic writers at the time
wrote much against what had gonebefore.
They saw the church as the root of all the repression,
hypocritical pieties dead in thought.
It was a backlash or reaction against repression and
oppression, maybe like the French Revolution, the source
suggests. But it led to the shocking
excesses of the 60s counterculture.

(01:01:44):
Can you give an example of film?True confessions from 1981 about
a cop investigating Catholic layman for murder and the cops
brother. He's a corrupt Irish American
Monsignor involved in shady dealings.
This film, the source argues, deliberately and ruthlessly
attacks and pulls down the kind of Irish American Romanism
portrayed in the much older Going My Way.

(01:02:04):
So a complete reversal. Total reversal.
It showed Irish American Roman Catholic corruption and
perversion marked a revolution in the representation of Irish
Catholic America. Now they were showing up as
cynical cops, corrupt politicians, nationalist zealots
or hypocritical priests. Another example The Verdict,
1982. Yeah, Paul Newman as this

(01:02:25):
drunken Irish American Catholic lawyer taking on a Catholic
hospital, a biased Irish American Catholic judge in the
whole Boston Catholic Archdiocese.
Clergy shown as modern day Machiavellis obsessed with money
using bribery. Interestingly, the source
actually says this is not an inaccurate portrayal at all of
the hierarchy, but it still warns Christians off watching it

(01:02:45):
because of the filthy language and other unacceptable material.
So many films critiquing Catholicism in this period,
according to the source. Yeah, it lists others.
Lipstick, 76, Rapist teacher at a Catholic girls school.
Nuns support him. Saturday Night Fever 77, called
an anti Roman Catholic disco movie.
The Wanderers mocked Catholic views on sex.

(01:03:06):
The runner stumbles 79 priest and none fall in love.
Catholicism shown as a failure, unable to satisfy deep longings,
leading people away from it and maybe even away from true
Christianity. It does make you wonder, doesn't
it? Is this just reflecting society
changing, people getting disillusioned with institutions?
Or, as the source implies, is itkind of like revenge from those

(01:03:29):
liberal, maybe Marxist forces that Rome had suppressed for so
long? Yeah, using movies to hit back
at their old oppressor. That's the tension the source
presents. But even while this critical
content was coming out, the source also claims there was
still this ongoing systematic Catholic influence happening
behind the scenes in media. At the same time how?
Yeah, By the early 70s, it argues, there were indications

(01:03:52):
of a systematic Roman Catholic influence in the mass media
throughout the Western world. Calls it fundamentally a
Catholic action phenomenon. In the US, Jesuit produced TV
shows like Sacred Heart, programdirections, look up and live
religious specials. In Britain, it alleges Catholics
systematically infiltrated key positions in broadcasting.
Numerous priests attached to theBBC.

(01:04:13):
Independent TV. Catholic reps on advisory
committees in Australia. A Catholic owned radio station
in Sydney. 2 SM Saint Mary's became really powerful.
And they were actively encouraging involvement.
Yes, groups like the Catholic Women's League, Catholic Schools
were actively promoting involvement in the media,
especially TV, aiming to promoteChristian and human values.

(01:04:34):
And the source connects this back to those Vatican documents
again. Right.
It revisits Comuno ET Progresio 1971 and Intermerafica 63 argues
that while they talk about freedom of speech, the real goal
is control, allowing it only as long as Roman Catholicism or any
of its works was not criticized.It reiterates the claim that

(01:04:55):
Catholics and media are supposedto use their positions to serve
Rome and block things harmful tothe Church, compares Catholic
propaganda claims of serving thetruth to atheist communists, and
again interprets the instructions about discretion
and careful judgement in news asallowing secrecy when the common
good, IE Roam's good, requires it, citing the abuse cover up

(01:05:17):
again. It's a strange picture, isn't
it? This alleged strategic
infiltration happening at the same time as Hollywood seems to
be producing content attacking the very institutions supposedly
doing the infiltrating. What are the long term
implications of that if true? That's a key question the source
raises about shaping public discourse.
OK, now let's jump to the 21st century.
We see the rise of the faith-based movie phenomena.

