Editor’s note: Given this November’s U.S. presidential election and the Catholic Church’s immense stake in the outcome, we are publishing a series of excerpts from Dr. Stephen D. Mumford’s book, American Democracy and the Vatican (1984). In the following Chapter 7, “The Origins of Vatican Power in America: A Guide for Population and National Security Specialists”, Dr. Mumford takes a close look at the origins of power of the Vatican in America and shows why this power is threatened by population growth control. This chapter is as relevant and revealing today as it was when the book was first published in 1984. Chapter 4 is here. Chapter 5 is here. Chapter 8 is here. Chapter 10 is here.
Chapter 7: The Origins of Vatican Power in America: A Guide for Population and National Security Specialists
To understand the population problem and the inertia currently seen in dealing with this problem, one must understand the origins of Vatican power. The Catholic hierarchy, unchallenged, has used American freedom as a cloak to undermine the population movement and, thus, U.S. security. Their methods deserve close scrutiny.
The pope and his hierarchy claim that papal or Vatican power originates from God. However, there are more earthly explanations for the origins of their power. Very few Americans have ever been exposed to the more earthly explanations. If the intentions of the founding fathers in their drafting of the United States Constitution had prevailed until today, those freedoms of thought, expression, speech, and the press, which we cherish, would not be jeopardized by the Vatican, a sovereign foreign power, influencing the American democratic process and domestic and foreign policy.
American Protestants are taught as children that you simply never criticize another person’s religion, that you should not think about the negative aspects of another person’s religion, that freedom of religion means that other people have the freedom to do whatever they want to do in their religion, that criticism of religion is always inappropriate, that we should be tolerant.
Roman Catholicism was a relative latecomer to the United States. At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics accounted for less than one percent of the population. Catholics had virtually no influence on the creation or form of the American government. It was not until the great migrations of the late 1800s and early 1900s that the proportion of Catholics became significant. Until then, the United States was a nation of Protestants. A complete taboo on criticizing another person’s religion had become a strong national ethic before the arrival of a significant Catholic presence.
Surrendering the freedom to think that another person’s religion might have certain negative implications in a Protestant America seemed to have produced no ill effects. (Only the Mormon Church was organized for the specific purpose of attaining political power, but this came later!)
However, with the arrival of a significant presence of the Catholic Church, this national ethic was soon to be exploited by a church with a long history of lust for political power. It had already become dominant in a province in Canada, as well as in Mexico, Central and South America, most of Europe, much of Africa, and the Philippines, and had tamed many Asian countries including India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, and, until recently, Vietnam.
In order to enhance our cherished freedom, the freedom of religion, we denied the possibility that another person’s religion might do a wrong. The problem is, when one no longer talks about something, one ceases to think about that thing. By the time of my birth in 1942, the freedom to think about another person’s religion was extinguished.
This was fatal to two other cherished freedoms. When some people in this country became aware, at last, of the negative influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy on American democracy, the freedoms of speech and the press were diminishing. The Vatican had succeeded in exploiting an innocent America. How? What characteristics of the Catholic Church led to this exploitation?
The Church as a Totalitarian Institution
This characteristic of the Church is essential to our discussion. It is a fact that the best interests of the Vatican and the best interests of the United States are not always the same. This is the source of the conflict. If the American Catholic Church were a democratic institution, like most other mainstream American religions, I believe that I can say with some certainty that it would have been unnecessary to write this book. Current American Catholic fertility behavior is proof that the overwhelming majority of American Catholics have the best interests of the United States foremost at heart.
Totalitarian as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged (1970) means:
1a. of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy regarded as infallible. Authoritarian. Dictatorial. b. of or related to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation [especially] by coercive measures, such as censorship and terrorism.
2a. advocating the concept that the end justifies the means.
The totalitarian character of the Roman Catholic Church has been noted for some time. In 1948, Karl Barth, a leading European Protestant theologian wrote of the kinship between Catholic and communist political policy in a comment he made to a Jesuit journalist:
To be honest, I see some connection between them [Roman Catholicism and communism]. Both are totalitarian; both claim man as a whole. Communism uses about the same methods of organization (learned from the Jesuits). Both lay great stress on all that is visible. But Roman Catholicism is the more dangerous of the two for Protestants. Communism will pass; Roman Catholicism is lasting.
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens, stated that Catholics owe “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” The pope sits on the throne of St. Peter and, as television has shown Americans, is worshipped as a king. The infallible spokesman of God, he is also worshipped “as God Himself.” This is by intention.
In chapter four, I cited a passage from a famous open letter presented to the pope in 1968 by dissatisfied Catholics from France: “The whole Church apparatus is organized for control: the Roman Curia controls the bishops, the bishops the clergy, the clergy controls the laity . . . and the lay Christians control (what an illusion!) mankind.” The pope is an absolute ruler who governs an empire reaching to the grass-roots with the help of a bureaucracy (the Roman Curia) located centrally (the Vatican), with the assistance of bishops and pastors.
Obedience is an essential qualification for securing and holding Church office. The mechanism for the screening of potential bishops is so thorough that there is virtually little possibility of the appointment of any bishop who is not subservient to his own bishop and to the hierarchy. Inside the closed cultural system, the priest is supplied at second hand with all the arguments against Catholicism and learns stereotypical answers. He takes his religion from others above him as a matter of duty because he has always been taught that submission to Church authority is the essence of “freedom.” Likewise, the members of the parish church are taught to be guided in turn by the priest, with what has been described by one Catholic writer as “the apron-string mentality which leaves the clergy to do all thinking for the faithful.”
This institutional arrangement of unquestioning obedience makes it nearly impossible for some faithful Catholics to participate in American democracy.
Noted British Catholic Christopher Dawson, who was named as one of the “forty contemporary immortals” among the Gallery of Living Catholic Authors, said:
. . . There seems to be no doubt that the Catholic social ideas set forth in the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI have far more affinity with those of fascism than with those of either liberalism or socialism. In the same way, it is clear that Catholicism is by no means hostile to the authoritarian ideal of the state. Against the liberal doctrines of the divine rights of majorities and the unrestricted freedom of opinion, the Church has always maintained the principles of authority and hierarchy and high conception of the prerogatives of the state. The ruler is not simply the representative of the people, he has an independent authority and a direct responsibility to God. His primary duty is not to fulfill the wishes of the people but to govern justly and well, and so long as he fulfills this duty any resistance on the part of the people is a grave sin.
Thus, to resist a government that is fulfilling its duty to govern “justly and well,” as judged by the Vatican, is a “grave sin.” This control of the people is often offered by the Church to right-wing dictatorships in return for special privileges.
This concept of grave sin is but one of many controls exercised by the Vatican.
Words and Deed
Americans tend to be far too uncritical of information they receive about the Catholic Church, most of it ultimately originated by the hierarchy, though rarely identified as such. We seldom measure the consistency of the rhetoric and the actions. We often see the Church or churchmen described in high-sounding terms, and we do not subject the institution to any serious examination when it enters any arena other than its appropriate one. Unfortunately, no one else is doing this for us. Upon close scrutiny, one finds that deception abounds. Standard meanings of words are often revised or modified to fit a prefabricated conclusion. It will be of interest to review some deliberate attempts to deceive and thus to understand this manipulation.
1. “The Vatican is principally concerned that the basic right of the couple to choose the size of their family should be respected.” This is the reason offered for Vatican opposition to government family planning programs and Vatican pursuit to block government family planning programs. However, if this statement were true, the Church would be promoting the best methods of contraception and abortion and ensuring that couples have no more children than they want. However, more than two of three women capable of becoming pregnant (about 450 million out of 670 million women worldwide) lack access to modem contraceptive methods. Access to good abortion services is even worse.
2. “The Vatican is principally concerned that international population programs and policies should protect the rights of national sovereignty and individual conscience.” This is the reason offered by the Vatican for their “right” to meddle in all international population agencies and in the domestic affairs of all governments that are donors or recipients of population monies.
3. The pope wants one thing for every nation: the freedom for each to “live its own life.” But, according to columnist Robert Blair Kaiser, this is just one more broken promise by the pope. Freedom for each to live his or her own life does not include the use of contraception or anything else that in any way threatens the Church.
