Wojtyła i żydomasoneria: DOSSIER ON IDO-C


DOSSIER ON IDO-C[This dossier by Hamish Fraser first appeared in Approaches No 10-11, January 1968. It has been posted on the Apropos website: www.apropos.org.uk Additional sub-headings have been added by the editor, Apropos. Readers who wish to study further the Polish aspect of the undernoted article might wish to refer to the article. “Fatima – Lessons from Poland” which appeared in Apropos 29 and which is also posted on the Apropos website.]According to a circular, What is IDO-C?, published by the U.K. Administrative Section of IDO-C,

‘IDO-C is an international group with headquarters in Rome and a growing network of branches around the world. It is independent of any religious or state institution, a non-profit organisation established under Italian law with open membership and democratically elected officers.

‘Its specific function is to assemble and distribute documentation on the structural and theological effects of the continuing implementation of the decrees and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. This documentation is not presented at a popular level (as a newspaper or news agency would present it), but at a level meaningful to specialists in the sciences related to Church affairs and social communications media.

‘Among its subscribers are bishops, heads of diocesan commissions (liturgy, canon law reform, clerical-lay relations, etc.) professors of theology, scripture, canon law, sociology, psychology, Church history, etc. and advanced students in Catholic, Protestant and Jewish seminaries, editors of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish newspapers, editors of religious departments of big general newspapers.1

A somewhat similar bulletin issued in French gives us the following information:

‘IDO-C (International Centre of Information and Documentation concerning the Conciliar Church) seeks to continue the new ”horizontal” communication sparked off by the Council between bishops and theologians, between different peoples and continents, between Catholics and other Christians, between the Institutional Church and public opinion, thus putting in contact the opinions and thoughts of all members of the People of God.

‘To guarantee this communication, IDO-C has set up a committee composed of 120 theologians, members of research institutions and religious correspondents in something like 30 countries. It is also indebted to two of the most important centres set up during Vatican II: the C.C.C.C. (Centre for the Co-ordination of Conciliar Communications) which served the press, and Do-C (the Dutch Documentation centre which catered primarily for bishops and theologians) and continues their work.’

The French language bulletin also informs us that:

‘The International Committee of IDO-C is represented by an Executive Committee whose members are as follows:


Prof. R. Van Kets, O.P. (President) – Belgium/RomeDr. L.G.M. Alting von Geusau (General Secretary) – Holland/Rome


Dr. G. Bigazzi (Administrator) – RomeDr. B. Tonna (Counsellor) – Sedos/Feres/Malta/ RomeProf. Alberigo – Centro di Documentazione – Bologna, Italy

M. G.Alvarez Icaza – Movimiento Familiar, Mexico

M.J.P. Dubois Dumée – Informations Catholiques Internationales, France

Dr. R. Lynch, S.J., – Radio Vaticana, _U.S.A./Rome

Prof. J. Mojia – Criterio, Buenos Aires

M.N.Middleton – Sheed & Ward, London

Dr. A. Montero -Ecclesia, Spain

M. Donald Quinn – St. Louis Review, St. Louis, U.S.A.

Mlle. Ch, de Schryver – Dia, Africa/Belgium Dr.J. Seeber – Herder Korrespondenz, Germany Dr. J. Turowicz – Znak, Cracow, Poland

History of IDO-C

Though brief, the history of IDO-C is most interesting. In December 1963, there came into existence a centre of information for Dutch bishops, which published bulletins in Dutch. In due course, however, consequent on a demand from other groups, the centre began publishing information bulletins in French, English, German, Spanish and Italian. This information centre, which from its inception, bore the title DO-C, included non-Dutch specialists in religious information.

Around the same period, in order to promote an exchange of information concerning the Council among ‘progressive’ journalists, C.C.C.C. (Centro di Coordinazione delle Communicazione sul Concilie) came into being.

At the end of the Council, the work of this press bureau came to an end, for it had been conceived as a temporary establishment. However, with a view to-maintaining such relations as had been established during the Council, the religious correspondents who composed it joined forces with the Dutch agency and it was thus that IDO-C came into existence in December 1965.

Principal animators

Its principal animators were the Rev. Leo Alting von Geusau, a Dutch priest resident in Rome, and the Rev. Rafael van Kets, a professor at the Angelicum in Rome. The General Secretary of IDO-C is the Rev. Leo Alting von Geusau, and we are reliably informed that immediately prior to the foundation of IDO-C he paid a visit to the U.S.A., presumably in order to obtain sufficient resources with which to launch the new project. The General Secretary would also seem to be IDO-C’s chief ‘missionary’. For according to the U.K. Administrative Section’s publicity bulletin, he

‘recently toured Latin America and organised centres in Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, from which we hope soon to start distribution on a large scale in Latin America. Similar centres already function in the U.S.A., France, Holland, Spain and Ireland. Documents are at present sent out in English, French, Italian, German and Spanish. We should like to add at least Portuguese, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese and Japanese, in order to reach the major world cultures. Although its content mainly concerns the updating of the Catholic Church, and it is moving more and more in an ecumenical direction, as the problems of today are no longer limited to one or another Church, our service is not only for Catholics.’

IDO-C in the UK

The U.K. Administrative Section of IDO-C came into existence only recently. This does not mean, however, that IDO-C has hitherto had no influence on the British press. The Tablet was already acknowledging IDO-C as a source of information as early as December 1966. How much unacknowledged material in British publications has been of IDO-C origin it is, of course,


impossible to know. We do know, however, that IDO-C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Information and Documentation has from its inception included representatives of the (Manchester) Guardian, The Tablet, The Month and Slant as well as of the publishing houses of Burns & Oates and Sheed & Ward, whose then managing director, Neil Middleton (who is also actively associated with Slant) was an original member of IDO-C’s International Executive Committee.Although IDO-C was at its inception largely inspired by avant gardiste Dutch theologians and intellectuals, it has since then broadened out to become in effect the ‘progressive’ International Catholic Establishment’s centre for Documentation and Information. As the publicity bulletin issued by IDO-C’s U.K. Administrative Section puts it:’Because of the historic circumstances of its foundation (fusing of the Dutch DO-C centre with CCCC), IDO-C was long thought of as primarily a Dutch centre. In practice there was first some justification for this because of the personnel and contacts carried over, and also because the Church in Holland was particularly active in responding to the initiatives ofVatican II. Now, however IDO-C can claim to be truly international in composition as well as outlook. Of the 36 members of the international editorial board only 5 today are Dutch. Of the 15 people currently working in the Rome Office, 7 are Italian, 2 Spanish, 1 Brazilian, 1 English, 2 Dutch, 1 Australian and 1 Belgian.’

IDO-C is certainly solidly implanted in the U.K., where its address is that of the prestigious publishing house of Burns & Oates who not only publish the official Catholic Directory but also boast of being ‘Publishers to the Holy See’. These ‘Publishers to the Holy See’ were, however, taken over less than a year ago by the international ‘progressive’ publishing house of Herder & Herder, which is represented on IDO-C’s international Executive Committee by Dr. J. Seeber of Germany and on IDO-C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Documentation and Information by Dr. Seeber and also by Professor N. Greiteman of Vienna (and now-also by Paul Burns of Burns & Oates), so that Herder & Herder have no less than four voices in these two key international committees of IDO-C.

Personnel in the United Kingdom

The leading personnel of IDO-C’s U.K. Section are as follows:

The Rev. Laurence BRIGHT, 0.P, President (SLANT Editorial Board)

Mr. Paul BURNS (Burns & Oates – i.e. Herder & Herder)

Mrs. Pauline CLOUGH (Leader of SLANT Group, Southampton)

Mr. Adrian CUNNINGHAM (SLANT Editorial Board)

Mr. Jack DUNMAN (COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, leading specialist in oecumenism)

The Rev. John FOSTER The Rev. Nicholas LASH



Mr. Martin REDFERN (Executive Editor of SLANT)




Mr.Theo WESTOW Mr. Hugh WILCOX Mr.Austin WINCKLEYBefore proceeding to look at further aspects of IDO-C’s ‘truly international’ composition, let us note in passing that in addition to being represented on IDO-C’s International Executive Committee by Neil MIDDLETON (publisher and editor of SLANT), SLANT is also represented on IDO-C’s U.K. Section by its Executive Editor (Martin REDFERN), two members of its Editorial Board (The Rev. Laurence BRIGHT and Adrian CUNNINGHAM) and by one of its leading activists (Mrs. Pauline CLOUGH). Even more significant, as we shall see, however, is the fact that the President of IDO-C’s U.K. Section is none other than Father Laurence BRIGHT, O.PSLANT’S Influence

The significance of SLANT’s influence within IDO-C’s U.K. Section (4 members out of 15) can be appreciated only in relationship to the following facts:

  • that at a conference in Edinburgh on November 26, 1966, Terry Eagleton, admitted that SLANT was on the best of terms with the Polish secret police agency PAX;
  • that in any ‘front’ organisation’s committee 4 hard core key people out of 15 are more than enough to make sure that the remainder fall in line.

This would be true even if Jack Dunman was not also a member of the group. As it is, however, the SLANT ‘fraction’ within IDO-C’s U.K. Section can rely on him, not merely for an extra vote, but also for the benefit of his considerable experience in this kind of work and this increases the effectiveness of SLANT’s influence within IDO-C immensely.

Dunman’s presence in the group is not therefore to be measured merely in terms of the fact that this means that no less than one third of IDO-C’s leading personnel in the U.K. is either avowedly Communist or ‘Catholic’-Marxist. Its significance can be fully appreciated only when it is realised that this means that the Marxist ‘fraction’ of five within’ IDO-C’s U.K. section is under the guidance of one of the leading cadres of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

This would no doubt be heatedly denied by the SLANTITES, who probably tell themselves (and perhaps even believe it) that they defer to Mr. Dunman’s expertise only in organisational and tactical matters. But could Dunman and the Communist Party of Great Britain possibly wish for more?

Dunman’s career in the Communist Party

In case it may be thought that Dunman is not as important a Communist as we have been making him out to be, it is appropriate to give a rough outline of his career within the Communist Party. This reveals beyond all doubt that he is anything but a rank and file intellectual who just staggered into IDO-C for want of something better to do.

Dunman was a Party organiser as long ago as 1939. Ten years later we find him standing as Communist candidate, in Berkshire. In 1950 he was again a Communist Candidate, this time in Abingdon, and two years later he again represented the Party as candidate in Harwell. All this however, was purely incidental to Dunman’s regular work for the party, for in 1950 he became secretary of the Communist Party’s Agricultural Committee and ever since then he has been acknowledged as the Party’s leading expert in the agricultural field. He is also the editor of the COUNTRY STANDARD, the Communist Party’s organ for affairs agricultural. One aspect of his work in this field is the interest he has taken for many years in the affairs of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. The Daily Worker of January 10, 1948, reported that even then he was a member of Berkshire County Committee of the N.U.A.W

His specialist knowledge being invaluable to the Party, he has also been on its National Executive


Committee, and in 1965 he addressed the National Congress of the Communist Party on agricultural problems (with particular reference to evictions and tied cottages). And of course he still is editor of THE COUNTRY STANDARD (which, incidentally, is advertised in SLANT).Marxist – Christian DialogueOf late, however, Dunman has been showing a belated versatility and has become a specialist in ‘dialogue’ with Christians. We thus find him a member of the Communist team of 15 ‘ecumenists’ who recently dialogued with a peculiar assortment of Christians under the joint auspices of MARXISM TODAY (a. Communist Party organ) and the international department of the British Council of Churches, whose associate secretary, The Rev. Paul Oestreicher, is also, curiously enough, on IDO-C’s U.K. Section.