(01:05:39):
The source has a very specific take on this calls it
Hollywood's new Gold Rush. Yeah, after all those anti
religious movies, Hollywood suddenly woke up to the fact
that there's gold in them. They're hills.
The hills of religion. But it wasn't a spiritual
conversion, the source insists. It was just about money.
And the catalyst was the Passionof the Christ in 2004.

(01:05:59):
That seems to be the key Film directed by Mel Gibson,
described here as a devout traditionalist Roman Catholic.
The film was a massive hit, right, $611.9 million worldwide,
but it was also ridiculed and effectively boycotted by liberal
leftist Hollywood. Gibson had to finance it
himself, the source notes. How does the source describe the
film itself? Calls it a Roman Catholic

(01:06:20):
splatter movie. It claims it was made by Mary
for her son, quoting the actor Jim Caviazel, and it alleges
many crew members converted to Catholicism because of it, thus,
in the source's view, leading poor souls into the clutches of
the papal Antichrist. But many evangelicals embraced
it. That's what shocks the source
that evangelicals hailed it as awonderful evangelistic tool,

(01:06:41):
despite it points out Gibson's history of making violent,
brutal, gory movies full of foullanguage and sexual immorality.
Why the acceptance? The source blames the ecumenical
movement, softening views on Catholicism, ignorance of
biblical truth and shallow, counterfeit evangelistic methods
like movie evangelism. So the passion success changed

(01:07:03):
Hollywood's approach. It shocked Hollywood, the source
says, threatened their agenda ofopposing anything too blatantly
religious. But then Hollywood's love for
another idol kicked in, the idolof Mammon.
They realized there was big money to be made by catering to
the religious tastes of Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Around the same time, we had theHarry Potter phenomenon starting
in 2001. How does the source view that?

(01:07:25):
Very negatively describes the series as having aggressively
promoted witchcraft and other aspects of the occult, posing
great spiritual danger and acting as indoctrination into
witchcraft for kids. And yet it got endorsements.
This is what really appalls the source that institutions and
individuals claiming to be Christian that names World
magazine and Christianity Today.Figures like Charles Coulson,

(01:07:47):
Rick Warren, even the Anglican Church praised the stories, even
published guides on how to use them to spread a Christian
message. What about the Vatican?
By 2009, the Vatican newspaper La Servitor Romano was
apparently full of praise for the Potter films said they made
the debate over good versus evilcrystal clear champion values of
friendship and sacrifice. Even though the Vatican paper

(01:08:10):
admitted they leave out any explicit reference to the
transcendent. The source sees this as Rome
just willing to overlook the occultic nature of the films in
order to dredge up some nebulousmoral.
Then came the Chronicles of Narnia films, starting 2005,
based on CS Lewis's books. Right.
And the source identifies Lewis himself as a closet papist and

(01:08:31):
Anglo Catholic and doctrine, rejecting the common view of him
as a great Christian apologist. It claims his books contain
Pagan elements like dryads, nymphs, satyrs, fawns, which one
source it sites calls demons, and occult practices as alchemy,
clairvoyance, astrology, crystalgazing, necromancy, magic,
talismans. And the film adaptations were

(01:08:53):
marketed to Christians. Heavily promoted to churches and
Christian organizations. It mentions CPO sending Narnia
packs to 20,000 churches, calling it an evangelistic
opportunity. The president of Walden Media,
Michael Flair, is quoted saying they were open to any audience
that can make them money, and they'd happily emphasize
Christian elements in movies if it helps sell tickets.

(01:09:15):
How does the source interpret that?
As proof that Hollywood producers just had faith in the
trend of religious movies to make money and also faith in the
gullible Christian public, it argues this whole trend is about
trying to rewrite the gospel, redefine Christianity to make it
factionable and relevant to be as much in the world as is
possible to be. So this faith themed approach
became a deliberate strategy, Yeah.

(01:09:37):
After The Passion of Narnia, 20th Century Fox even announced
a specific division, Fox Faith, to make as many as a dozen major
faith themed films a year aimed right at evangelicals.
But the executives were clear. We want to push the production
value, not videotaped sermons orproselytize, said Simon Swart.
Steve Feldstein added. We are not here to proselytize.