4. According to the Vatican, education is the function of the parent, not the state. However, nowhere does the Church leave the decisions regarding education to the parent (as is done in U.S. public education). The Church expects to exercise absolute authority in all matters related to the education of Catholic children.
5. “He [the pope] also called on Christians to examine the teachings of the Church in their search for social justice.” However, the Church vastly undermines its own calls for social justice by actively working to halt population growth control. The Church’s teachings work against social justice. As Father Arthur McCormack has frequently pointed out, social justice is not possible in the absence of population growth control.
The present pope has also gone further than Paul VI in stressing human rights. “Human rights” is a noble goal to work toward, but the attainment of human rights in the fullest sense can never be achieved as long as hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken people lack basic necessities. They do not mean much to a person with an empty stomach, a shirtless back, a roofless dwelling, the frustration and fear of unemployment and poverty, the lack of education and opportunity, and pain, misery, and loneliness of sickness without medical care.
Agreement with this observation requires but a modicum of common sense.
6. Pope John Paul II called for world leaders “to free themselves from the ‘slavery’ of power worship.” Nearly always, books written about the Vatican by Catholic writers, including clergymen, describe the leadership of the Church as being far more concerned with power politics than social justice. But in this statement the pope is implying that “slavery of power worship” is not a problem to the Vatican. This is an act of deception.
7. The Raleigh, North Carolina, News and Observer referred in its December 26, 1983, paper to Pope John Paul II’s “forceful championing of political freedom” (4A). This statement implies that the pope is always a forceful champion of political freedom. However, when the exercise of political freedom threatens the power of the Church, suddenly he is a forceful opponent. For example, in March 1983, while visiting Nicaragua, the pope sharply condemned the “popular church,” a grass-roots movement in that country committed to revolution. This church, in effect, is the formation of another Protestant church. Any political freedom that permits the formation of another Protestant church is going to be opposed by the Vatican.
8. “The pope does not confuse politics with religion.” The pope says that priests should not be active in politics and demanded that Congressman Drinan (who is pro-abortion) resign, yet, according to columnist Robert Blair Kaiser, the pope “has been in politics up to his eyeballs since before he became John Paul II.” Of all of the deceptive pronouncements of the Church, this claim that the Church is not active in politics and is not mixing religion and politics is the most dangerous to American democracy and population growth control.
9. The Committee on American Citizenship from Catholic University exists to serve as the censor of Catholic school syllabuses and textbooks. Frequent use is made of such euphemistic names for organizations that are quite different in function from that which is implied in the name. The sole function of this organization is censorship of school material that might be threatening to Church dogma. This censorship is not consistent with American citizenship.
10. “. . . the high skill and untiring work of Pope John Paul II for peace and a just solution of the grave problems that threaten humanity.” This is but one of hundreds of examples that I have collected over the past few years from reporters who have gone to great lengths to give the pope and the Church the best possible public image. The statement above is in the words of the reporter—not a quotation of a Church official. It is offered as truth—but on faith alone—since no empirical evidence is found on the pages of nearly all newspapers and news magazines. Usually, these reporters are Catholic or they have Catholic editors. However, they are rarely identified as Catholics. You find these statements scattered among what is otherwise reasonably objective news reporting. But such placement of these value judgments based upon faith make them dangerous. They are dangerous because most of us let these statements register as objectively derived facts even though they are not. We gradually find ourselves questioning the “goodness” of the Catholic Church less and less. Many have almost stopped questioning the actions of the Church hierarchy.
Most Americans look for goodness. We want to believe in goodness. The Catholic Church is constantly telling us of their good works. For example, Michael Novak, columnist and Catholic theologian writing for USA Today (10A, April 5, 1983):
“Today the world watches Pope John Paul II’s daily struggle to become another exemplar. . . .
“He wants to be wholly faithful to God. . . .
“Three principles guide him.
“1. He must condemn every abuse of human dignity.” (Of course, denying family planning is not.) “There must be one single standard for all humanity.
“2. That standard can only be met in regimes which permit liberties of conscience, freedom of association, and institutions of consent. Totalitarianism, coercion, the absence of institutional structures protecting human dignity—such structures threaten both soul and body.” (This is a standard that cannot be met in the Vatican empire.)
“3. Third, the clergy by their vocation have a special symbolic role, above and beyond partisan politics, nonviolent, transcending human and earthly structures.”
We seldom seem to notice the frequency with which the hierarchy says one thing and does the opposite. Few question. The mass media avoid such findings.
The Elevation of Priests to a Higher Class of Citizens: How and Why
Michael Novak is not identified as a Catholic theologian. His article gives the impression that he is speaking of facts when he is speaking of faith. We get a wonderful impression of the goodness of the pope, the Church, and the priest, never recognizing the special interests of the source.
Novak, in his third principle, elevates the priest and disarms the reader, frankly stating that the priest is “above and beyond partisan politics.” He tells the reader (non-Catholic) not to look for the priest’s political activities, that what may be seen as political activities really are not. Since the priest “transcends human structures,” he should be looked upon as the natural leader. So says Novak, the unidentified Church spokesperson.
The Church, besides having its Novaks for almost two thousand years, has developed a sophisticated system in order to elevate men who have been most responsive to the Church’s indoctrination process and who are most loyal and obedient to the hierarchy.
It is a “superman” quality that makes the priest so effective as the hierarchy’s front line political operative. Since every priest is perceived as always speaking on behalf of all the Church, the priest with his “superman” qualities excessively intimidates democratically elected politicians and bureaucrats to the point of undermining democracy itself. This intimidation has, in recent years, been practical in population growth control and sexual matters more than in any other area.
The Catholic Church and Sex
The Church’s preoccupation with sex stems chiefly from three very different concerns of power or control: (1) control of priests and nuns; (2) control of lay persons; and (3) control of nations.
The control of nations is seen by the Church, as by many other institutions throughout history, as being a function of numbers. The Church, from the beginning, was concerned with “out-reproducing” other groups. Sex, to some extent, became a concern on those grounds.
For the Church’s first four hundred years, it was a democratic institution. Then it evolved into an absolute monarchy as its lust for power grew, resulting in the need for absolute control of priests and laity. This control derived in no small part from the exploitation of their human sexuality, though this exploitation was different for priests than for the laity. For each group, an elaborate system of controls related to human sexuality was developed, and these controls were classified as “morals” (as defined by God, of course).
Earlier religions and primitive groups exalted virginity as a status of perfection. The Catholic Church adopted this concept as a step toward producing clerical leadership for the masses. The self-control required for celibacy was looked upon as evidence of an inner strength not possessed by ordinary men and women. These celibates of the Church were promoted as men and women worthy of leadership positions in the community or people who should be respected, admired, and unquestionably followed. Then the Church bestowed a number of characteristics upon the priest to literally “create” leadership that was at the same time devoted, subservient, loyal, and obedient to the hierarchy. The priest is obliged to relinquish certain personal prerogatives that we all would agree are essential for responsible and responsive participation in American democratic life.
No one has stated this systematic subjection of the Catholic mind to clerical guidance more frankly than the noted British Catholic writer, Hilaire Belloc:
“The religion of the Catholic is not a mood induced by isolated personal introspection coupled with an isolated personal attempt to discover all things and the maker of all things. It is essentially an acceptance of the religion of others; which others are the Apostolic College, the Conciliar decisions, and all the proceeds from the authoritative voice of the Church. For the Catholic, it is not he himself, it is the Church which can alone discover, decide, and affirm.”
With such an attitude toward his own personal doubts and toward any independent thinking in his own congregation, the parish priest becomes primarily the Voice of Authority. He is not a man among men. He is a member of a special caste. He follows a routine which is almost military in its severity, and he must obey his superiors with military precision. He wears special uniforms and does not marry. He is called “Father” to emphasize his paternal supervision over his people. He has certain special powers that distinguish him from his fellows, and by using those powers he becomes a purveyor of certain supernatural benefits to all believers.
The Catholic priest is also armed with several special and effective devices of concern over his people. The people are told that under certain circumstances he is able to forgive sin and grant absolution and he performs these operations with impressive dignity.