(Some idea of the kind of ‘defence’ of the Christian position advanced in this ‘dialogue’ can be gauged from the fact that the Christian team included two key members of SLANT’s editorial Board (Neil Middleton and Adrian Cunningham, already cited as a member of IDO-C’s U.K. Section), two other members of IDO-C’s British team (Theo Westow and The Rev. Paul Oestreicher) and Dr. Oliver Pratt, who was one of those who sponsored the petition on behalf of Father Herbert McCabe. Apart from these, none of the other Catholic laymen at the dialogue seems to have been heard of before.)

It is true that Dunman is listed only as a member of the Communist ‘ecumenical’ team. This self- effacement on his part should not, however, deceive us. The fact that he is the only leading Communist known to be a member of a supposedly ‘Catholic’ body (IDO-C), and the editor of the only Communist organ that advertises in SLANT, suffices to indicate that he is now the key figure in ‘ecumenical’ activities undertaken by the Party. In short, Dunman would appear to be the more celebrated and talented Roger Garaudy’s opposite number this side of the Channel.

Other team members

What of the other 10 members of IDO-C’s British team?

As we have already seen, the Rev. Paul Oestreicher specialises in arranging peculiarly cosy dialogues with the Communist Party. This he does by virtue of his being associate international secretary of the British Council of Churches, with special responsibility for East-West relations and for the Church of England’s dialogue with Communism. He also seems to consider it his duty to have intimate relations with the Slant group, for we find him as a speaker (along with the Slantite Dominican, Fr Boxer) at the annual conference of the December (Slant) Group at Spode House in 1966. He is also an ardent Teilhardist, and as such he addressed the 1967 Conference of the Teilhard de Chardin Association. From the report of his address in The Tablet, it seems that he took advantage of the occasion to declare publicly his fervent admiration of Martin Luther King and the ultra-‘progressive’ Jesuit, Daniel Berrigan, whose extremism led to his being disciplined temporarily even in the now latitudinarian U,S.A. It would therefore seem most unlikely that the Rev. Paul Oestreicher will seriously cramp the style of the Communist-guided Marxist ‘fraction’ within IDO-C’s U.K. team.

This leaves 9. At least two of these are known to be what with characteristic English understatement could be described as most decidedly well left of centre. They are Mr Anthony Spencer1 and Dr. Monica Lawlor.

It was Dr. Lawlor who, as secretary of the Newman Association mounted the defence of Father Herbert McCabe, O.P when he was so justifiably sacked from his post as editor of New Blackfriars (which, he admitted – at the Edinburgh conference already mentioned – was, like SLANT, also on good terms with the Polish secret police agency PAX).


1 See ‘The Organisational Approach to Renewal’ in this issue.


This defence action supplemented a petition to Rome (one of whose sponsors was Anthony Spencer) with a ‘Teach-in’ (at which one of the principal speakers was Anthony Spencer) preceded by a ‘Pray-in’ on behalf of those who, like Charles Davis and Father McCabe, had been ‘persecuted’ by ecclesiastical authority – a ‘pray-in’ of which a more charitable view could be taken if the Newmanites who organised it had ever waxed similarly indignant concerning the real persecution of our brethren in Jesus Christ behind the Iron and Bamboo curtains. Nor can it be alleged in Dr. Lawlor’s favour that, as secretary of the Newman Association, she was railroaded into launching this campaign, for she is co-author of The McCabe Affair, a book recently published (needless to say by Sheed & Ward), obviously with the purpose of serving as a permanent record of ecclesiastical ‘injustice’ in post-Conciliar Britain.This leaves 7. Of these, the Rev. John Weller would seem to be a non-Catholic, for there is certainly no priest of that name listed in the 1967 Catholic Directory.Which leaves 6, a mere two-fifths of IDO-C’s U.K. team. Of these, it is not known how many are distinguished passengers unlikely to rock the IDO-C boat. Mr. Paul Burns of Burns & Oates (or rather of Herder & Herder) almost certainly comes into this category. Having lent IDO-C the prestigious address of the ‘Publishers to the Holy See’, Messrs Herder & Herder are clearly entitled to representation. As their employee, Mr. Burns can presumably be relied upon faithfully to echo their viewpoint. Of the remaining 5, it is possible that some are mere nonenties in the ‘progressive’ camp who have been co-opted precisely because nothing is known about them. 2

Notwithstanding their obscurity, however, this at least we do know of them: the very fact that Laurence Bright, O.P is President of the group enables us to infer that not one of them takes particularly strong exception to the viewpoint of the Marxist ‘fraction’. For it is quite un­thinkable that the latter, having at its disposal the political savoir faire of one of the Communist Party of Great Britain’s leading cadres, would have been so foolish as to make Father Bright President if there had been any possibility of his being unacceptable to any of the others, for there is nothing the Party does not know about keeping its passengers happy.

It is therefore no exaggeration to say that IDO-C’s U.K. section is composed entirely of ‘progressives’ and that the group is controlled from within by a Marxist ‘fraction’ operating under the guidance of one of the most experienced cadres of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

So much therefore for IDO-C’s boast, in one of its bulletins in our possession, that it is ‘a centre at the service of the Church.’

IDO-C in France

The list of IDO-C’s International Executive Committee includes Monsieur J.P Dubois Dumée as representing Informations catholiques internationales. J.P Dubois Dumée is, however, much more than a mere representative of Informations catholiques internationales. He is a key figure in the progressive’ French Catholic establishment. And the French Catholic Establishment is indeed a power to be reckoned with. Through its stranglehold on the various ‘Catholic’ periodicals it controls, directly or indirectly, it has been able to effectively silence opposition to its will, not only in Catholic Action types of organisation, but even within


We have since learned something about Theo Westow and the Rev. Nicholas Lash. The latter it seems has written an introduction to a ‘progressive’ book by the former which was reviewed in the November 11 issue of the Tablet by the ‘progressive’, Fr. Henry St. John, O.P. More recently still, Fr. Lash reviewed A Question of Conscience by Charles Davis in The Universe, (Nov, 17, 1967) saying among other things: ‘….lucidity and candour….Charles Davis will have placed us all in his debt. ‘


the churches, where it is the exception rather than the rule to find on sale any journal that is uncompromisingly loyal to the Magisterium. Journals such as l’Homme Nouveau, France catholique, and Itinéraires are thus placed on the Establishment’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum,while Establishment organs such as Informations catholiques internationales and Témoignage chrétien appear to have the official imprimatur.The French Catholic Establishment is not however dependent for its influence on such journals as it controls directly. By virtue of its links with the secular Establishment (Masonic and Communist),which, needless to say, it has never actively combated, its viewpoint is also faithfully echoed in Le Monde (by Henri Fesquet) in Figaro (by Abbé Laurentin) and even in l’Humanité.In much the same way as The Guardian became the willing mouthpiece of Slant-Newman opinion at the time of the McCabe Affair in England, so does the French secular press (and, more often than not, La Croix also, alas!) tend to amplify the voice of Catholic progressivism, while simultaneously silencing the loyalist opposition. And this notwithstanding the fact that Catholics loyal to the Magisterium of Mother Church in contemporary France can organise rallies and congresses which attract a greater number of people than can be attracted by the Left with all the power of the press at its disposal.

Reality portrayed in caricature

This, however, is not news: news being by definition whatever events concur with the will of the occult powers that control the mass media. In the real world, shadow is but evidence of the existence of substance, whose true nature it may distort out of all proportion, but in the make- believe world of newsprint and television, where only the shadows can be seen, and where shadows can be freely manipulated in accordance with editorial whim and caprice, flesh and blood reality is almost invariably portrayed in caricature. Whereas in the real world we say there is no smoke without fire, we know perfectly well that it is quite possible for there to be fire without smoke. But in the world of daily newspapers and television screens, men have been carefully conditioned to believe only what they see and hear. In short, unless it’s on television or in the headlines it just never happened.

Treatment of the Lausanne Congress

How this works out in practice is exemplified in the treatment accorded the 1967 Lausanne Congress organised by the International Office of Associations for Civic Education and Cultural Action in accordance with Christian Principles and the Natural Law. Here was a gathering of some 2,200 people, most of them in the full flush of youth, each of whom had sacrificed at least £20 [£300 in 2013 currency], as well as three days’ holidays, in order to show fidelity to the social doctrine of the Roman Magisterium. If such a Congress had been organised under the auspices of Informations catholiques internationales, Témoignage Chrétien, or IDO-C, to bear witness to progressivist determination to defy the Roman Magisterium, it would have received most generous publicity not only in Le Monde and Figaro but also in La Croix, with perhaps some editorial comment into the bargain. And since Roger Garaudy, the leading theoretician of the French-Communist Party would almost certainly have been there – he is seldom absent from any really important gathering of. Catholic ‘progressives’ anywhere nowadays – one may be sure that a ‘progressive” Congress of Lausanne dimensions would also receive equally generous publicity in l’Humanité.

In fact, however, the Lausanne Congress received virtually no publicity in the French press. The Congressists being Catholics loyal to Rome, they were automatically transformed into un-persons and the Congress into a non-event.

The power of modern media of communication to condition the human mind is never more manifest than when those in control decide that there shall be no communication. By comparison with the editorial blue pencil, the magic wand was an absurdly crude instrument. The full import of


technological development in the media of communication can be grasped only when it is realised that it is now possible, by doing nothing, to conjure flesh and blood reality out of existence. Seen in this perspective, existentialism opens up vista undreamed of even by the new theology – except perhaps by such of its exponents as have already decreed that transubstantiation can become meaningful to modern man only when represented as a figment of his imagination.The Pre-Conciliar situation in FranceNow that we have seen the English-language Catholic press taken over almost completely by progressivism on both sides of the Atlantic, and also the manner in which the progressivist Catholic press is amplified ten million fold by the secular mass media, it is not, of course, at all difficult for us to understand similar developments in France. Prior to Vatican II, however, the situation in France would not have been comprehensible to English and American Catholics. Prior to Vatican II, it was as though we were living in an entirely different world as compared with that of our French coreligionists. As indeed we were. For even in the time of Pius XII, there already existed in France – though nowhere else in the entire world – much the same state of affairs as now prevails in this country and to an even more marked degree in the U.S.A.

In the mid-‘fifties, it was well-nigh impossible for the ordinary British or American Catholic to credit the substance of Jean Madiran’s revelations (in Ils ne savent pas ce qu’ils font and Ils ne savent pas ce qu’ils disent) concerning the ramifications of the progressivist conspiracy in France. It seemed to them as though the poor man must have been having a nightmare. The truth alas is simply that he was describing a nightmare. The truth is that in objectively reporting what then existed only in France he was simply describing the nightmare of progressivist subversion that has since then become universal.