(01:09:58):
We are making entertainment. Were there examples of them
trying to cater to this audience?
The source mentioned small things, maybe superficial,
adding a crucifix into a scene in Mr. and Misses Smith actors
wearing Jesus rocks, jackets or in flight plan, taking the word
Jesus out of dialogue to avoid offending people about taking
the Lord's name in vain. The source sees these as just

(01:10:19):
surface gestures, satisfying what it calls a shockingly
compromised Christianity. Even Rocky Balboa 2006 gets
pulled into this. Oh yeah, Stallone made what he
said was the last Rocky film, but it got touted as a movie to
build one up in one's Christian faith.
Stallone himself compared Rocky to Jesus, Said he was chosen,

(01:10:39):
Jesus was over him. He'd live through the example of
Christ. Very forgiving, Turns the other
cheek. Life about service.
And religious leaders endorsed this.
Pastors and religious leaders, including Catholics like the
chancellor of the Lenovoarch Diocese and a nun daughter of
Saint Paul, held conference calls praising the film,
spirituality, Christian values, perseverance, even self esteem,

(01:11:01):
which the source immediately contrasts with biblical
humility. How does the source react?
Strongly condemns it argues boxing itself, being violent,
causing injury, can't glorify God.
It's incompatible with Christianvirtues.
It laments that multitudes of churchgoers now turn to the
cinema and to superstars for answers to life's problems.
OK, shifting gears again, what about The Da Vinci Code 2006

(01:11:24):
that caused a huge stir? Right.
The source presents it as a direct attack on Christ and the
church. The film based on the novel
rejected Christ's divinity, called it a myth invented by
Emperor Constantine. It pushed that whole huge
supposed conspiracy theory. Mary Magdalene, Mary Jesus, had
kids. The church covered it up,

(01:11:45):
trashed her reputation, and the Holy Grail was Mary herself.
And Christ intended Mary, not Peter, to lead his church.
Peter was depicted as sexist, jealous, scheming, maybe even
murderous. How does the source view these
claims? As a terrible distortion of
Peter, a direct attack on Jesus making him a mere man, and an
attack on the Gospel itself criticizes using those Gnostic

(01:12:07):
gospels to lead people into lies, it also argues it's an
attack on the true Church of Christ.
But it adds A twist. While nothing Dan Brown wrote
could ever expose even a fraction of the lies of Roman
Catholicism, the book still misled people by creating a
false narrative of cover ups. For example, Rome didn't cover
up Mary Magdalene's importance, the source claims.
Instead, Rome baptized the heathen doctrine of the Mother

(01:12:29):
goddess, calling this false deity the Virgin Mary.
A complex counter argument. What about Opus Day, which was
portrayed negatively? Interestingly, the source says
Opus Day saw the negative publicity as a great opportunity
for outreach. Their directors apparently said
70 million people have heard of Opus Day.
They've heard a pack of lies. We can now explain what Opus Day

(01:12:50):
is. The source warns this could make
people dismiss legitimate criticisms of Rome as just
another Da Vinci Code type conspiracy theory.
And finally, The Golden Compass,2007, based on Philip Pullman's
books. Pullman himself is quoted being
very direct. If there is a God and he is as
the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down
and rebelled against. And adding my books are about

(01:13:12):
killing God and I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian
belief. Pretty unambiguous.
What elements in the story does the source highlight?
Demons depicted as kids, best friends, God as a usurper, no
heaven or hell. The Church wants to dehumanize
children and must be vanquished for the good of humanity.
The Pope is called Pope John Calvin, the Vatican has moved to
Geneva. Features lapsed nun characters,

(01:13:35):
messages favoring witchcraft, sodomy, evolution, divination,
and premarital sex. And the source just asks.
Why? Why do millions throughout the
world watch films that are blatantly attacking their
religious beliefs? A question left hanging.
It is surprising, isn't it, whenyou hear the source layout these
alleged explicit agendas from authors and film makers and then

(01:13:58):
claim that supposedly Christian audiences just consume it
anyway, even when it directly attacks their beliefs.
Which brings us back to that underlying question of power and
control in Hollywood. Right.
The source revisits that claim of Jewish control, notes an ADL
poll from 2008 found only 22% ofAmericans thought Jews
controlled Hollywood, down from 50% in 1964.