Thus, much, if not all, of the priest’s behavior is directed by the need to control his large flock to provide the control demanded by the hierarchy. Democracy or the needs of people that are different from the needs of the hierarchy cannot be given serious consideration.
Control of the laity through exploitation of their sexuality was probably initially related to desire of the hierarchy to out-reproduce non-Christians. Thus, controls were placed on all human sex-related activities imaginable. Since maximum reproductive output was the goal, anything and everything that inhibited maximum output was made “immoral.”
1. Masturbation was forbidden. Making intercourse the only sexual outlet maximized reproduction.
2. Sex among the unmarried was made immoral since, on the average, women will have more exposure to intercourse and, in turn, be more likely to conceive and produce more children if all sex were limited to marriage.
3. Homosexuality was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.
4. Contraception, which had already been practiced for centuries, was made immoral because this practice reduces reproduction.
5. Abortion was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.
6. Divorce was made immoral because it, too, often meant the termination of reproduction by women before they reached menopause.
7. Sex education has traditionally been immoral because it inevitably results in fertility control actions on the part of the couple. In a reluctant compromise, the Vatican now allows limited sex education which does not include information on any of the effective methods of fertility control, such as the modem methods of contraception and abortion. Education that includes effective fertility control measures continues to be immoral.
8. Prostitution was made immoral because it reduced the number of marriages and thus family formations and lessened sexual activity among married couples.
Nearly all sex-related acts that are considered immoral by the Church can be traced to the reduction of reproduction. Others not mentioned here are related to the Church’s absolutism, but nearly all can be traced to the “immoralities” listed above.
I used the past tense in the list because it is unlikely that the Church, if it were making its list of “immoralities” in 1984, would include these immoralities given the problem of overpopulation. However, because it cannot change its “infallible” teachings, it is locked into this set of “immoralities.”
Now that these “immoralities’ are accepted by the laity, priests can use them for purposes of control, as well as fundraising. Since virtually everyone is guilty of at least some of these “sins,” and since foregiveness of sins has to be sought and only the priest can give such foregiveness, he retains a considerable amount of control over his flock. The power that the priest derives from this control is ultimately transferred to the Vatican.
The great tragedy in all of this is the tremendous social injustice caused by the Church because of these “immoralities” which seem to have at their root a lust for power. The untold mental anguish caused by production of guilt feelings, as well as physical harm brought about by these “immoralities” is unconscionable.
The importance of the control of education of youth in control of the laity becomes all the more apparent in the face of these “immoralities.”
Catholic Education: The Rock on Which the Whole Church Structure Rests
I was raised in a Catholic neighborhood. I walked past a Catholic elementary school in order to reach my own public elementary school. Some of my closest friends were Catholics who attended Sts. Simon and Jude Elementary School in Louisville, Kentucky. Yet, I never realized that there were any significant differences between our schools. It has been only in the past few years that I have discovered that there are major differences. This discovery was prompted by my observation that some (but certainly not all) Catholics in the population and environmental fields simply do not complete their thought processes in instances in which the Catholic Church might be threatened. They will start, taking one logical step at a time, until they reach a point where it is evident that the outcome will probably point to the Catholic Church as culprit and then quickly abort the entire thought, frequently citing some kind of dogma. I found their behavior most perplexing. Then, with more experience, I began to recognize a pattern. These people included only those who were instructed solely or for the most part in Catholic schools and universities. Exceptions to the pattern were few.
Recognizing this pattern over the past few years, I decided that I must examine the Catholic education system in an attempt to understand these differences in behavior. In most public schools, children are encouraged to think for themselves; they are given empirical knowledge and taught the meaning and value of the U.S. Constitution. In Catholic schools, children are taught that they owe “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” They learn that the pope “should rule America in moral, educational, and religious matters,” without having it made clear that all matters can be interpreted as moral matters. They are impressed with the Catholic Church as a sovereign power. Indeed, “it has the three requisites of a sovereign power, legislative, executive, and judicial, including the power of coercion. The ruler of the Church, the pope, claims sovereignty by divine right.” It is a power that extends “everywhere where there are Catholics. It claims that it is a supernatural institution with complete territorial jurisdiction.” “If there is a dispute between the Catholic Church and the state over the right to rule any specific area, the Church and the Church alone has the right to decide who wins. And ‘the Church’ means Rome. . . . In effect, it is claimed that it is the supreme ruler of the United States:
In particular areas the authority of the Church is superior to that of the United States government and of all governments, and no government is conceded the moral right to deny this. The pope is a kind of special world monarch who rules a synethetic moral empire that overlaps and penetrates the sovereignty of all earthly governments. His special territory is religion, education, and family life, but he also has supreme power over a vaguely defined areas known as “morals.” Also he has special and exclusive jurisdiction over any matter which may affect the life of the Church either directly or indirectly. . . .
In practice, “immoral and irreligious laws” are sometimes laws that non-Catholics consider supremely moral. Under the theory of two powers, divine and civil, democracy is simply one of a number of acceptable types of civil government which may exist side by side with the divine kingdom of the Church. As far as the hierarchy is concerned, the acceptability of a form of government depends upon its attitude toward the Church. As Leo XIII said in his encyclical on Human Liberty, “It is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power.” If a democracy favors the Church, then the hierarchy tolerates it; if it opposes the Church, then that proves that the government is godless and lacks the necessary divine authority. If a democracy in Spain expels the Jesuits and seizes Church property, then it is a murderous outlaw. If a democracy in The Netherlands supports all the Catholic schools with taxpayers’ money and pays the salaries of the priests, its divine right to govern is recognized as authentic. . . .
There is a certain understandable shrewdness in this attitude toward the democratic welfare state. If the hierarchy once conceded that ultimate sovereignty lies wholly in the people, anything might follow. The state might then rightfully expand its jurisdiction over many fields of authority now claimed by the Church. Because of this danger, the American Catholic bishops who praise democracy always utter their praises with an important mental reservation, that the real source of the authority of the American government and of all governments is God and not the people. And when the bishops use the name of God in this connection, they do not mean a genial or undenominational deity of all the people; they mean the particular Catholic Deity who established Roman primacy through St. Peter, whose vicar on earth is the pope.
Catholic school children are taught that the concept of the separation of church and state is an error and that no Catholic may positively and unconstitutionally approve the policy of separation of church and state. Also they are taught that the government has no primary right to educate at all and that that right has been given by God, the source of all governmental power, to the Roman Catholic Church. They are taught that submission to Church authority is the essence of freedom and that true freedom comes to men only through the Roman Catholic hierarchy:
Freedom of thought in the official Catholic system means freedom to accept Catholic truth, not to reject it. The Catholic Almanac defines freedom of thought as follows: “liberty to think the truth. In our day the expression has come to mean liberty to think as one pleases; this is an error. Our rational nature demands that we think only the truth, whatever the impact of outside forces or our own appetites.” And, of course, supreme religious and moral truth comes to men only through the Church. Such truth is an ecclesiastical entity, unchanging and unchallengeable, over which the Church has a permanent monopoly.
To accept these teachings requires a great deal of faith and, as the old saying goes, “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.” Catholic children are conditioned and indoctrinated systematically in the educational system from the kindergarten through the university or seminary. In other words, the school system is designed to form Catholic minds, to prepare children for the Catholic way of life as opposed to the American way, the democratic way, of life. The system serves to condition children to accept and endure priestly control. Few Americans appreciate how completely the Catholic school system is an instrument of the Catholic hierarchy.
What does this priestly control of education mean in terms of intellectual freedom? The question can be answered by listing samples of Catholic popular beliefs that no teachers in the Catholic school system dare to challenge publicly without danger of penalties:
1. The pope is the infallible leader of mankind, and, when he speaks for the Church in matters of faith and morals, he cannot make a mistake.
2. The Virgin Mary returned to the earth six times in 1917 and told three peasant children of Fatima, Portugal, what the Western world should do to avoid destruction by Soviet Russia.
3. It is a grave sin for an American Catholic deliberately to join the Masons or Odd Fellows.
4. No good Catholic may positively and unconditionally approve of the principle of separation of church and state.
5. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest philosopher of all time.