Which brings us back to M. J.P Dubois Dumeé, for he was one of the principal authors of the progressivist nightmare so effectively portrayed by Jean Madiran.

Representing the French Catholic Establishment

As we have already noted, M. Dubois Dumeé’s role on IDO-C’s International Executive Committee is to represent Informations catholiques Internationales. But he is also there as representative of the entire ‘progressive’ French Catholic Establishment, including the French Lay Apostolate, of which he was principal spokesman at the Third World Congress of the Lay Apostolate (whose carrefours he directed). As a member of IDO-C’s International Executive Committee, M. Dubois Dumeé has therefore two distinct roles: plenipotentiary representing the French Catholic Establishment within IDO-C, and IDO-C plenipotentiary within France, the latter role being symbolised by the fact that IDO-C’s original address in France was c/o Informations catholiques internationales. It is only comparatively recently that it has been decided (no doubt for the sake of IDO-C’s image) to nominate a Monsieur Galbiati to act as IDO-C representative in France, giving him power (in the words of Informations catholiques internationales) ‘to assure liaison between Rome and the French public’ from his office at 23, rue Anatole-France, 92 Chaville.

The PAX Document

It is therefore no exaggeration to equate the ideology of IDO-C in France with that of Informations catholiques internationales or, conversely, to say that IDO-C represents an international expression of the Informations catholiques internationales viewpoint. And what the latter is can be seen from The PAX Document, which was sent by the Office of the Secretary of State at the Vatican to the Secretariat of the French Episcopate , which forwarded it (together with a covering letter dated June 6, 1963) to the Bishops and Major Religious Superiors resident in France. This document evaluated the influence of the Polish secret police agency PAX within France in the following terms:

‘In France, the agents of PAX are in permanent contact with certain groups of catholic “progressives” who rally to their defence, whenever they believe them threatened. PAX has managed, in the main, to implant in certain French. Catholic circles the belief that it (PAX)


suffers persecution By Cardinal Wyszyński and the Polish Episcopate on account of its “progressive” tendencies.This attitude showed itself in a. striking fashion when a series of articles on the position of the Church in Poland appeared in “La Croix” in ‘February, 1962. The Reverend Father WENGER, Editor-in-chief, was immediately taken to task by priests and laymen who vehemently denied the contents of these articles, boasting of their travels or tours in Poland.’They were for the most part friends of PAX, belonging to the circle of Informations Catholiques Internationales (I.C.I.).

‘Told that Cardinal Wyszynski had confirmed the accuracy of the facts reported in “La Croix” articles, and not daring to attack him openly, M. de Broucker, editor-in chief of I.C.I. showed his sentiments in one of his “Letters to the Friends of I.C.I.” distributed only to the inner circle of his followers, in which he made it to be understood that Cardinal Wyszynski ought, during the Council, to render an account of his stewardship to the Cardinals of the Roman Church, “his judges and his peers”.

‘When the “La Croix” articles were about to appear in book-form, the Ecclesiastical Censor for Paris made it known to the author that, “not having found any doctrinal errors in the text, he was unable to refuse the imprimatur, but that he hoped the author would HAVE THE COURAGE(expressis verbis) to suppress the chapter dealing with PAX.”

‘Once published, this book (Pierre Lenert, The Catholic Church in Poland) became the object of a fierce campaign on the part of PAX and its French friends.

‘Curiously, PAX, in its bulletin, expressed its surprise that, the imprimatur could have been granted to this work.

‘Not a single fact is denied. PAX admits that Lenert’s book had been “circulated” during the first session of the Council, but forgets to say that the Polish bishops, consulted on this matter, were unanimous in acknowledging the accuracy of the facts reported. It is obvious that PAX dreads being exposed in France.

‘Its very existence is at stake. If it were once recognised by the Catholics of the West as nothing but an agency of a police network entrusted with the penetration and subjection of the Church, it would lose its following in their ranks and, in so doing, would lose ITS JUSTIFICATION in the eyes of its paymasters.

‘”It is not the Communists, whom we fear,” said a Polish bishop. “What fills us with anguish, are the FALSE BRETHREN,”‘

(The emphasis throughout is that of the PAX Document)

IDO-C in Poland – ZNAK

Having dealt with the role of Communist Subversion in France via Informations catholiques internationales, IDO-C’s guarantor to the French public, it is now appropriate to investigate ZNAK, IDO-C’s principal agency within Poland.

First, it must be made clear that, unlike PAX, ZNAK does not appear to be a police agency. That, however, is about all that can be said in its favour, for its outlook is very closely akin to that of


SLANT, which like Informations catholiques internationales, prefers to regard PAX (notwithstanding the Polish Primate’s authoritative evaluation of it as a secret police agency) as a legitimate expression of ‘progressive’ Catholic opinion. For from such investigations as we have made, the following facts about ZNAK emerge:

  1. ZNAK is a ‘circle’ attached to the Communist-dominated National Unity Front.
  2. ZNAK accepts the Marxist economic structure of the State.

In other words, it categorically repudiates the social doctrine of the Magisterium of Mother Church.

  1. ZNAK also accepts Poland’s general support for Russian foreign policy. And since Russia’s foreign policy is nothing more or less than an instrument of Moscow’s subversive influence throughout the entire world ZNAK accepts this too presumably.
  2. ZNAK is opposed to Cardinal Wyszynski, whom it accuses of ‘political intransigence’.

This, again, is as logical for a ‘circle’ attached to the Communist-dominated National Unity Front as its repudiation of Catholic social doctrine and its support for Russian foreign policy.

As Cardinal Wyszynski has pointed out, there is only one species of ‘normalisation’ of relations between the Catholic Church and the Communist State that is acceptable to the latter (and also, needless to say to such ‘circles’ as are attached to the Communist-dominated National Unity Front). In Cardinal Wyszynski’s own words: there is ’no doubt as to the conditions required by the Warsaw Government for “the so keenly awaited” normalisation of relations between the Church and the State. It is a question, in short, of the acceptance in full of the notorious principle POLITICS FIRST, by the TOTAL

subordination of the Church to the advancement of the Communist Revolution…………. In other words, this

“normalisation” can only take place at the price of a FORMAL COMMITTAL of the Church in Poland to the service of a particular political party.* (Quoted from ‘The PAX Document’.The emphasis is not ours.)

From this it is clear that what ZNAK means by ‘political intransigence’ is simply fidelity to the Christian principle of refusing to render to Caesar that which is God’s.

It is interesting to note that while ‘progressives’ of every hue unanimously condemn the ‘pre-Conciliar° Church for, having made itself acceptable to feudalism, capitalism, monarchism, nationalism, imperialism, colonialism and what have you, they simultaneously condemn her for exhibiting ‘political intransigence’ for not accepting ‘total subordination’ to Communism.

  1. ZNAK appears to consider the materialism of the Gomulka regime to be merely ‘nominal’.

This priceless euphemism makes even ‘double-speak’ seem delightfully unambiguous.

The ‘nominal’ materialism of the Polish State

Just how ‘nominal’ is the materialism of the Polish State can be seen from the following excerpt from a Pastoral Letter issued by the entire Polish Episcopate on March 21, 1963:

a)       ‘Since the beginning of 1963 there has been a constant increase in the number of enactments aimed at religious teaching.

b)       The Office for Religious Affairs forbade priests belonging to religious orders, even if they were the parish priests, or curates, nuns and even many lay catechists to teach catechism.

c)       Religious instruction is forbidden in private houses, parish halls, chapels, and even in certain churches.

d)       Some Inspectors of Public Education demand from parish priests detailed reports on the religious instruction given in their churches and are increasing the number of their inspections.

e)       The parish priests, who refuse to make these reports, are punished with crippling fines up to ten thousand zlotys or more. Those, who are unable to pay these exorbitant sums are threatened with and often suffer, imprisonment or distraints.


f)        Use is made of all manner of intimidation, indeed of threats, to hinder children attending catechism. The parents of children who refuse to give way are the victims of heavy penalties. Certain social groups (Civil Servants, Agents of the U.B., etc.) are officially forbidden to send their children to catechism under pain of dismissal.g)       Every year, the holiday centres gather together thousands of children, who are prevented on a thousand pretexts from attending Mass on Sundays. In some cases they have been kept penned behind barbed-wire for the whole duration of the parish Masses.h)       No priest has the right to enter, at any price, within the boundaries of these holiday centres or camps.

i)         The children who do succeed in escaping to go to Sunday Mass are punished.

j) Young people, who go out on excursions with a priest, are tracked by the police, often in helicopters, in order to check whether, under cover of the forest or mountain, they are attending Mass. Taken “in flagranti delicto” [caught red-handed] students are often refused the right to continue their studies.’

If the foregoing exemplifies ‘the materialism “nominally” professed by the Gomulka Government,’ God forbid that it should ever think in terms of taking its materialism seriously.

  1. ZNAK does not consider the materialism of the Gomulka regime ‘the real enemy to the Faith’.

In one sense – i.e. in the sense that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, in the sense that persecution tends to confirm rather than attenuate the faith of those persecuted – this is, of course, undoubtedly true. Nowhere, indeed, is this more obvious than in contemporary Poland, where attacks on the Church have served merely to unite the Polish people solidly behind their heroic Primate.

No Christian takes the side of the Persecutor

In this sense, however, neither Nero on the one hand nor Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-tung on the other could be described as ‘real enemies of the Faith’, however determinedly and savagely they sought to eradicate it.

But whether the Church is being persecuted with bestial savagery – as by the tyrants we have just mentioned – or more subtly, but no less implacably, by the Gomulkas of this world (or for that matter by the urbane, sophisticated, highly literate humanitarians who constitute the British Humanist Association), no Christian worthy of the name ever takes the side of the persecutor.

In an epoch of persecution, it is true that it is not the actual persecutors who constitute ‘the real enemy of the Faith’. The name of ‘the real enemy of the Faith’ is Catholic Infidelity. In the words of the Polish Bishop quoted by Cardinal Wyszynski in. The PAX Document: ‘It is not the Communists whom we fear. What fills us with anguish are the FALSE BRETHREN.’

(Again the emphasis is not ours.)

  1. ZNAK is said to have the support of many priests, to be tolerated by most bishops, and encouraged by some.

In this epoch of intellectural anarchy and infidelity, it would be quite utopian to imagine that even Poland is totally immune to infection. Infidelity has never at any time been an exclusively lay phenomenon. But as for there being ‘many priests’ and ‘some bishops’ who support ZNAK, how many are ‘many’ and ‘some’ meant to indicate? It would, for example, be perfectly true to say that ‘many’. priests have got married of late, and that ‘some’- have even advocated the ‘consecration’ of homosexual unions by the Church. But, used in this sense, ‘many’ means in practice a negligible proportion, while ‘some’ connotes a few off beat eccentrics who probably require psychiatric treatment and our prayers rather than ecclesiastical censure. May we suggest that it is in this sense that ZNAK


influence among the Polish clergy should be interpreted. This interpretation would certainly be in accordance with what information we have been able to obtain.As for ZNAKs being ‘tolerated’ by most bishops, it requires little imagination to conceive of the number of evils that Polish bishops must tolerate – particularly if one has read The PAX Document,But even if ZNAK has persuaded no more than one or two bishops and a handful of priests to take sides with them against Cardinal Wyszynski, this makes them no less dangerous potentially. For as The PAX Document makes clear, the technique of Communist subversion of the Church in Poland operates along the following lines:

‘The technique is to act as a SOLVENT, to form cells of disunity among the faithful, but especially in the ranks of the priests and religious.