(01:14:21):
The source sees this as successful suppression of the
truth. It quotes journalist Joel Stein
writing in the LA Times How Jewish is Hollywood, where he
just slightly said Jews totally run Hollywood, and then listed a
bunch of prominent Jewish media executives at the time.
But the source qualifies this. Yes, it clarifies.
It's not saying all Jewish people.
It specifies it's certain powerful Jewish liberals,

(01:14:41):
secular humanists and Marxists who allegedly control the
industry and are using the medium of film to deliberately
push their diabolical agenda. A very, very specific accusation
aimed at a particular segment. It certainly raises important
questions about perceived bias in media and how this particular
source interprets the motivations and power dynamics

(01:15:03):
among Hollywood's elite. Definitely a controversial claim
that's central to its overall thesis.
The shifting sands of morality and influence.
OK, so wrapping this all up, thesource concludes that basically
throughout Hollywood's history you've had these two sinister
and very powerful forces constantly at work, The Roman
Catholic institution on one side, and then liberal and

(01:15:23):
Marxist forces, which it specifically links to powerful
Jewish interests on the other. And it argues that even when
Catholic censorship was dominantduring the Golden Age, making
films outwardly cleaner. Right.
Cleaner physically, perhaps. But those films, it claims,
often promoted a false version of Christianity, what it calls
spiritual filthiness, suddenly leading millions into spiritual

(01:15:47):
bondage. It flatly asserts Hollywood
played an immense part in breaking down Protestants
resistance to Romanism. What was the specific impact on
Protestantism according to this view?
Profound generations of Protestant moviegoers were
effectively indoctrinated in Roman Catholic morality.
They learn their morals from movies, not the Bible, the

(01:16:08):
source argues. This led to a general slackening
of moral standards. More revealing clothes, the
practice of dating, worldly music, dancing, otherworldly
entertainment became acceptable.And church leaders allowed this.
Pastors began to permit things which would never before have
been permitted, it claims, leading to things like
entertainment, evangelism, the whole idea that Christians can

(01:16:29):
have fun too, which the source condemns as people
hypocritically calling themselves Christians while
being Christians in name only. And it circles back to the
faith-based film trend. Yeah, it claims Hollywood's
usual agenda opposing anything too overtly religious was
threatened by the Passion success.
But then Hollywood's love for money, The Idol of Mammon, took
over. They decided to just start

(01:16:50):
milking the religious masses by making films that cater to their
tastes. So, given all this perceived
depravity, what's the sources proposed solution?
What's the answer? Well, crucially, it says the
answer is not government censorship.
That would give the government more power than it should ever
have, and it will never solve the problem anyway.
Nor relying on rating systems. No, not worldly movie ratings,

(01:17:11):
not even religious rating systems.
Don't trust them. So what should the true
Christian do? The solution, it says, is far
more simple. The child of God must simply
stay away from these movies, just as he or she should stay
away from all other evils. Complete separation.
It quotes several Bible verses to back this up.
Ephesians 5.11 about having no fellowship with the unfruitful

(01:17:33):
works of darkness. First Peter 2.11.
To abstain from fleshly lusts. Psalm 101.3 I will set no wicked
thing before mine eyes. The call is stark.
Be separate from the world and its ways.
And it summarizes the current power dynamic one last time.
Yeah, reiterates that Roman Catholicism's influence waned,
giving way to this liberal and communist Jewish influence, an

(01:17:56):
influence it claims was suppressed for so long by
Romanism, is mostly overtly hostile to Romanism, and is now
ascendant, indeed dominant, in Hollywood today.
Which really raises a final important question for you, the
listener. How do you navigate this?
If you accept this source's premise that the media landscape
is constantly shaping beliefs through hidden agendas, what

(01:18:18):
does it mean to engage or disengage with that content as
an informed person? It's a heavy question to leave
people with. Absolutely.
This deep dive, it presents thisworldview where, well, nothing
is quite as it seems. We're even our entertainment is
presented as a battleground. It really urges A radical
rethinking of how we consume media.
So consider the source's assertion.

(01:18:39):
If film messages really are so deeply tangled up with specific
agendas, what does it truly meanto be well informed?
And what does it mean to be truly separate from the world in
an age just saturated with movies and their influence?
Something to definitely think about long after this deep dive
ends.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Jesuit Hollywood [Shaun Willcock] (NotebookLM Deep Dive)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Jesuit Hollywood [Shaun Willcock] (NotebookLM Deep Dive)

Crime Junkie