6. It is a sin to teach the evolution of man as a whole from animal life.
7. In general, no Catholic has a moral right to secure a divorce and remarry even if married to a syphilitic, insane, or adulterous murderer; and any Catholic who does remarry after such a divorce is guilty of adultery.
8. The Reformation was a backward step in human history, and many of the worst evils of fascism and communism flow from it.
9. It is a grave sin for a Catholic under ordinary circumstance knowingly to own or use a Protestant Bible.
10. The pope is the head of a sovereign temporal state which has coequal rights with that of the government of the United States.
11. The rights of the Church as educator are prior to and superior to the rights of the state as educator, and no government has the legal right to infringe upon this divine prerogative.
Bishop John F. Noll of Fort Wayne, founding editor of America’s most noted Catholic family paper, Our Sunday Visitor, summed up the priestly apprehensions about the American public school by writing a pamphlet called Our National Enemy No. 1—Education Without Religion. Its public enemy No. 1 was the American public school without Catholic religion. The Jesuit magazine, America, declared in an editorial: “That the Catholic and non-Catholic school systems are absolutely irreconcilable is an indisputable fact.”
Catholic schools really are different from public schools and these differences account for the different behavior of many trained scientists in population and related fields. In the next chapter, we will elaborate further on these differences in training and behavior. We will examine how they are accounting for the rejection of the relationship of overpopulation and national security and why some Catholics feel justified in their efforts to undermine population growth control efforts.
Catholic Hospitals: The Roles They Serve and Don’t Serve
For years after I had completed a doctorate in public health and had worked for some time in hospitals and clinics, I was still under the impression that the Catholic Church substantially supported and administered hospitals solely because of its concern for the social value of health. I assumed that the Church was in the hospital business because of the value of the enterprise. More recently, I have become aware that Catholic hospitals receive billions of dollars in federal monies, although they sharply restrict the delivery of family-planning services. All couples (Catholic and non-Catholic) who use these facilities for fertility related services are provided less than adequate medical care and those who do not have easy access to non-Catholic hospital services find certain choices restricted altogether.
I have learned that bishops regard the building of Catholic hospitals next in importance to the building of churches and schools, not only because of the general social value of hospitals but also because they serve a useful purpose in winning and holding Church members. During times of illness or death, whether one’s own or that of a family member, people are most vulnerable to exploitation. Examples of this exploitation abound. Catholic hospitals are used as partisan and sectarian agencies in spite of public claims by the clergy that they are “community enterprises.” Similarly, priests attempt to impose as much of their moral code as possible on non-Catholics using Catholic hospital services, particularly in such areas as contraceptive sterilization.
Absolutism and Controls (or Morals) and Their Implications for Family Planning
With the recent advances of medicine that have allowed embryo transfers, test-tube babies, and artificial insemination, many Americans have been perplexed by the Catholic Church’s strong negative responses to these advances, given the Church’s so-called pro-life position. However, Americans should not be perplexed.
The Church claims that such conceptions are against “natural” law, and great pains are taken to defend this doctrine with elaborate theological reasoning, all of it sheer nonsense. There is a different reason for its opposition. The very existence of the Church is threatened by these advances. How?
The Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy under absolute and infallible leadership. The Church claims and actually exercises sovereignty over nearly 800 million Catholics. It has a system of law called “canon law,” and, in the “domain” in which the claim of sovereignty is made, canon law is applied. Yet, the Catholic hierarchy exercises this sovereignty without the direct use of force, armies, police, or weapons. How is this possible?
Instead of using physical weapons, the Church uses psychic weapons. The most extreme case was discussed in chapter four: the threat of excommunication. Over the centuries, the Church devised an elaborate system of controls that rely nearly completely upon “psychic terrorism.” The concepts of morals and sins which can only be forgiven by certain members of the hierarchy are examples of controls. Of course, it is purported that both have as their ends “goodness,” and adherents believe this. Yet, some thoughtful people recognize other “ends,” including the maintenance of the power of the Catholic hierarchy and the enhancement and advancement of this power.
All tyrannies in human history that relied upon force have disappeared. Reliance upon force made them conspicuously evil, and people inevitably rose up and destroyed them. What distinguishes the tyranny of the Catholic Church is its explanation of its actions in terms of “virtue.” With the help of great numbers of priests and nuns (today numbering more than one million), the Church has sold the concept of these morals and other controls. Through the Vatican’s constant presentation of the Church’s actions as “virtuous,” recognition of the Church as a tyrant has been thwarted. Characterizing all actions in terms of “goodness” has allowed this tyranny to survive for nearly two thousand years while all others have failed. The effectiveness of the Vatican in convincing the world of the “virtue” of these morals and other controls is best exhibited by American acceptance of the incredible new claim of papal infallibility in the 1870s, despite the fact that it was obviously a move to maintain vast power in the Vatican. It is almost inconceivable that Americans would have accepted this obvious grab for power. (Currently only 50 percent of Catholic Americans believe in the papal claim of infallibility.) The Catholic hierarchy has been appropriately described as a cabal of power that moves under the guise of benevolence. How could this be possible in America?
The pope and the Vatican promote only the most obedient and loyal priests to positions of authority in the hierarchy. It is an extensive review process for promotion of only the most conditioned and indoctrinated. Those who are not are culled as quickly as possible. Hans Kung and Father Drinan are examples. This process assures maintenance of the tyranny but at the same time “changes or adjustments from within” are made most difficult or impossible. In general, this highly obedient hierarchy tells its American priests in great detail what to believe. Usually, the parish priest has no strong inclination toward heretical belief inasmuch as he is the product of the Catholic educational system. A glance at any biographical list of prominent Catholic clergy shows how few of them ever stray from the Catholic educational system.
Since the Vatican has no military apparatus or personnel to physically impose its laws (canons) and maintain and expand its power, it must control its communicants through their minds and through social action. To accomplish this, they use their control over their priests, including American priests.
The Vatican has drawn up a set of rules (morals) by which all must abide. Since the hierarchy had to rely upon more than one million subordinates to ensure that the laity abided by these rules, they had to make these rules simple. The “end” desired by the Church was to out-reproduce non-Catholics everywhere, and many of the rules or laws (morals) of the Church are devoted to this purpose.
To ensure that these rules are enforceable, they made them both simple and absolute. They related to sterilization, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, prostitution, masturbation, and so forth. No exceptions were allowed or ever entertained. Absolutism. With this modality, the Church cannot afford the luxury of exceptions. With interpretations, rules break down.
This, combined with the absolutism imposed by the claim of “infallibility,” is the real source of the opposition of the Catholic Church to family planning and population growth control. So much of the Church is built on the absolutes related to population growth that it cannot even permit “embryonic transfer” without taking a significant risk that the whole system of morals might collapse around them. As soon as the Church begins making exceptions, the whole system of controls would be in jeopardy. Ultimately, there would be so many exceptions and so many special cases that moral judgment would have to shift to the local priests and then to local people. The power of the Vatican would be considerably weakened.
If one examines all of the sex-related prohibitions of the Church, the common denominator is the promotion of the quantity of Catholics produced! This is not a coincidence. There are few exceptions. The needs of the Church with regard to a cadre of celibate priests were discussed earlier, as was the fact that Catholic education represents the rock upon which the whole Church rests and that celibate nuns who work for low wages are the backbone of that system. These two exceptions represent “higher order” needs of the Church than reproduction. Imposed celibacy certainly represents the highest form of perversion of the “natural order,” yet celibacy of nuns and priests is an additional absolute.
It is interesting to examine some of the population-growth-control-related absolutes. For most Americans the “theological reasoning” will be as shocking as the outcomes themselves. The following are all published teachings for priests.
1. Regarding sterilization:
Question: A woman has had two children, both of whom were brought into the world by a Caesarian operation. On the second occasion the attending obstetrician declared that the woman would never be able to give birth to a child normally and that another pregnancy would very probably prove fatal. Accordingly he recommended that the fallopian tubes be tied up as protection against such an occurrence. Would such a procedure be permissible? In other words, would ligature of the tubes in such circumstances be regarded as a lawful therapeutic sterilization?