To split the bishops into two blocs, the “Integrists” and the “Progressives”.

To align, under a thousand pretexts, the priests against their bishops.

To drive a subtle wedge into the masses by cleverly contrived distinctions between “reactionaries” and “progressives”.

Never to attack the Church directly, but only “for her own good”, “her outdated forms” and “the abuses which disfigure her”. If necessary to be more Catholic than the Pope.

By hammering away cunningly, to form in the ranks of the clergy pockets of the “discontented” so as to lure them bit by bit “into a climate favourable to class warfare”.’ (Emphasis is that of The PAX Document.)


To sum up, the essential facts are as follows:

ZNAK is Poland’s voice within IDO-C.

ZNAK is an organisation of fellow travellers comparable to those inspired by SLANT and Informations catholiques internationales.

What we know of IDO-C’s Polish friends, therefore, corroborates the impression obtained by a study of IDO-C in Britain and France.

IDO-C in Canada and the U.S.A.

It will have been noted that the two U.S. members of IDO-C’s International Executive Committee are the Rev. Edward Lynch of Radio Vatican and the St. Louis Review representative Donald Quinn, who has been described in the U.S. as the controversial ex-editor of the even more controversial Oklahoma Courier. This, however, does nothing like justice to the role of the U.S. within IDO-C or, conversely, to the role of IDO-C in the U.S.A. A much more realistic (though still inadequate) picture is given by the names of Americans from the U.S.A. and Canada who are members of IDO- C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Documentation and Information. These key people, totalling no less than 21 assorted journalists, theologians and representatives of various organisations, alone suffice to diffuse IDO-C news and views directly to such influential secular journals as the New York Times,Time magazine and the Chicago Sunday Times as well as to

‘Catholic’ journals such as the Long Island Cathoic, the National Catholic Reporter; and the St. Louis Review, and also to the influential Paulist Press, to information centres such as the Catholic Press union, N.C.W.C., the National Catholic Communications Centre of Toronto, and two other somewhat similar centres in Ottawa and Montreal, to the Religious Newswriters’ Association and, last but by no means least, to Radio Vatican and Radio Canada.

This, however, was but the original set-up. Since then, IDO-C AMERICA (as it now calls itself) has opened a distribution and promotion centre in New York (address: Box 265, Baldwin, N.Y) which churns out a regular supply of documentation and information to chanceries, religious information


centres and editorial offices throughout the entire sub-continent.But in addition to putting its U.S. house in order, IDO-C AMERICA has also taken steps to place American know-how and dynamism at the disposal of ID0-C’s Rome Centre. For after establishing IDO-C AMERICA on a sound footing, former Pittsburg Catholic columnist Dr. Gary McEoin set out for Rome to take over as executive director of IDO-C’s central office, to reorganise it, as an IDO-C AMERICA. bulletin stated, ‘in preparation for the Synod of Bishops’.In view of the effective manner in which the Synod had its privacy violated and its confidences diffused (after appropriate distortion) prior to its being publicly lectured and put in its place by one of IDO- C’s tame ‘masters of theology’, it certainly cannot be alleged that Dr. McEoin’s ‘preparation’ left anything to be desired. This does not signify, however, that he has ousted the original IDO-C boss, the Rev. Leo Alting von Geusau, who continues to be IDO-C’s General Secretary. Now that Dr. McEoin has taken so much delicate ‘administrative’ work (such as coping effectively with events such as the Synod) off the Rev. Leo’s shoulder’s, the hardworking General Secretary will now no doubt be able to spend even more of his time on missionary endeavours.

What exactly is The Catholic Establishment?

But it is not merely American expertise and dynamism (and presumably dollars as well) that Dr.

McEoin brings to Rome. His presence there also testifies to the increasingly important role now played by the American Catholic Establishment within the International Catholic Establishment.

Before enlarging on this, however, it is first necessary to make clear what is meant by the term ‘Catholic Establishment’, and to apologise for having already used this term in relation to the progressivist conspiracy elsewhere without explaining either the origin of the term or its precise meaning.

It must be first emphasised that the term is not ours. ‘The Catholic Establishment’ is what the American progressivist conspiracy calls itself.

The term ‘Establishment’ has of course for long been used as a synonym for any influential coterie that imposes its ideology, its conventions and above all its will on a given society. Thus, for example, while the former ‘British Establishment’ represented a Protestant expression of masonic ambitions, the new ‘British Establishment, which informs all institutions and political parties throughout the U.K. (as the new ‘American Establishment’ similarly informs ‘the American way of life’), is an. expression in terms of Secular Humanism and Progressivism of 20th century masonic ecumenism.

If hitherto it has not been customary to speak of a ‘Catholic Establishment’ this was for the very good reason that, until comparatively recently, however considerably the ethos of Catholic life was conditioned by the influence of the outside world, within the Catholic community as such there was no effective challenge to the influence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the only ‘Catholic Establishment’ then conceivable by the Faithful) and it was quite pointless to devise an alternative description for the Institutional Church. Prior to Vatican II, the only notable exception to this rule was France, where the Church had been in a state of undeclared civil war for nearly a century, but, even there, while progressivist influence did in fact come near to constituting an ‘Establishment’ in rivalry with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the term ‘Establishment’ was used only by those who sought, by thus designating it, to indicate that this development in effect represented the emergence of a parallel hierarchy and was thus quite intolerable. It is only in the U.S.A., and even there most recently (December 1966 to be precise), that the progressivist conspiracy has boldly styled itself ‘The Catholic Establishment’.

A proud boast

There is no more frightening measure of the dimensions of the crisis within the contemporary Church, than the open admission of what, hitherto, would have been an incredible state of affairs: the explicit affirmation by the progressivist conspiracy of ambitions which have previously been heatedly denied,


even by the most subversive of liberals, whenever it was alleged that they harboured such pretentions. Yet, as we shall see, the self-styled ‘Catholic Establishment’ in the U.S.A. openly boasts that it is it, rather than the Magisterium of the Church, that now effectively governs the mind of the Catholic community.It is precisely because the use of the term ‘Catholic Establishment’ manifests what are the ultimate ambitions of progressivists everywhere that, for the sake of clarity, we have chosen thus to designate the progressivist conspiracy elsewhere throughout the world. But it is particularly appropriate thus to describe European progressivism, for the ‘Catholic Establishment’ in the U.S.A. is simply a belated extension overseas of the European progressivist conspiracy whose French vanguard was so effectively unmasked by Jean Madiran in the mid-‘fifties.Needless to say, the French progressivists, being French, were primarily concerned with establishing their influence rather than with boasting of it. And while it is true that the U.S. Catholic Establishment has indeed much of which to boast, the fact remains that the fertile mind of France continues to be the intellectual mainspring of the International Catholic Establishment – just as it is also in France that there is already emerging an effective Catholic resurgence in full accordance with the mind of the true post-Conciliar Church (of which the post-Conciliar Church spoken of by IDO-C is an absurd caricature). Thus, however grateful we may be to the U.S. Catholic Establishment for its childish folly in openly disclosing not only its objectives, but also its mode of operation, and even its key personnel, let us not be deceived by American pretentiousness.

A delinquent daughter

Notwithstanding the bombast of Charles de Gaulle, demographically and economically France adds up to a negligible quantity in terms of contemporary geopolitics. But it is still Paris rather than Washington that is the intellectual capital not only of the world, but also of the Church. As Pope Paul VI is said to have remarked: ‘Rome is the centre of the universal Church, but it is in France that she bakes her intellectual bread.’ It certainly cannot be denied that it is France that has given the 20th century Church its most prestigious philosophers(Maritain and Gilson); its most outstanding problem children (Charles Maurras – Action francaise; and Marc Sangnier – Le Sillon); its most subversive ideologues Emmanuel Mounier and Père Teilhard de Chardin) – as well as the conspiracy that spawned the ‘Catholic Establishment’ plus the ‘most effective means of combating it: a grass-roots movement of the laity uncompromisingly loyal to the Magisterium which, under the guidance of the International Office of Associations for Civic Education and CullurllAction in accordance with Christian Principles and the Natural Law, is already reaching forth from Europe towards the Americas.

The Eldest Daughter of the Church is frequently delinquent, more often than not difficult, and occasionally quite impossible but withal perennially charming and the irresistible cynosure of the world’s attention. To say this is by no means to denigrate the genius of other nations.

National characteristics

No nation can match the Americans in technique, dynamism (and childish folly); the English in phlegmatic pragmatism, understatement (and hypocrisy); the Germans in stolid diligence, discipline (and political insanity); the Jews in restless messianism, financial acumen (and subversive inclination); the Spaniards in dignity, fidelity to tradition (and stubborn pride); the Poles in old-world courtesy, respect for what is honourable(and compulsive, near-suicidal heroism), But if each nation has its own peculiar genius the outstanding quality of the French mind is its talent for rigorous logic and intuitive subtlety, its rapacity for extracting from first principles, true or false, whatever implications are conceivable to the human mind.

Heaven itself would seem to acknowledge this peculiar gift which gives France such a unique role in the affairs of men by endowing her with three of the key saints of the contemporary world; the Curé d’Ars (patron saint of parish priests); the Little Flower, patroness of the missions (and thus also of that Christian triumphalism properly so called which seeks the triumph of Christ’s Kingdom through self­


annihilation and charity); and St. Bernadette, through whose lips the Queen of Heaven corroborated the definition of the Immaculate Conception as an article of faith by the author of Syllabus, and thus reminded a world obsessed by dreams of an earthly utopia that were soon to materialise in a nightmare epoch of wars and revolutions of the need to be perpetually aware of human concupiscence. Moreover, there is no country more blessed in terms of Heavenly visitations – one need only mention Paray-le-Monial, rue du Bac, La Salette, Lourdes – visitations which have brought Catholics the world over to their knees on French soil. Nor significantly is there any other country in the world whose capital city has been visited by the Mother of God.A more sinister roleBut if all this would seem to suggest that France is destined to play no ordinary role in the economy of salvation, when we bear in mind her record in recent centuries – Jansenism, alliance with the enemies of Christendom, the Revolution of 1789 and its global consequences – she would seem to be the eldest daughter of the Father of Lies rather than of Mother Church. Even so, however, she has never played a more sinister role in the economy of human damnation than by inspiring the emergence of what has now become the International Catholic Establishment which, as we shall see from the admissions of its U.S, branch, seeks to become the power in the Church, and thus to usurp the function of the Magisterium, for as Pope Paul has found it necessary to warn the universal Church, there just cannot be ‘two parallel hierarchies’, for this, he added ’would be to forget the structure of the Church, as Christ wished it to be.’