Answer: The tying up of the fallopian tubes in the circumstances described would be a grave sin against the law of God, an unlawful act of sterilization. The fact that another pregnancy would probably (or even certainly) cause the woman’s death does not justify the procedure by rendering it a lawful therapeutic sterilization. A lawful therapeutic sterilization takes place only when an operation or treatment is given which, though it produces sterility, also by its very nature confers a physical benefit sufficiently great to compensate for the evil effect, sterility. Thus the excision of the reproductive organs when they are seriously diseased is permissible, since such an operation by its very nature has a notable beneficial effect on the health of the patient, in addition to its sterilizing effect.
In such a case we legitimately apply the principle of the double effect, so frequently used in moral theology. But in the case presented the ligature of the tubes in itself contributes nothing toward the well-being of the woman; it merely produces sterility. It is true, this is directed to a good effect inasmuch as it prevents the physical harm which would (probably or certainly) be consequent on another pregnancy. But this good effect is produced by means of the bad effect, hence, one who would hold that such an operation is lawful would have to admit that a good end can justify a bad means. If the woman in question wishes to avoid the dangers of another pregnancy, the only lawful method is abstinence from sexual relations, either completely or periodically.
2. Regarding abortion:
If it is morally certain that a pregnant mother and her unborn child will both die if the pregnancy is allowed to take its course, but at the same time, the attending physician is morally certain that he can save the mother’s life by removing the inviable fetus, is it lawful for him to do so?
Answer: No, it is not. Such a removal of the fetus would be direct abortion.
Human life is not subject to comparison of values. A living human fetus, even though a monster, may not be sacrificed to save all the human lives in the world. . . . If you say: Why should a mother suffer the hazard and the ills of the Caesarian section to save a monster whose hours are numbered and who never could be a useful member of society? I answer because the monster is a human individual with the inalienable right of life. A beggar idiot may not be directly sacrificed to save the life of the most useful member of society; nay not to save the lives of all the members of society.
The assertion that an undeveloped fetus in the womb is not as valuable as the mother of a family is beside the question, and in certain vital distinctions it is untrue. Any human life as such, whether in a fetus or an adult, is as valuable as another, inasmuch as no one but God has any authority to destroy it, except when it has lost its right to exist through culpable action. Secondly, the quality of motherhood is an accidental addition to a mother’s life, not substantial as is the life itself. This quality of motherhood does not create any juridic imbalance of values which justifies the destruction of the rights inherent in the fetus. That the fetus may not be able to enjoy these rights if the mother dies is, again, an irrelevant consideration. . . . An innocent fetus an hour old may not be directly killed to save the lives of all the mothers in the world.
3. In regard to contraception: only total abstinence and the rhythm method are approved by the hierarchy under any circumstances whatsoever.
If space permitted, an entire chapter could be devoted to Church “absolutes” regarding reproduction. The hierarchy claims to control the entire ethical code surrounding propagation. “Behind the Catholic formula in regard to all of these ‘quality’ problems in human beings is the philosophy that creating Catholics is a good thing in itself, and that, even if they are diseased, feebleminded, and a menace to normal community life, no medical act should be permitted to prevent their conception, their survival, or their freedom to produce other human beings.”
How can this “absolutism” of the Church in matters of reproduction and population growth and this pattern of “morals” go undiscussed in the scientific literature and in the lay press? Professor Earnest A. Hooton, head of the department of anthropology at Harvard, expressed the conviction of most experts in this field when he said over forty years ago:
The hypocrisy of certain organized religions and governments in endorsing deliberate killing in warfare, for whatever motives, and at the same time opposing the restricting of that fatal overproduction of low-grade human life which leads to warfare, should not be tolerated by the leaders of human biological science.
“American Catholic scholars cannot admit the truth of such statements. They are under Papal orders to stress quantity rather than quality in population and to resist every medical and political reform that might sacrifice one for the other.”
For decades there has been extensive censorship of both Catholic and non-Catholic Americans. Few Americans realize how pervasive it is, and I would have been similarly unaware had it not been for my fifteen years of experience in population research, an area that has received particular attention by the Church’s censorship efforts. No other Church activity has thwarted population growth control as much as this censorship activity.
Because good Catholics are accustomed to the imposition of general boycotts and taboos by their priests, the censorship of literature and art is accepted as part of the Church routine. Catholics are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the supreme guardian and purveyor of truth, that the Pope has infallible judgment in moral matters, and that “union of minds requires not only a perfect accord in the one Faith, but complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. [emphasis added]
The general rule is: “All men are forbidden to read books that are contrary to faith in God, good moral conduct, and Christian virtue”—a rule so sweeping that it can be interpreted as banning a large proportion of all modem works on science, medicine, and morals. In practice this rule means that no Catholic is allowed to read knowingly and without special permission any book attacking any fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church. [emphasis added] “The Church is not afraid of truth,” says Father John C. Heenan in his Priest and Penitent, “but She is very much afraid that a clever presentation of falsehood will deceive even the elect.” The Church teaches that literature is “immoral” if it is opposed to Catholic standards, and that “no one has a ‘right’ to publish such literature any more than one has a right to poison wells or sell tainted food.” [emphasis added]
The justification for censorship: just as we are not free to take as food for our bodies matter that will disease, deprave, and destroy them, so too for our minds—far more precious—we may not take ideas that similarly vitiate the very functions for which the mind was made.
When a book has been denounced by official authorities it is a grave sin for a Catholic knowingly to buy, sell, borrow, own, read, or lend it to any other person. The penalties apply to booksellers, publishers, readers, and reviewers unless they secure special permission to handle contraband goods.
Catholic cardinals are not isolated and they are rarely spontaneous. The censorship system of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is neither a spasmodic nor an intermittent phenomenon. It is a highly organized system of cultural and moral controls that applies not only to books, plays, magazines, and motion pictures, but to persons and places.
We believe that the rulers of a Catholic country have the right to restrict the activities of those who would lead their people away from their allegiance to the Catholic Church . . . they possess the right to prevent propaganda against the Church. This is merely a logical conclusion from the basic Catholic tenet that the Son of God established one religion and commanded all men to accept it under pain of eternal damnation.
The justification given by the hierarchy for their acts of censorship is that the information, interpretation, finding, and so forth is “offensive” to the Catholic people. However, upon close examination, it becomes apparent that, in virtually every instance, that which is being censored actually threatens the power of the hierarchy. The hierarchy has vigorous concern for stamping out threats to its power that arise in the mass media. Labeling something “offensive” is simply an excuse. Its control of our media to thwart discussion of the implications of world overpopulation is seriously threatening the security of the United States.
This censorship system of the Church was purported to be primarily a Catholic affair directed at Catholics and acceptable under the guise of religious freedom. But is it primarily a Catholic affair? The strictures of the Catholic hierarchy upon its own people could never be isolated from the rest of the community. We have witnessed the way in which Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Roman Catholic, communicated closely with the Vatican, and we are witnessing the way in which the issue of abortion is being used by the Vatican to build a powerful political force in contemporary America. It becomes more evident that this system of censorship has been directed at the American political system. In fact, it was always directed at non-Catholics under the guise of being directed at Catholics. Its affairs have invariably resulted in the acquisition of political power. The use of “McCarthyism” and the “red menace” and now the “abortion issue” for this purpose is not mentioned. How did this come to pass?
Every city editor in the United States knows of the unofficial Catholic censorship of American news, but almost all publishers avoid discussion of the phenomenon out of fear of reprisals. The Church frequently succeeds in intimidating the most powerful newspapers by using organized protest and boycott, even though in many cases the facts suppressed have great social significance. Through the use of organized protest and boycott, the Vatican in effect holds the power of economic life and death over many authors, editors, publishers, and producers who must rely upon American Catholics for patronage and support. The techniques are highly developed and widely used:
American priests habitually use their pulpits to condemn any newspaper that publishes material critical of the Church, and they are particularly vehement in condemning any editor who publishes facts unfavorable to priests and nuns. Whenever a newspaper prints a news story reflecting upon the character of a priest, local Catholic organizations, directed by priests, write, telephone, and telegraph vigorous protests to the editor and frequently approach the business office of the newspaper with threats to boycott the paper’s advertisers. As a result of this policy of siege and boycott, very few publishers in the United States are courageous enough or wealthy enough to deal frankly with Catholic social policy or stories of priestly crime.
A Jesuit priest, Chades J. Mullaly, has published in the Jesuit magazine, America, a point-by-point description of Catholic techniques in boycotting an American newspaper and a censorship program for priests and laymen. Father Mullaly tells with perfect candor how a priest and four or five Catholic laymen, with the help of an impressive letterhead bearing the names of prominent citizens, can terrorize any editor with the specter of a great wave of Catholic indignation.
Father Mullaly concluded this revealing document with a platform of action for punishing critical American newspapers:
1. Do not attack a magazine or newspaper through its editorial department but act through its business office.
2. When a magazine or newspaper is attacking your religion, write to the business manager and inform him that you will not buy the offending periodical again, and mean it.
3. Call the attention of the merchants with whom you deal to the insults and tell them that as long as they advertize in any offending paper you will not buy their goods, and mean it.
4. Tell your news-dealer that as long as you see the magazine or newspaper on his stand as an open insult to you, you will not buy from him, and mean it.
In chapter nine, I will offer in some detail specific examples in which I have been a recent victim of this censorship.
All Catholic publishers must submit before publication all books of a religious nature to a censor appointed by his bishop. “A Catholic publisher who issues a book on religion or morals without this Imprimatur risks immediate excommunication and nationwide boycott under Canon 2318. Also, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic laymen must not write for newspapers or periodicals hostile to Catholicism or morality, unless for a just and reasonable cause approved by the local ordinary.” Non-Catholic publishers who print criticisms of Catholic policy are threatened with boycotts and flooded with letters of protest. As a result of this type of pressure, scarcely any publishers in the United States will even consider any manuscript that might expose them to a Catholic boycott.
As described by Father Henry Davis, in the most authoritative Catholic work on doctrine, Moral and Pastoral Theology, all Catholic bishops must enforce a boycott against the following classes of books:
1. Books by any writers which defend heresy or schism or attempt in any way to undermine the very foundations of religion;
2. All books . . . which affect to prove that true divorce is permissible in the case of adultery;
3. Books which attack or hold up to ridicule any Catholic dogma, such as the creation of man, original sin, the infallibility of the Pope;
4. Books which professedly treat of, narrate, or teach matters that are obscene, such as the defense of methods of birth control.”
I personally know four authors who have been victims of this type of censorship through intimidation of publishers. All four books spoke directly to the Church’s actions in successfully thwarting population growth control, and one of them dealt candidly with the Vatican’s obvious intention of “Catholicizing” the United States by encouraging tens of millions of Catholics to illegally immigrate to this country.
Two of these authors were able to finance the publication of their own books through vanity presses. Robert Rienow, distinguished service professor of political science, State University of New York at Albany, and his wife, Leona Train Rienow, are the authors of twenty-five books, both trade and text, including their best-selling Moment in the Sun. When they attempted to publish their book, The Great Unwanteds Want Us: Illegal Aliens—Too Late to Close the Gate? none of their previous publishers would touch this fact-filled book, and neither would any others.
Waldo Zimmermann spent thirty-five years preparing his exceedingly well-written fact-filled book, Condemned to Live: The Plight of the Unwanted Child, which thoroughly examines the actions of the Catholic Church to thwart legal access to abortion services. A few of the publishers who rejected the book made it clear that they were responding to Catholic pressure.
Not only are individual writings blocked through censorship but this censorship biases national perceptions of the past, governmental policy, and the national images of the Church in order to present the Church in the best possible light.
How is it possible to think that the Vatican can be capable of any wrongdoing or in any way harm America? All we see is goodness! There is virtually no negative press whatsoever. The dangers that lie in the continuation of this arrangement are stunning. The very security of the United States is threatened by this arrangement whereby the Church ultimately hopes to gain control of our democracy through sheer numbers.
Numbers and Power
It is unquestionable that the pronatalist position of the Catholic hierarchy throughout the history of the Church has always had as its goal achievement of power through numbers. This position has been common to most institutions in history, especially those that have survived for any length of time. As has been pointed out, much of the system of “morals” maintained by the Church is devoted to this end.
However, in the United States, the hierarchy has almost completely lost its control over communicants with regard to matters of reproduction. American Catholics are ignoring the wishes of the hierarchy and have adopted desired family sizes identical to non-Catholic Americans. They are using the same contraceptive methods with the same frequency and are resorting to abortion at the same rate. The result is that American Catholics are not outbreeding American non-Catholics.
Traditionally, there had been a “Catholic differential” in fertility and even as late as the early 1960s Catholics had, on the average, one more child than non-Catholics. However, during the 1960s, this differential all but disappeared even though the clergy took every prudent measure to stop the loss of this differential without causing an even greater exodus from the Church than had occurred.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the hierarchy recognized that, under existing American democratic conditions, little could be done to reverse this trend. Another course was decided upon to achieve the same goal. This course included the Church-assisted influx of tens of millions of illegal aliens, nearly all of whom are Catholic. This plan is well underway as literally millions are now coming each year to the United States, mostly from Latin countries. If illegal immigration is not firmly dealt with, and current trends continue, the United States will have a Catholic majority before I retire.
In chapter ten, I will discuss the considerable national security implications of the Catholic Church’s vast promotion of illegal immigration.
National Divisiveness and the Vatican
Few non-Catholic Americans understand the relationship between American Catholics and their Vatican, yet this relationship has enormous implications for loyal Catholics working in the population or national security fields or any other area in which the best interests of the Vatican do not invariably parallel those of the United States. This relationship is one that generates divisiveness:
Unfortunately, the Catholic people of the United States are not citizens but subjects in their own religious commonwealth. The secular as well as the religious policies of their Church are made in Rome by an organization that is alien in spirit and control. The American Catholic people themselves have no representatives of their own choosing either in their own local hierarchy or in the Roman high command; and they are compelled by the very nature of their Church’s authoritarian structure to accept nonreligious as well as religious policies that have been imposed upon them from abroad.
From the Catholic Almanac:
The Catholic citizen is in conscience bound to respect and obey the duly constituted authority provided faith and morals are thereby not endangered. Under no circumstances may the Church be subjugated by the State. Whatever their form may be, states are not conceded the right to force the observance of immoral or irreligious laws upon a people.
Since “morals” can define any human activity, the Vatican, accordingly, is the supreme ruler of the United States. As Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical on the “Chief Duties of Christian Citizens,” setting the stage for anarchy at the pope’s command:
If the laws of the state are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church or conveying injunctions adverse to the duty imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the Supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime.
The Vatican has even been divisive within the American Catholic Church:
Rome has always been careful not to elevate any bishopric in the United States to a position of primacy. For a time the bishops of Baltimore enjoyed a kind of primacy of honor, but even this has now disappeared. Leo XIII, instead of creating an American primate whose viewpoint and background might be fundamentally American, created an Apostolic Delegacy at Washington, and each succeeding Pope has sent his own representative to occupy the spacious building in Washington which, in effect, is the general Roman headquarters of American Catholicism. Since the Pope’s appointee is always an Italian, whose line of promotion runs toward Rome instead of the United States, there is little danger that he will become infected with the “heresy” of Americanism.
There is no doubt that the parochial school, whatever may be its virtues, is the most important divisive instrument in the life of American children. It keeps Catholic children separated from the main body of American childhood during the most impressionable years of life and develops in them a denominational narrow-mindedness.
Even when both schools emphasize patriotism and community spirit, the fact that they exist as separate establishments tends to divide the community emotionally and culturally.
Catholic parents must send their children to Catholic schools when they are available under moral law. In other words, it is “immoral” to send Catholic children to public schools if Catholic schools are available.
Catholic schools teach intolerance and oppose national solidarity when the Vatican is threatened. Abortion is an example. We need only to look to the north to observe the logical conclusion of this
The major lesson for the United States in the Canadian experience is quite clear. A nation that compromises with the Catholic hierarchy on the control and support of common schools is doomed to be either a clerical state or a house divided. In Canada the Roman Church has built a state within a state because the British government permitted public revenue to be used for a school system that conditioned Catholic children to be Catholics first and Canadians second. Many Canadians believe that it is too late now to rescue the province of Quebec.