While this admonition was addressed to the Third World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, and was by no means inappropriate in this context given the insolence with which this body dared to speak as though it were a law unto itself, his warning was by no means for its benefit alone. Was not his intention rather, by rebuking the Third World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, to alert the universal Church that at present a parallel hierarchy already exists? Was his admonition not primarily concerned with the pretentions of the International Catholic Establishment? The shambles at the Third World Congress of the Lay Apostolate was certainly but one, and by no means the most alarming manifestation of its power.

We may thus interpret the Holy Father’s admonition as a warning, not against Heresy, but against schism. For where there are ‘two parallel hierarchies (as there already are) schism already exists. The fact that the present schism has not so far followed the familiar pattern, involving an open break with Rome, make it no less real, for, as Brent Bozell says so eloquently in the October 1967 issue of Triumph, the essence of schism is that:

‘it sets up a rival claim to authority – wrecks the visible criteria of orthodoxy, and thus throws into doubt not only where the Body is, but if It is. It amounts to obliterating the Light of the World, as the erection of a second or third or hundred false lighthouses on a treacherous shoal obliterates for the lost sailor the one beacon that will get him into harbour safely.

The Catholic Church has never hesitated to locate the true Light with the person of the Pope, to equate allegiance to Herself with allegiance to him. Thus Canon Law defines the schismatic as a person who “after the reception of baptism, while retaining the name of Christian….refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff……. “‘

The anatomy of the Catholic Establishment

Having said all this, let us now turn to an examination of the U.S. Catholic Establishment by seeing what it says about itself.

Characteristically, it does not explicitly call in question the Church’s Magisterium. It prefers to liquidate its effective influence by simply ignoring it and deciding for itself what the Church and the Faithful must both think and do.


As John Leo says, openly boasting not only of the Catholic Establishment’s existence, but also of its power, in his now famous Critic article entitled ‘The Catholic Establishment3: ‘It is the Establishment that decides what Catholics will discuss, not just in Establishment journals, but after a time lag – in nearly all Catholic journals and discussion groups from coast to coast.’ (He adds, significantly: ‘The birth control discussion in the United States, for instance, was entirely an Establishment production,’ and then proceeds to explain in some detail just how this was achieved between 1963 and the end of 1964 by the exercise of what has been described in Holland as the ‘progressive terrorism of Catholic public opinion’.)As this self-styled ‘Establishment columnist’ also admitted, quoting Father John Hugo without demur in his already mentioned notorious article in The Critic, an admittedly ‘Establishment review’: The Establishment is ‘a small coterie admiring one another’s writings, although at times politely and tentatively disagreeing’, who ‘have seized all the microphones in a determination to speak for the Church…’ He then proceeded to say who these microphone-seizers are:’The microphone-seizers,’ he says, ‘are a loose but exclusive fraternity of several dozen scholars, journalists, activists and publishers. They write for and edit the most influential Catholic journals… They publish one another’s manuscripts, warmly review one another’s books, cite one another in lectures they invite one another to give, then collect the lectures and articles into books for yet another round of favourable discussion.

’The Establishment is liberal, progressive, largely urban, suspicious of institutions, anti-war (but mostly non-pacifist), half-clerical and half-lay, and concerned mainly with intramural Catholic problems. They are not necessarily the best-known or brightest Catholics in the land, and few of them hold official positions in the-Church. They don’t have to. They are the Establishment.

‘The chief business of the Establishment is the shaping and publicising of the issues that will dominate American Catholic life. This is done largely through the six Establishment journals, all of them edited by laymen: the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, CROSS CURRENTS, JUBILEE, COMMONWEAL, CONTINUUM and THE CRITIC. They provide the links to the publishing houses, the campuses, the secular journals and the Protestant world, as well as to the lower-level publicists and periodicals which take their cue from the Establishment and function as transmission belts for Establishment ideas.

’On paper, the Establishment looks like an interlocking directorate_______________ ’

Imposing its will

Leo then proceeds to give numerous examples of how this ‘interlocking directorate’ operates in order to impose its will on Catholic public opinion and thus on the Church. He shows for example that the publishers of Cross Currents and The Critic (Joseph Cuneen and Dan Herr respectively) are both on the board of the National Catholic Reporter, that one of the Cross Currents editors (William Birmingham) edits Mentor-Omega paperback books while simultaneously working part-time for Commonweal; that Justus George Lawlor, 4 editor of Continuum, who also writes for Commonweal, is the chief editor of the pro-Establishment publishing house of Herder and Herder; that Sheed and Ward’s American publishing house is headed by the former Commonweal editor and Critic columnist Philip Scharper; that Wilfrid Sheed himself who is now with Commonweal was formerly with Jubilee; and that the key Establishment figure, Michael Novak, has access to all Establishment journals and publishing houses.


3  The Critic, Dec 1966- January 1967.


4  Lawlor also writes for New Blackfriars


Leo also gives several examples of how Establishment members take in each other’s washing, build up synthetic reputations (mentioning in particular the case of the Canadian theologian Bernard Lonergan’s lionisation by a combined operation on the part of Justus George Lawlor and Michael Novak despite the fact that scarcely anyone had read Lonergan), and how the Establishment rallies to the defence of the ‘persecuted’ (i.e. Establishment heroes who incur ecclesiastical discipline, such as the extremist Jesuit, Father Daniel Berrigan) in much the same way as the English Slant- Newman operation was mounted in defence of Father Herbert McCabe, O.P in the spring of 1967.Breathing togetherEven Leo admits, however, that Establishment operations are difficult to pinpoint. This is because, ‘like most establishments’ the Catholic Establishment ‘moves ahead imperceptibly by the individual acts of members who share common assumptions.’ He adds, significantly: ‘Though hardly a conspiracy in the modern political sense of the word, it is one in John Courtney Murray’s sense of “a breathing together”. In the Establishment everyone breathes together.’

As he tells us elsewhere, ‘The Establishment is essentially a team.’ And from what he says, it is not difficult to infer that Establishment teamwork is never more in evidence than when sham fights on inessentials are staged between Establishment spokesmen who ’usually attack the same things and defend each other’, as a means of creating an illusion of free debate in journals savagely intolerant of conservative opinions in any shape of form.

One of the essential aspects of the Establishment’s capacity to influence Catholic public opinion is its control of ‘most of the big lecture series’ a control which Leo tells us is substantially ‘reinforced by two Establishment lecture agencies: University Speakers and the National Lecture Service’ Of late, however, the Establishment has conjured into existence an entirely new creation which still further reinforces its influence: The Institute for Freedom in the Church. The ‘freedom’ in question, needless to say is freedom for the Establishment. It has also recently got control of the key Catholic Press Association.

Cadres and Agencies of the Establishment

The following are the people and institutions which Leo lists as belonging to the Establishment.:

JOURNALS: Commonweal, Continuum, The Critic, Cross Currents, Jubilee and the National Catholic Reporter.

PUBLISHERS; Helicon, Herder & Herder, Macmillan (when edited by Elizabeth Bartelme), Mentor-Omega, (paperbacks), Sheed & Ward

LECTURE AGENCIES: University Speakers and National Lecture Service SCRIPTURE WING:

The Rev. Barnabas AHERN, C.P; The Rev. Raymond BROWN; The Rev. John McKENZIE; The Rev. Roland MURPHY; Mother Kathryn SULLIVAN; and The Rev. Bruce VAWTER.

Note: Fr. Barnabas AHERN, C.P was a peritusat Vatican II. He has also lectured widely – several times in the U.K. – and is no doubt also a valuable Establishment missionary.


Dan HERR, publisher of The Critic, on Board of National Catholic Reporter; John LEO, National Catholic Reporter and The Critic; Philip SCHARPER, head of Sheed & Ward, now Critic columnist, formerly editor of Commonweal; Garry WILLS, National Catholic Reporter.


Danial CALLAHAN (wife is Sidney Cornelia Callahan, author and member of Establishment); Justus George LAWLOR, chief editor of Herder & Herder, editor of Continuum, also writes for


LADIES AUXILIARY:Elizabeth BARTELME, Macmillan editor; Sister Charles BORROMEO, Establishment nun; Sidney Cornelia CALLAHAN, author and wife of Daniel Callahan; Sister CORRITA, Establishment ‘activist’; Mary DALY, lay theologian; Sister JACQUELINE, leading Establishment nun; Rosemary LAUER, philosopher; Sister LUKE, Establishment nun; Nancy RAMBUSCH, Montessori leader and wife of Robert Rambusch; Rosemary RUETHER, birth-control specialist.ACADEMIC AND MISCELLANEOUS WING:

The Rev. William CLANCY, Provost Pittsburgh Oratory; John COGLEY, New York Times, Centre for Study of Democratic Institutions, a key Establishment figure; James COLLINS, Philosopher; Leslie DEWART, Philosopher, pacifist, University of Toronto; Robert DRINAN; The Rev. Edward DUFF; The Rev. John DUNNE; Louis DUPRE, specialist in birth-control and marriage; Mgr. John Tracy ELLIS; The Rev. Joseph FICHTER, sociologist; James FINN, Editor World Wew;_The Rev. Robert FRANCOEUR, prominent Teilhardist; The Rev. Dexter HANLEY; Richard HORSCHLER, National Conference of Christians and Jews; The Rev. Robert JOHANN, philosopher; The Rev. William LYNCH, Establishment specialist on art and communication; Ernan McMULLIN, philosopher; Bernard MURCHLAND, philosopher; John NOONAN, authority on contraception; Michael NOVAK, key Establishment figure, author of The Open Church; George SCHUSTER, Notre Dame; Wilfrid SHEED, of Sheed & Ward, Commonweal, formerly with Jubilee; Dan SULLIVAN, specialist on birth-control and marriage; Gordon ZAHN, pacifist, linked with Ramparts.


Dorothy DAY, founder of The Catholic Worker; The Rev. H.A. Reinhold, patron of Liturgical reform.


Archbishop ROBERTS, S.J.


Father William DUBAY, advocate of a trade union for priests.


Matthew AHMANN; The Rev. Daniel BERRIGAN, S.J.; the Rev. Philip BERRIGAN; the Rev. Harry BROWNE; Dennis CLARK; Mgr. John EGAN; James FOREST; The Rev. Walter IMBIORSKI; the IMMACULATE HEART NUNS; The Rev. Daniel MALLETE.


The Rev. Godfrey DIEKMANN; The Rev. Frederick McMANUS; Jack MANNION; Robert RAMBUSCH (husband of Nancy).


The Rev. Gregory BAUM, The Rev. Bernard COOKE, S.J.; The Rev. John Courtney-Murray, S.J. (now deceased); The Rev. Bernard LONERGAN (whose reputation was built up by Michael Novak and Justus George Lawlor); James McCUE, lay theologian; The Rev. Daniel O’HANLON, S.J.; The Rev. Thomas STRANSKY Unity Secretariat, Rome; Leonard SWIDLER, founder of Journal of Oecumenical Studies; The Rev. George TAVARD.