The general rule against marriage with Protestants, Jews, and those of schismatic persuasion has served to be most divisive, since loyal Catholics tend to shun Catholics who have married outside the Church. If this rule could be strictly enforced, and the Vatican wishes it could be, it would split the American community clearly down the middle by religious bigotry.
The intolerance toward other American religions taught from childhood will ensure a continuation of divisiveness:
The Homiletic and Pastoral Review of February 1947, in answering a question for priests as to whether it is right to use the word “faith” to describe other religious groups, said: “For, if there is anything in Catholic teaching, it is the doctrine that the Son of God established only one religion and imposed on all men the obligation of embracing it; consequently no other religion has a real objective right to exist and to function, and no individual has an objective right to embrace any non-Catholic religion.”
The hierarchy’s use of ethnic power bloc politics has been a major source of power in the United States for a century. Traditionally the Church used the Irish, Polish, German, and Italian Americans for this purpose. More recently, the Church has used Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Vietnamese, and Haitians. In the near future, since one-ninth of the population of El Salvador has illegally immigrated to the United States, many of them will similarly serve the Vatican.
The Catholic Church draws upon these power blocs to manipulate both domestic and foreign policy in ways that are discussed in chapter ten. Millions of voters, wishing to maintain some cultural identity, find that their bishops “feel compelled” to speak out “on behalf of” their ethnic minority group. This is especially true where a large proportion of the group does not speak English. The Church then uses these power blocks to achieve its own political ambitions.
Conflict and disunity are bred by cultural and linguistic differences. Bilingual education fosters these in the extreme. It is no accident that the Church has been the only significant proponent of bilingual education in the United States. Almost all recipients of bilingual education are Roman Catholic. Having created this separate cultural group, it would be the “duty” of the bishops to speak “for them.”
There is a persistent pattern of acts that create divisiveness at the international level (in the United Nations and its agencies), at national, state, and local government levels, and in voluntary organizations. Through the use of the abortion issue, more than any other, the Catholic hierarchy has divided the country and has made enormous political gains, including helping to elect a president who represents the Church on all issues the hierarchy considers important (see, chapter ten).
In no other area of human activity is the Church’s use of the “divide and conquer” technique more apparent than in the population growth control field. In the remaining chapters, specific examples of their use of this technique will be provided.
Anti-American Positions of the Vatican
There is nothing distinctive about the “American” Catholic Church. It is, first and foremost and always, Catholic. American democracy has not made it democratic, any more than, for example, the Polish national church. It does not stand for the causes of freedom of the press, speech, or worship (for Protestants) any more than do the Catholic Churches in Latin countries. Regarding freedom of speech, from The New Scholasticism, published by Catholic University of America, “Free speech is not free to injure faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, truth, or any other virtue protecting the welfare of the individual or society.” Of course, only the Church can judge what “injures” and what “protects” the welfare of the individual or society. Regarding freedom of the press:
Father Mullaly’s platform is entirely consistent with Papal pretensions. The Vatican does not stand for freedom of the press as the term is commonly used in the United States. The Church tolerates freedom of the press only up to a certain point, and with restrictions. In 1946 Pius XII told a group of American editors that freedom of the press “does not allow a man to print what is wrong, what is known to be false, or what is calculated to undermine or destroy the moral and religious fiber of individuals and the peace and harmony of nations.” The Church, of course, is the supreme judge of all requisites of worthy public expression. Most Americans will agree with The Christian Century that this is “a totalitarian conception of the freedom of the press.”
Regarding freedom of assembly, Cardinal Hayes once ordered the break-up of one of Margaret Sanger’s birth control meetings by New York Catholic police.
Regarding freedom of worship, two great Catholic writers, Monsignor John A. Ryan and Father Moorhouse F. X. Millar, in their standard work, The State and the Church, answer the question: “Should such persons [non-Catholics] be permitted to practice their own form of worship?”
If these [practices] are carried on within the family, or in such inconspicuous manner as to be an occasion neither of scandal nor of perversion to the faithful, they may properly be tolerated by the State. . . . Quite distinct from the performance of false religious worship and preaching to the members of the erring sect, is the propagation of the false doctrine among Catholics. This could become a source of injury, a positive menace, to the religious welfare of true believers. Against such an evil they have a right of protection by the Catholic State. . . . If there is only one true religion, and if its possession is the most important good in life for States as well as individuals, then the public profession, protection, and promotion of this religion and the legal prohibition of all direct assaults upon it, becomes one of the most obvious and fundamental duties of the State.
And from the official world organ of the Jesuits, Civilta Cattolica:
The Roman Catholic Church, convinced, through its divine prerogatives, of being the only true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself alone, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. As to other religions, the Church will certainly never draw the sword, but she will require that by legitimate means they shall not be allowed to propagate false doctrines. Consequently, in a state where the majority of the people are Catholic, the Church will require that legal existence be denied to error, and that if religious minorities actually exist, they shall have only a de facto existence without opportunity to spread their beliefs. … In some countries, Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned at being forced to cohabitate where they alone should rightfully be allowed to live. But in doing this the Church does not renounce her thesis, which remains the most imperative of her laws, but merely adapts herself to de facto conditions, which must be taken into account in practical affairs. . . . The Church cannot blush for her own want of tolerance, as she asserts it in principle and applies it in practice.
Regarding the principle of separation of church and state, Pius IX, in his Syllabus, condemned the principle of separation of church and state as one of the “principal errors of our time.” In no nation does the Church honor this principle; the hierarchy feels that no nation has the right to impose this principle since it has a “divine right” to direct nations in matters of faith and morals (and “morals” in some way touches on all human activities).
Regarding public education, the Church recognizes that its schools are the rock upon which the Church is built. Likewise, public schools are viewed by most Americans as the rock upon which democracy is built. Father William McManus, representing the hierarchy, said before a Senate hearing in 1947:
The school, particularly the private school, is the battleground between the forces of totalitarianism and those of freedom and democracy. In the totalitarian nation, the government is the teacher; the government controls all the schools which it uses for the mental enslavement of the people. In the free nation, the government refrains from direct educational activities.
As Blanshard notes, “The special meaning of the word free should be noted. A free nation in priestly parlance appears to be a nation that permits priests to control education. The nation that operates its own schools through school boards elected by the people is, by inference, totalitarian.”
Regarding Defiance of American Law
American Catholic priests and bishops defy American law daily. Thousands commit a felony each day by aiding and abetting illegal aliens, for example. This is openly Church policy:
In some cases the alien-controlled hierarchy demands defiance of existing American law; in other cases it notifies the government that it would defy certain laws if they were passed; in still other cases it urges temporary submission without conceding the state’s moral right to enforce a law; and in almost all cases in which the Church and the American people disagree the hierarchy uses ecclesiastical penalties to punish its members for making their own choice in good conscience between Church policy and public policy.
In population growth control matters, American Catholics are openly encouraged to defy and circumvent laws and public policy. Pope Pius XI, in his Casti Connubii, not only condemned sterilization of the insane and feebleminded but said that the government, by doing so, is arrogating to itself “power over a faculty which it never had and can never legitimately possess.” This defiance of modem government was justified by Pius XI, who said that “the family [meaning the Church] is more sacred than the State and that men are begotten not for the earth and for time but for Heaven and eternity.” A recent example of this defiance regarding sterilization appears in chapter ten.
It is undeniable that the Vatican maintains many un-American doctrines. These doctrines clearly threaten American democracy and American security. The needs of the Vatican are placed above the needs of the United States. They also suggest a certain discomfort with American democracy.
The Pope as “Ruler” of America?
Now that 150 million Latin American Catholics are poised for illegal immigration to the United States, a Catholic majority in the United States is clearly achievable in the next fifteen years. The Church merely needs to continue successfully thwarting illegal immigration control efforts for fifteen more years. With a Catholic majority, the Church will no longer tolerate a feeling of discomfort with American democracy. “The Catholic hierarchy is perfectly willing to compromise with democratic forms of government so long as its own special areas of power are respected. In a Catholic America the principal institutions of American democracy might be permitted to continue if they were operated for Catholic objectives.”