The Rev. Andrew GREELEY and Mgr. George HIGGINS both expelled for being insufficiently ‘liberal’ (Fr. Greeley is, however, still much admired); Donald McDONALD (since ‘promoted’ to Centre for Study of Democratic Institutions);The Rev. Thomas MERTON (still much admired but considered too shrill – the magazine RAMPARTS is likewise admired but considered lacking in balance); Bishop Thomas WRIGHT.




The Institute for Freedom in the Church.

A hint of power

It must, however, be understood that the people, publishers and institutions listed by John Leo give only a hint of the real power wielded by the Establishment. The real source of its power to condition the minds of the faithful derives from its links with what John Leo calls the ‘lower-level publicists and periodicals which take their cue from the Establishment and function as transmission belts for Establishment ideas! For as a result of this indirect power of the Establishment, there are very few Catholic journals in the U.S.A, today which do not in large measure echo and amplify the Establishment’s viewpoints. And such journals as are still reasonably orthodox are under steadily increasing pressure to become ‘updated’ and ‘progressive’. As for national newspapers and reviews (we do not include bulletins in this category) that are militantly anti-Establishment, there are only two: The Wanderer, the national Catholic weekly published in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Triumph, the recently established monthly review edited by Brent Bozell.

This almost complete take-over of the Catholic press would not, however, have been possible had the Establishment had to rely solely on its links with only the Catholic press. If the latter has succumbed so easily to Establishment blandishments, this is largely a function of the Establishment’s links with secular journals, the Protestant world and. the more ‘progressive’ (i.e. Zionist) sections of the Jewish community. As a consequence of these ‘links’, the Catholic Establishment has been able to harness the incredibly persuasive power of the secular mass media of contemporary America to its chariot.

We shall in due course examine the Catholic Establishment’s links with the world at large. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to make perfectly clear-what the Catholic Establishment is and what it is NOT.

The True Nature of the Catholic Establishment

First what it is NOT. While it most certainly is a league of sorts (John Leo does not hesitate even to describe it as a certain kind of ‘conspiracy’ ), undoubtedly militant, and nothing if not ‘progressive’, to describe it as simply a league of militant ‘progressives’ would be to fail completely to indicate its essential nature. For the Establishment is essentially exclusive. It unhesitatingly excludes people such as Mgr. Higgins and Fr. Greeley, however prestigious they may be, the moment they begin to compromise with the ‘unenlightened’ ecclesiastical ‘bureaucracy’, while simultaneously disassociating itself from ultra-‘progressive’ Fr. Dubay and the ultra-avant gardiste journal Ramparts (while admiring them both in certain ways). It does this, indeed, in much the same way as the Communist Party expels both right-wing ‘revisionists’ and left-wing intransigents, and essentially for the same reason: the need to preserve intact a hard core of the initiated who can be depended upon for utter fidelity to the cause and yet know how to be infinitely flexible. The Establishment is exclusive, not only because it appreciates what a world of difference there is between being progressive and being effectively progressive, but above all because it is determined to be nothing if not effective. It is precisely keeping itself exclusive, by insisting on certain standards of discipline from the initiated, that the Establishment has been able to exploit to the advantage of its cause the opportunism, the indiscretion and the wild adventurism of progressivism’s right and left wing opportunists, who, left to themselves, would have succeeded only in cancelling each other out and in discrediting progressivism as such. As it is, however, both bring grist to the Establishment’s mill: the irresponsibles on the lunatic fringe


making the Establishment appear comparatively sane and even almost a bulwark of orthodoxy in the eyes of Authority (particularly given the utter folly of certain ultra-‘traditionalists’); while compromisers within the progressivist camp enable the Establishment to demonstrate how substantial is the difference between flexible service of the cause and its betrayal. In short, the Establishment is composed of the initiated, the enlightened, the illuminati of the progressivist camp and is its guiding nucleus both within the Church and in its relationship with the world at large.The Catholic Establishment and the Secular EstablishmentConcerning the Catholic Establishment’s relationship with the outside world, there are five Establishment names of particular significance: Richard Horchler, who is the Establishment’s representative in the National Conference of Christians and Jews; and John Cogley, formerly of Commonweal but now with the NewYork Times; the late Fr. John Courtney-Murray, S.J., arch-peritus at Vatican II; Donald McDonald, columnist in a host of diocesan newspapers and former dean of the School of Journalism at Marquette University; and George N. Shuster, also formerly with Commonweal and now assistant President of Notre Dame University – Cogley, Fr. Murray,

McDonald and Shuster all having been actively involved in the affairs of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions: which could best be described as a major pillar of the Secular Establishment.

The Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions is an outgrowth of the Fund for the Republic and its President is the controversial Robert M. Hutchins, who is also President of the Fund for the Republic.The Centre, under the guidance of Hutchins, exemplifies what is sometimes called ‘synarchism’. It represents a coming together of secular humanists of every hue (including key representatives of the Communist Party), ‘progressive’ Catholics, modernist Protestants, Freemasons, Jews, liberal technologists, worried demographic experts, fervent family planners, ultra­humanitarians, uncompromising ‘peace-lovers’ (whose emphasis, needless to say is on Viet Nam!), frenzied coexistentialists, Uncle Tom Cobley and all – all of them most ‘intellectual’ and ‘forward- looking’ – with a common denominator perspective which seeks Peace on Earth independently of God and with generous condescension approves religion unreservedly so long as (in the words of one of the Centre’s publications) it is conceived of in terms of ‘usefulness’ and ‘service to the community’. The Centre accepts unquestioningly as an inescapable fact of life what its President describes as our being ‘built into the technical system as cogs in the machine and as automatic claque’; it deplores religious education in the school (but magnanimously concedes that parochial – i.e. Catholic-schools ’may be tolerated until they become a “threat” to the common welfare’; it seeks eventually to promote a fusion of Communism and capitalism under the auspices of ‘some system of world government’, but for the time being contents itself with supporting ‘practical’ objectives, such as getting Red China into the U.N. and the U.S. out of South East Asia, and of course, a reappraisal of all aspects of Western foreign policies that seem to be too uncompromisingly anti-Communist. Such then is the pillar of the Secular Establishment with which the Catholic Establishment chose to establish liaison through no less than four of its key representatives.

This liaison with the Secular Establishment is quite indispensable to the achievement of its objectives. For by virtue of this liaison with the Centre – aided of course by John Cogley’s key role in the New York Times, for which he acted as religious news editor during the critical period ofVatican II – the Catholic Establishment has been able to have its voice echoed and amplified by the now quasi-omnipotent secular mass media. As a consequence it has been able to create the impression that whereas the ‘pre-Conciliar’ Church was ghetto-bound and cut off completely from the affairs of human society, the new, ‘forward-looking’, Establishment-led Church is able to exercise a decisive voice in the councils of secular society, and that anyone who stands in the path of its onward march must be no friend of God.


Jumping on the bandwagonHad the Catholic press been worth its salt, it could of course have debunked these pretensions quite easily by showing that, far from echoing the voice of the Church within secular society, the Establishment is simply the willing mouthpiece of the world within the Church. As it was, however, since the Catholic press had already been largely colonised by the Establishment, and since conformity is the first law of the famous ‘American way of life’, before long diocesan editors and publicity seeking clerics were tripping over one another to see who could jump most spectacularly on to such an apparently exciting bandwagon.Given this atmosphere, which has since conditioned Catholic life in the U.S.A. for the last few years, given also the institutional Church’s reluctance to become involved in political affairs, the Establish­ment has proceeded to subject the ecclesiastical hierarchy to what is virtually blackmail. Thus, while any bishop who dares to come out openly against any of the Establishment’s objectives – as did Cardinal Spellman on the Vietnam question – finds himself the victim of character assassination (a most effective means of deterring any of his colleagues from doing likewise), the few who appear to be on the Establishment’s wave length on this or that issue receive the most fulsome praise and find themselves popular public figures overnight.

By thus polarising the hierarchy into ‘warmongering’ prelates (prelate is an unmistakably dirty word with overtones of ‘juridicism’) and ‘peace-loving’ ‘men of God’, the Establishment thus seeks to ‘dialecticise’ the Magisterium and by this means reduce it to silence, so that only the Establishment’s voice remains as the infallible guide of both Christian and unbeliever.

Guarding its own magisterial authority

Having already largely achieved the goal of undermining the authority of the Magisterium, the Establishment is now beginning to think in terms of guarding the authority of it own magisterial authority by speaking of the need for more, not less authority in the Church. (This incidentally was the main burden of Fr. Herbert McCabe’s speech at the London ‘Teach-In’ convened as a means of protesting against his ‘persecution’ by ecclesiastical authority.) By this, needless to say, Establishment spokesmen do not mean more authority for the actual magisterium of the Church, but for the Magisterium of a hypothetical Establishment-dominated Church that would authoritatively espouse Establishment causes such as the abandonment ofViet Nam, unrestricted birth-control, legalised abortion, sexual reform (with reference even to homosexuality), the liquidation of Catholic education and, last but not least, the complete democratisation of ‘Mother Church. What they are thereby doing, however, is simply to demand greater respect for their own authority, for they take it for granted that they already are the Magisterium.

Why IDO-C is indispensable to the Establishment

Clearly, however, there can be no Catholic Magisterium that is not both universal and. Rome-centred.This the Establishment realises as clearly as do its opponents. Hence why IDO-C is quite indispensable as a means of reinforcing the Establishment’s magisterial pretensions. For since IDO-C is undoubtedly both Rome-centred and even now in process of becoming universal, the new schismatic Establishment Church thus has at its disposal means whereby it can resemble the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church in much the same way as it is said that Anti-Christ will appear to be almost indistinguishable from the Saviour of mankind.

In order to make IDO-C itself credible, however, it was first necessary to ensure that only a minority of IDO-C’s leading personnel could be openly identified with the Establishment. Every effort was thus made to camouflage the new creation by involving well-known respectable people and journals in association with it. In this respect, the American Establishment has certainly been much more discreet than its U.K. counterpart, for whereas the latter is represented on IDO-C’s International Executive Committee only by the notorious and indeed pro-Communist Neil Middleton of Slant fame, neither of the two U.S. representatives on this body (The Rev. P Lynch, S.J.


and Donald Quinn) are known members of the American Establishment. And even on IDO-C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Documentation and Information, the American Establishment has wisely restrained itself, so that of the 21 U.S. and Canadian people on this committee the known Establishment strength is limited to no more than 5: Cogley, Mgr. D. Hanley, Prof. D. O’Hanlon, S.J., and Professor Gregory Baum (all key Establishment figures) and R.G. Hoyt representing the Establishment National Catholic Reporter. Let it not be imagined, however, that this makes IDO-C any the less an essentially Establishment creation: IDO-C America being no more than an American expression of the European Establishment which engendered the precursors of IDO-C at a time when the voice of dissent was scarcely audible across the Atlantic.IDO-C’s other advantagesIDO-C not only permits the Establishment’s pretensions to appear somewhat more credible by the apparent corroboration of what it has hitherto been saying by a new, apparently ‘independent’ international association, which presents an image of massive erudition and purports to represent the universal consensus of ‘educated’ Catholic opinion; by this means it also makes possible the infiltration of Establishment notions into certain areas of the Catholic community that have as yet proved comparatively impervious to Establishment pressure. IDO-C America, is, however, of particular significance in the economy of subversion in that it has enabled the International Catholic Establishment to enter into direct, quasi-institutional relations with the powerful Secular Establishment of the U.S.A. In this connection, it is quite impossible to ignore the presence on ID0-C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Documentation and Information, not only of John Cogley, who can be said to represent the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions as well as the New York Times the key organ of the U.S. Secular Establishment; but also of Israel Shenker, the Jewish manager of Time magazine’s Rome bureau; David Meade of the Chicago Sunday Times; and Gerard Lemioux of Radio Canada. It is also noteworthy, however, that the U.K. Secular Establishment is also represented on this same committee by a representative of the prestigious Guardian, which performs a key role in amplifying the voice of the British Catholic Establishment.

At the same time, by including the names of other ‘progressive’ publicists who do not belong to the Establishment but who are in general sympathy with its ‘progressive’ outlook and are primarily attracted by IDO-C as a source of information, and by thus borrowing the names of the more or less prestigious journals these non-Establishment publicists represent, IDO-C becomes an invaluable ‘front’ organisation for the International Catholic Establishment.

From all this it can be seen that to say (as did John Leo in the Critic article already quoted) that ‘the Establishment is gaining ground rapidly’ is a characteristically un-American masterpiece of understate­ment.

IDO-C elsewhere

Having portrayed ID0-C in Britain, France, Poland and the U.S.A., it now remains to indicate briefly its tentacles in other countries concerning which we do not as yet have adequate documentation. This can be done most authoritatively by simply listing the members of IDO-C’s International Committee for the Development of Religious Documentation and Information. These are as follows:


Rev. J. Ceuppens – D.I.A. – 3e Boite Postale, 2598, Kinshasa, Rep.Democr. du Congo.

Rev. Derks – Die Brug 8e Andreus Road 52 Houghton, Johannesburg – South Africa.

Rev. L. Matthys – Bishop’s House, PO. Box 17054, Hillbrow, Johannesburg, S.Africa.

Rev. A. Plesters – Ursuline Convent. 30 Kitchener Av., Johannesburg, S. Africa

Rev. N. Scholten, 0.R – Dpt.vir Ekumeniese Aangeleenthede – Postbus 5902, Johannesburg, South Africa


Rev.A.H. Schwarer – 62 Orient Road, Primrose, Germiston,TVL, South Africa.Rev.Y Tourigny pb C.I.PA. – Via Aurelia 269 Rome, Italia.Argentine

Juan M. Soler – Aqui Concilio – Calle 5 5 no. 578 1 /2, La Plata.

Carlos F. P Lohlé – editrice – Viamonte, 795 , Buenos Aires.

Rev. R J. Luzzi, S.J. Colegio Maximo abajo, San Miguel, F.C.N.S.M.

Prof. J. Mejia – Criterio – Alsina 845 , Buenos Aires.


Rev. Michael Parer – The Advocate – RO. Box 1256 L, Melbourne.

Desmond O’Grady – Journalist – Via Bartelomeo Gosio, 77, Rome, Italy.


Prof. N. Greiteman – Herder & Co. – Postfach, 248A, 1011 ,Wien.

Prof. Klostermann – Universitat Wien, Waldegghofgasse, 3/5, Wien, 17.

Prof. 0. Mauer – Wort and Wahrheit -Waringerstrasse, 2, Wien, I.

Dr. E. Meditz – Linzer Quartaischr. – Goethestrasse, 54, Linz.


M.P Bouman F.A.O. – Via Vincenzo Statella, 64, Rome.

Dr. J. Grootaers – De Maand – Lieveheersbeestjeslaan, 49, Brussel, 17 P Fr. Houtart FERES – 116,Rue des Flamands, Louvain.

M.J. Kerkhofs – Pro Mundi Vita – 6, Rue de la Limite, Bruxelles 3 .

Prof. R. van Kets, 0.R, – Prof. Angelicum – Largo Angelico l,Rome.

Dom C. Rousseau, 0.S.B., – Irenikon – x)Monastre Bénédictin, Chèvetogne, poste Haversin..

Mlle. Ch. de Schrijver D.I.A. – 40, Ave. G. Gezelle St. Nicholaes-Waes (x)temporary address:Via del Babuino 149, Rome.


Marina Bandeira MEB – Rua Sao Clemente, 385,Rio de Janeiro (Zc-02).

M. Sampaio Pinto – A.S.A. Press – Al. Ribeirao Preto, 267. apt. 56, Sao Paolo.

Rev. A. Guglielmi – Av. de Paulo de Frentin, Rio de Janeiro J.Abreu Vale – IDO-C – Via S.Maria dell’ Anima, 30, Roma.


Prof. Greg. Baum – St. Michael’s College-Toronto, 5 .

Miss B. Brennan – NatCath.Comm.Centre – 830, Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario.

M. Chabot – Off.Cath.Nat. des Techn.de Diff. – 4635 , Rue de Lorimier, Montreal 34,PQ.

Bernard Daly – Inf. Bureau Can. Catholic Conferences – 90, Ave. Parent, Ottawa 2 Gerard Lemieux – Radio Canada – Via Archimede, 25, Rome.


Rev. R Juan Ochegavia, S.J. – Mensaje – Casilla, 10.445, Santiago.


Rev. PJ. Poblete, S.J. – Centro Pastoral – Cassila, 10.445, Santiago.ColombiaL. Revollo Bravo – ULAPC Apto Aereo, 12333, Bogota Rev. P Gustavo Perez – ICODES – Apto Aereo, 11966,Bogota Czechoslovakia

Prof. Jiri Nemec – Acad. Scientifique Benesovska, 42 Praha, 10.


Rev. A. Flannery, 0.R, – Doctrine & Life – St. Saviours, Upper Dorset Street, Dublin.

Mr. M. Gill . – Gill & Son Ltd. – 50, Upper O’Connel Street; Dublin, 1.

Mr. John Horgan – IrishTimes – 67, Wellington Road, Dublin 4.

Mr. S. McReamoinn – Radio Eireann – R.T.E., Donnybrook, Dublin 4.


M.G. Blerdone – Centre Jeunes Nations – 19, Rue du Plat, Lyon, 2.

M.J.RDubois-Dumée – Informations Catholiques Internationales – 163. Blvd. Malesherbes, Paris.

Rev. R Ch. Ehlinger – Ed. Centurion – Rue de Babylone, Paris,VII.

M.H. Fesquet – Le Monde – 5, Rue des Italiens. Paris.

Rev. PE. Gabel – Le journaliste cath. – 43, Rue Augustin, Paris.

M. l’Abbé R. Laurentin – Le Figaro – Grand Bourg, Evry-petit-Bourg (S. & 0.)

Rev. P Rouquette SJ – Etudes – 15, Rue Monsieur, Paris,VII.


Rev. PA. Ahlbrecht – Una Sancta – 8351 Abtei Nieder Altaich, Nbd..

Prof. H. Haas – K.D.SA – Rheinweg, 34, Bonn.

Pastor J. Chr Liamre – Evang. Pressedienst – 8021, Hohenschaftlarn bei Munchen, Forststrasse, 53. Dr. E. Kellner – Paulus-Gesellschaft – 8828 FreiIassung Pustschliessfach, 66.

Dr: Kleine – Frankfurter Allgemeine – Frankfurt 1 Postfach 3463 Dr. J. Seeber – Herder – Freiburg i.Br.

Rev. P Seibel, S.J. – Stiinmen der Zeit Lunchen,Succalistrasse, 16.


Dr. L. Alting von Geusau – IDO-C – 30, Via S,Maria dell’Anima, Rome.

Mr L. Baas – EUROS – Kon.Wilheiminalaan, 17, Amersfoort

Dr. W. Goddijn O.F.M – Pastoraal lnstituut – ‘s Gravendijkwal 61, Rotterdam.

Prof. Dr. J,C. Groot, Willibrord-Verg. Den Eikechorst, Esch, post Boxtel.

Dr. E van Montfoort,A.A. – Bysantijns instituut – Sofialaan, 4, Nijmegen.

Dr H.J. van Santvoort – Katholiek Archief – Kon.Wilhelminalaan, 17, Amersfoort.

Mej A.E, van Tol – IDO-C – Pompweg, 22, Ubbergen.

Mr. D. de Vree – K.R 0. – Emmastraat, Hilversum,

W. Kusters – KASKI – Paul Gabrielstraat, 28-30 ‘s-Gravenhage.


HungaryProf. Vid. Miholics – Vigilia – Kossuth Lajos V 1 Budapest.Prof. RR. Bacsvary, S.J. – Wien, Dr. Ignas Seipel-Platz, 1.


Rev. B. Aguiar – Bombay Examiner – 5 Convent Street, Bombay.

Dr. R. Panikkar – Hanumanghat, b4/34, Varanasi.


Prof. G. Alberigo – Centro Doc.-Via S.Vitale, 114, Bologna.

Rev. R Balducci – Testimonianze – Piazza Monte Gandio, 8, Roma,

Dott. G. Bigazzi – Nuovo Osservatore – P Irnerio, 57, Roma.

Dott. S. Burgalassi – Ist. di Sociologia – Via delle belle Torri, 44, Pisa.

Rev. R Cabra – Ei Quiriniana – Via Piamarta, 6, Brescia.

Dott .Vitt Citterich – Avv. d’Italia – Via Trasone, 59, Roma.

Rev.V Comelli – Il Regno – Via Nosadella, Bologna.

V d’Agostino – Rocca – Pro Civitate Cristiani, Assisi.

N. Fabro – Il Gallo – Cas. Post. 1242, Genova.

R. La Valle – Avv d’Italia – Via. C. Boldroni, 11, Bologna.

Dott,V. Scotti – Nuovo Osservatore – Via Livenza, 3 , Roma.

Dott. R. Scarpati – SEDOS – Ira Transversal 2da, Avda., Los Palos Grandes, Ed. Kariba, Ap. 22, Caracas, Venezuela.

Rev. R. Tucci, S.J. – Civilta Cattolica – Via de Porte Pinciano, I, Roma. Lebanon

R Mounged Hachem – Boite Postale 2221, Beyrouth.8 7.


Rev. B. Tonna — C.C.C.C. – 65 Old Mint Street, Valleta.

Rev. J. Ghigo, S.J. – Problemi Tallom- Xavier House, St. Paul St., 226, Valleta. Mexico

M. Alvarez Icaza – Mov.Familiar – Tacuba, 26, Mexico, I DF,

J. Chaivez Gonzales – Revista Senal, Hamburgo 31, Mexico, 22 DF.

Srta. B. Hollants – Grupo Cuernavaca – Apto. 479, Cuernavaca.

Sr. & Sra. Xavier Wiechers – Mov. Familiar – Aristoteles 259, Mexico 5 DF.


Rev. PG. Gutierrez Merino – Un. di Lima -Apto, 3254, Lima..