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Vatican claims sovereignty everywhere there are Catholics in the areas of faith and morals, including the United States, and their claim is based upon “divine right.” Who determines what subjects come within the broad sweep of “faith and morals”? The pope, of course! The power to define jurisdiction makes authority almost limitless. The word morals is so broad that it invites indefinite expansion; similarly the word faith. “If faith deals with ideas and morals deals with behavior, is not the whole range of human experience encompassed within the papal claim?”
Three-and-one-half decades ago, the editor of the leading diocesan paper in the United States, Monsignor Matthew Smith, made the position of the Catholic bishops quite clear. They favor a partial union in which the Church will have a privileged position as the recognized sovereign of the nation’s moral and religious life. “Where the Catholics are in overwhelming majority, it is theoretically better to have an official union of Church and State, with the state participating from time to time in public worship and using the machinery of government, when needed, to help the Church.”
There must be concern that American democracy will find itself less and less tolerated by the Vatican as it achieves more and more power in America. “The Vatican’s affinity with fascism is neither accidental nor incidental. Catholicism conditions its people to accept censorship, thought-control, and, ultimately, dictatorship. Says Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, who was reared as a Catholic:
Catholicism is the fascist form of Christianity of which Calvinism represents its democratic wing. The Catholic hierarchy rests fully and securely on the leadership principle with the infallible Pope in supreme command for a lifetime. . . . Like the Fascist party, its priesthood becomes a medium for an undemocratic minority rule by a hierarchy. . . . Catholic nations follow fascist doctrines more willingly than Protestant nations, which are the main strongholds of democracy. . . . Democracy lays its stress on personal conscience; fascism on authority and obedience.”
With increasing power of the Catholic hierarchy, we are seeing more and more defiance of American law. Specific examples will be discussed in later chapters. Under existing circumstances, we can expect this trend to continue.
The Catholic hierarchy constantly uses American Catholics by identifying its clerical ambitions, including its design to acquire more power, with the supposed wishes of its people. We have reviewed the major methods the hierarchy uses to fulfill these aspirations. Many of the hierarchy’s social and political policies are clearly incompatible with Western democracy and American culture and no American should ever apologize because he or she objects to these policies.
A good understanding of the hierarchy’s methods and policies are essential to understanding the population problem. Many of the population field’s most distinguished scientists and field workers have personally been victims of the hierarchy’s methods and policies and have been driven from the field. Among the survivors are many advocates of a policy of appeasement and limited cooperation with the Church. That they have survived is no doubt by Catholic hierarchy design, as will be shown in the next chapter. A few may be idealists of unquestioned integrity, though I am not sure I have ever met such a person. Most are cowards. They refuse to accept the facts about the Catholic Church discussed in this book and attempt to pass off their lack of courage for “tolerance and broadmindedness.”
These “idealists” fall back on the cliche, “You should never criticize another man’s religion.” That innocent-sounding doctrine, born in a Protestant America before the arrival of a significant Vatican presence, is full of danger to U.S. security. It ignores the duty of every good citizen to stand for the truth in every field of thought, most importantly, in matters of national security, including population growth control. It fails to recognize that a large part of what the Vatican calls religion is also politics and economics. The facts suggest that silence about “another man’s religion” means acquiescence to a complete loss of national security.
The remaining chapters will deal with specific cases of the Vatican’s application of these techniques and policies. Offered here are the disastrous results of the policies of the population field’s advocates of appeasement and “cooperation.”
. Joseph Smith became a candidate for president of the United States in 1844, only fourteen years after founding his church.
. Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1950), p. 259. [Quoted from the Catholic weekly, De Linie.]
. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 19.
. Ibid., p. 35.
. Ibid., p. 245. [Quoted from Religion and the Modern State.)
. Monsignor James McHugh, The Tablet (London, June 11, 1983).
. World Abortion Trends, Population Briefing Paper No. 9, Population Crisis Committee, Washington, D.C. (1982), p. 4.
. McHugh, The Table
. Robert Blair Kaiser in U.S.A. Today (April 5, 1983), 10A.
. J. Kohan, “To Share the Pain,” Time (March 14, 1983), p. 38.
. Father Arthur McCormack, “A Catholic Views Word Overpopulation,” Popline (August 1983), 5:7:1.
. News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina (December 24, 1983), 3A.
. Michael Novak in U.S.A. Today (April 5, 1983), lOA.
. Kaiser, U.S.A. Today, l0A.
. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 78.
. Chapel Hill Newspaper, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (December 31, 1982), 3A.
. Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, Papal Power: A Study of Vatican Control Over Lay Catholic Elites (Berkeley: California Press, 1980), p. 24.
. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 35.
. Ibid, p. 338. [Quoted from Pope Leo XIlI's encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens.]
. Ibid., p. 339.
. Ibid., p. 40.
. Ibid., p. 41.
. Ibid., p. 45.
. Ibid., pp. 45-47.
. Ibid., p. 22.
. Ibid., p. 340.
. Ibid., p. 65.
. Ibid., p. 294.
. Ibid., p. 76.
. Ibid., p. 82. [Quoted from the Jesuit magazine, America.]
. Ibid., p. 117.
. Ibid., p. 123.
. Ibid., p. 155.
. Ibid., p. 152. [Quoted from the American Ecclesiastical Review.]
. Ibid., p. 112. [Quoted from Father Patrick A. Finney, Moral Problems in Hospital Practice.]
. Ibid., p. 114. [Quoted from Medicus, Medical Essays, used in Catholic seminaries.]
. Ibid., p. 113. [Quoted from Dr. Austin O'Malley, The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutilation.]
. Ibid., p. 147.
. Ibid., p. 149.
. Ibid., p. 181. [Quoted from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens.]
. Ibid., p. 183. [Quoted from Father John C. Heenan, Priest and Penitent.]
. Ibid., p. 194. [Quoted from the Boston Pilot.]
. Ibid., p. 184.
. Ibid., p. 180.
. Ibid., p. 186. [Quoted from the American Ecclesiastical Review on "Preserving the Faith Inviolate."]
. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 195.
. Ibid., p. 195.
. Ibid., p. 196.
. Ibid., p. 198. [Quoted from Father Charles J. Mullaly in the Jesuit magazine, America.]
. Ibid., p. 188.
. Ibid., p. 184. [Quoted from Father Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology.]
. Robert Rienow and Leona Train Rienow, The Great Unwanteds Want Us: Illegal Aliens—Too Late to Close the Gate? (Monterey: Viewpoint Books, 1980).
. Waldo Zimmermann, Condemned to Live: The Plight of the Unwanted Child (Vita Press, 2143 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN 38104; 1981).
. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 5.
. Ibid., p. 46. [Quoted from the Catholic Almanac.]
. Ibid., p. 50. [Quoted from Leo XIII's encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens.]
. Ibid., p. 27.
. Ibid., p. 302.
. Ibid., p. 60.
. Ibid., p. 65.
. Ibid., p. 278.
. Ibid., p. 32.
. Ibid., p. 295. [Quoted from The New Scholasticism, published by Catholic University of America.]
. Ibid., p. 198.
. Ibid., p. 146.
. Ibid., p. 53. [Quoted from Monsignor John A. Ryan and Father Moorhouse F. X. Millar, The State and the Church.]
. Ibid., p. 295. [Quoted from Civilta Cattolica.]
. Ibid., p. 237. [Quoted from Pius IX in his Syllabus.]
. Ibid., p. 81.
. Ibid., p. 52.
. Ibid., p. 267.
. Ibid., p. 25.
. Ibid., p. 50. [Quoted from the Denver Catholic Register.]
. Ibid., p. 257. [Quoted from Crusade for Pan-Europe.]
Professor Milton Siegel, who for 24 years was the Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organization, speaks to Dr. Mumford in 1992 to reveal that although there was a consensus that overpopulation was a grave public health threat and would be a major cause of preventable death not too far in the future, the Vatican successfully fought off the incorporation of family planning and birth control into official WHO policy. This video is available for public viewing for the first time. Read the full transcript of the interview here.
Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook
This website is an initiative of the London-based Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM), a non-profit, non-partisan company limited by guarantee (number 7496571). Registered office: 16 The Mall, Surbiton, KT6 4EQ.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This is a not-for-profit site. It contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for educational purposes as part of our efforts to advance understanding of human rights issues and other matters of political, cultural and humanitarian significance in a global perspective. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.