M. Julius Eska – Wiez – U. Kopernika, 34, Warsawa.

Jerzy Turowicz – Znak – Lenartowicza, 3/10, Krakow.


PortugalM.A. Alcada – Tempi e Modi – Av.5 de Outubro 297 1 Dto. Lisboa, 1.Mme. H. Gentil Vaz da Silva – Concilium – idem.

Rev. Luis Moita – Tempi e Modi – idem

Rev. M. Reuvers, O. Carm, – CITOC – Casa Beato Nuno, Fatima.


Dr. H. Seiler – Katolsk Informationst-janst. – St. Johannesgatan 5B Uppsala – Finland.

Mlle. G.Vallquist – Brahegatan 40 Stockholm – Sweden.

Rev. Edward Vogt – Sentrum vor Kulturog Religionsforskning – Christiesgate, 16, Bergen – Norway. Spain

Rev. R Arias – El Pueblo – Via Asmara, 1 l,Roma.

Rev. P Calderon – Iglesia – Via di Torre Rossa, 2, Roma.

Rev. Dr. R. Duocastella – ISPA – Buenavista, 6, Barcelona.

Rev. Dr. J.M. Gonzales Ruiz – Siglo XX – Galileo 20, bajo A, Madrid.

Mons. J. Irribarren – Ya – Plaza S.Juan de la Cruz, 6, Madrid.

Dr. E. Miret Magdalefna – Triunfo – H Diez de Agosto, 12, Madrid, 1 Rev A. Montero – Iglesia – Levante, 16, Madrid, 16

Prof. Ruiz Gimenez – Cuadernos para el Dialogo – Heroes del 10 Agosto, 5-4. Madrid. Switzerland

Rev. PJ. Brechet, S.J. – Choisir – C.F. 140. Geneva,

Rev. PM. von Galli, S.J. – Orientierung Scheidegstrasse, 45, Zurich.

Rev. R Kaufman, S.J. – Orientierung – idem.

Dr.W Ledergerber – Walter Verlag – Amtshausquai, 21, Olten.

Mrs. M. Pompe – Pax Romana – 42, Route du Berne, Fribourg.

TG. Strasser – Pax Romana – Route Jura 1, Fribourg.

United Kingdom

Mr. G.Armstrong – Manchester Guardian – Via della Purificazione, 8/9, Rome.

Rev. L. Bright, O.R- Slant – St. Dominic’s Priory, London, N.W5.

Mr. R Burns– Burns & Oates – 25, Ashley Place, London, S.W 1.

Mr. and Mrs. Clough – 2 Greenbank Crescent, Southampton.

Rev. R Hebblethwaite S.J. – The Month (Jesuit Review) – 31, Farm Street, London,W1.

Mr. N. Middleton – Sheed & Ward Ltd. – 33, Maiden Lane, London, W.C.2.

Rev.WA. Purdy – The Tablet – Collegio Beda, Viale di S. Paolo, 18, Rome.


L.A.Verissimo – Pedro F. Berreo 871, Montevideo.

United States of America


John Cogley – New York Times – Times Square, New York.Msgr. D. Hanley – Long Island Catholic – 55 N. Park Ave, Rockville Centre, N.Y.R.G. Hoyt – National Cath.Reporter – RO. Box 281, Kansas City, Miss. 64141.

James Johnson – National Cath. Reporter 8th Grand Ave,, Kansas City Mo.

Rev. E. Lynch, S.J. – Vatican Radio – Via Carmeluccie, 180, Rome.

Gary McEoin – Cath. Press Union – 17 Dodd Street, Nutley N.J.(now in Rome c/o ID0–C)

David Meade – Chicago Sunday Times – 401 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, Ill.606ll.

R. Kaiser – 19906 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California.

Rev. R. Quinn, C.S.R 5,Park St., Boston, Mass.

Donald Quinn – St. Louis Review – 462 Taylor Street, St. Louis, Mo.

Herold Schackern – Rel. Newswriters Assoc. – Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich. 48231.

Rev. Sheerin, – C.S.R Paulist Press, Editor, ‘The Catholic World’ – 304, West 58th. Street, New York N.Y.

Israel Shenker – Time – Via Sardegna, 14, Rome.

Msgr.VYzermans – N.C.WC. – 1312, Massachusetts Ave., N.W Washington D.C.

Martin Work – Nat .Council of Cath.Men – 1312, Massachusetts Ave., N.W Washington D.C.

Prof. D. O’Hanlon, S.J. – Alma College – Los Gatos, California.


Prof. Sagi-Bunić – Borska, 35, Zagreb.

As the foregoing list indicates, there is already scarcely a corner of the globe where IDO-C is not even now exercising widespread influence on the media of communication.This immensely powerful parallel ‘Congregation of Propaganda’ at the disposal of the ‘parallel hierarchy’ thus has most formidable means of brainwashing the Faithful into conformity with the will of the Estab­lishment. And the few places not yet covered will no doubt soon be visited by IDO-C’s peripatetic General Secretary, the Rev. Leo Alting von Geusau, for as IDO-C’s U.K. bulletin informs us: ‘We should like to add at least Portuguese, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese and Japanese, [language bulletins]in order to reach the major world cultures.’

In publishing this list, which is not ours but IDO-C’s, we are not implying that all those listed are consciously seeking to subvert Mother Church, any more than it would be true to say that all those who permit their names to be used by Communist front organisations are Communists, or for that matter even pro-Communist.

The essential purpose of a ‘front’ organisation is to create an image of respectability which gives the hard core of initiated subversives access to circles from which they would otherwise be debarred. But the very fact that IDO-C is a ‘front’ organisation (among other things) means that some of those listed may be, though ‘progressive’ in certain ways, quite ignorant of the manner in which they are being used.

Not a Communist front organisation

Nor are we insinuating that because in certain ways IDO-C resembles a Communist frontorganisation that it is in any sense a Communist front organisation. That a considerable number of those involved in IDO-C are pro-Communists; that few of them are not at least anti-anti-Communist; that IDO-C


seeks to ‘dialecticise’ the Church in much the same way as do Communists; that Communists (such as Roger Garaudy for example) thus find the IDO-C ambiance most convenient to their designs; that if they could they would thoroughly ‘nucleate’ it and make it an instrument of their will:5 all this is quite undeniable, but it no more makes IDO-C a Communist front organisation than similar influences. within trade unions and professional organisations make the ordinary trade union or professional organisation a Communist front organisation.A neo-Modernist front organisationIDO-C is a front, not for Communism, but for neo-Modernism. And the key people who run this exceedingly powerful and well lubricated propaganda machine are not Communists but simply case-hardened neo-Modernists who are implacably hostile to the Teaching Authority of the Church. That and nothing more.

That in itself, alas! is sufficiently alarming. If in 1910, three years after Pope St Pius X anathematised Modernism in his celebrated encyclical letter Pascendi,he found it necessary to warn against the existence of a secret society of modernists within the Church, today the neo-Modernists have no need for secrecy. What was once a mere secret society has long since become a public scandal: a stumbling block for the entire people of God. For the effect of the neo-Modernist conspiracy is to perpetuate, nay to organise, within the Church that post-Conciliar anarchy that alone stands between the real aggiornamento made possible by Vatican II and the greatest harvest of souls since the conversion of pagan Rome.

It is a matter of indifference whether such journals as take their cue from IDO-C are highly sophisticated and jealous of a reputation for ‘balance’ and ‘objectivity’ (as for example Le Monde or the London Tablet), crude and offensive, albeit at times quite unintelligible (like Slant), irresponsible, even by Establishment standards (like Ramparts) or simply pedestrian. The important thing is what they say, not how they say it. Whosoever is not for the Magisterium cannot but be against it. Whosoever does not combat ‘the dangers which today menace the deposit of faith’ cannot but increase these dangers, no matter with what ‘objectivity’, poise, and delicacy of expression he either echoes the voice of disorder or seeks to contract out of the chaos it engenders.

The sands are running out. The time has come to stand up and be counted. It is not we who speak of the dangers which menace she very deposit of faith, and thereby paralyse completely the apostolate of Mother Church by negating completely the positive achievements of Vatican

  1. It is His Holiness Pope Paul VI, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Speaking of these dangers which today menace the deposit of faith (dangers which he described as both ‘numerous’ and ‘profound:), this is what the Holy Father stated in his inaugural address to the Synod:

‘These menaces, We say, are immense because of the mental outlook of this age so estranged from religion and they are replete with snares, because there are coming forth, in the bosom of the Church herself works of certain teachers and writers who, while they hasten to express Catholic doctrine in new ways and according to new tendencies, often are more anxious to accomodate the dogmas, of faith to profane standards of thinking and speaking than they are to follow the norms of themagisterium of the Church. And so it comes about that wide publicity is given to the subjective conclusions of those who think they have every right to choose from among the truths of the Faith those only which in their private judgement and indeed according to the native bias of each and every person, seem admissible and to reject all the rest, in supreme disregard of the postulates of true doctrine, as if any conscience, as the free mistress of all its acts, had the prerogative of throwing its rights against the rights of truth, of which the first are those pertaining


5They probably come nearest to this in the UK and Poland


to Divine revelation (cf. Gal. I, 6-9) and as if there were nothing wrong with so revising the sacred heritage of the teaching of the Church that a basically new ideological meaning, differing by far from the theological understanding which authentic tradition in its maximum reverence for the word of God has brilliantly laid out, could be ascribed to the Christian religion.’In these carefully chosen yet memorable words, the Sovereign Pontiff has accurately portrayed the mind of the Establishment, of that ‘parallel hierarchy’ which, by means of IDO-C is now seeking, not only to diffuse, but even to institutionalise the errors of which the Holy Father speaks.The time has therefore come for straight speaking on our part too: for straight speaking and for naming names. In so far as any of those listed as IDO-C’s collaborators (not by us but by IDO-C) are innocent of IDO-C’s criminal intentions, it is most distasteful to us to have to make their names known. But too much is at stake, too many people are being hoodwinked, too much wool is being pulled over too many innocent eyes, too many souls are at stake, for us not to expose the ubiquitous ramifications of this Rome-centred, diabolical neo-Modernist conspiracy. Hence we have no option but to publish all that we know about it.

We do not pretend that our dossier is by any means exhaustive. Experience would suggest that we have succeeded in disclosing no more than the tip of Subversion’s iceberg. For the real children of darkness have ever preferred to operate in obscurity.

Before concluding, however, we feel it incumbent upon us to point to a recent development that gives considerable grounds for hope: a development, moreover, that is of particular concern to such innocents as have hitherto taken IDO-C’s communiques at their face value as supposedly objective, balanced and authoritative interpretations of what is happening within the post-Conciliar Church, for as a consequence of the development of which we speak they no longer have the excuse that no other source of interpretation is available. The development we refer to is the recent establishment, also in Rome, of a source of really balanced and objective evaluations of the problems of the contemporary Church. We refer to CEDIC (Centre for Post-Conciliar Study and Information) whose address is Viale Vaticano 48, Roma. We cannot recommend CEDIC too highly.



No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE