Copyright 1950, 
The Harvard Law School Forum, Inc.

        This evening you are to hear a discussion of what you know is a "red hot" subject. Many people do not like to discuss religion and related subjects because for many centuries religious differences have led to persecutions and wars.  Perhaps this history has led them to believe that these questions, if openly debated, are too hot to handle.  You often hear the remarks, "Let's not argue religion or politics -- it only leads to hard feelings."

        We do not agree.  Ignorance and prejudice underlie persecutions and wars; and it is our duty to try to dispel ignorance and thereby preclude prejudice.

        Over and above this, however, the Forum's decision to sponsor tonight's program was made on the ground that a democracy thrives on free discussion.  If there are dangers, allow us to be warned, no matter what their source.  If we are attacked and slandered, allow us to defend ourselves.  Give men the facts.  Encourage rational discussion. Allow fair-minded and unbiased men to draw their own conclusions.

        For these reasons the Forum is serving up a "red hot" issue tonight.  We do so in the hope and the belief that open and public discussion, on a rational plane, of such highly controversial and emotionally charged subjects may lead us to greater understanding in all the affairs of men.

        And now it gives me great pleasure to introduce Professor Henry D. Aiken of Harvard University. (Applause)

        I use the word "American", and I will have something to say about this later.

Now, in my judgment at least, and I believe that most of you would agree with me, that the only way this fear can cither be dispelled, if it is to be dispelled, or substantiated and acted upon, if it is to be substantiated and acted upon, is through public -- open public -- discussion by sincere adherents of both sides of the argument, and I believe we have that tonight.

        Let me say a word about my own view, if I may, without intruding myself too much into this discussion.  Let me say something about what seems to me to be a matter of limitation on both sides, to prove my loyalty as a moderator.

        In the first place, with respect to Mr. Blanshard: I deem that Mr. Blanshard has performed a very great and generous public service in raising these issues publicly, systematically and, as I believe, without rancor or without bigotry. I am sure on this point.

        By the way, Father Dunne does not agree with me -- to put it mildly. (Laughter)

        I do not say that Mr. Blanshard has discussed these questions without prejudice for I believe him to have prejudice on this matter, but I would remind you that prejudice is very often nothing more than the other fellow's convictions.

        Now, I do not myself claim or know that Mr. Blanshard's book is true, either in whole or in part, nor do I know -- which is quite another question, by the way, and I would like to emphasize this -- that its effects have been uniformly beneficial.  Now there are those who maintain that even if the substantive facts that Mr. Blanshard discusses in his book are true, they should not be raised at the present time.

        One of my most esteemed colleagues in the Department of Philosophy said today, "I don't dispute Mr. Blanshard's facts, but this is an age in which every person who is opposed to Communism must be mustered in that fight and therefore, Catholic baiting in our time is a dangerous thing, either directly or indirectly."

        Now, I take it that we do not agree with this, that we believe that questions of principle and questions of fact of great moment are important and that not every issue should be judged in terms of its bearing upon the question of Communist power.  I believe therefore, that this question is timely.  I do not think that it is a question which is being animated either indirectly or directly by Communist sympathizers or dupes.  I believe it is a question which is of great moment to us all, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

        I do not think it fair -- either to those who vaguely fear the encroachment of Catholic power without knowing what to do about it or to those sincere and honest Catholics who deny this and who are convinced of the conformity of their faith and the purposes and end of their Church to the democratic way of life -- to permit this free and open discussion from continuing.  So much for the moment for Mr. Blanshard.

        It is also to the very great credit of Father Dunne that he has evidenced by coming here his willingness to enter into public and candid debate with Mr. Blanshard before an audience which undoubtedly, I think we must agree, is probably overwhelmingly Protestant; and if I know my Harvard audiences, at any rate, very probably overwhelmingly secular. (Laughter)

        By the way, these two things should be distinguished. (Laughter)   

        And we must, I think, agree that Father Dunne has shown great courage, therefore in coming before an audience which, if we are candid again, we must agree it is likely to be disposed to agree with Mr. Blanshard's fundamental contentions, even if they think Mr. Blanshard himself is something of a zany. (Laughter)  I don't.

        Now, I have read with great interest and great care, as doubtless many of you have, Mr. Blanshard's book and Father Dunne's very passionate reply.  I find myself, I may say, in complete agreement with neither of them.  That's a very pleasant and comfortable position to be in for a Moderator.

        In some places I agree with Father Dunne that Mr. Blanshard has not gone to fundamentals.  I quite earnestly believe this, and that in that his own position seemingly, at least, lacks firmness on many questions, and I hope he will declare himself more candidly in the open of the give and take discussion tonight.

        For example, I do not find that Mr. Blanshard has spoken clearly on what he means by "Americanism".  Most of us, I think, in this room would believe that anyone who denied that the Church was a useful or good or sound institution on the ground that it was un-German or un-Italian, would be speaking in a way which was dangerous and to be deplored; but Mr. Blanshard has said more than once in his book that the aims of the Church are un-American.  Now, I would suggest to Mr. Blanshard that he clear up this question.

        I am taking too much time. (Laughter)

        But I find also that there has been no answer in any Catholic publication, to my knowledge, to the major problems to which Mr. Blanshard has called attention.  Father Dunne has challenged the sincerity, the candor, the purpose of Mr. Blanshard's book.  But he has not moved upon its substantial arguments and the solidity of Mr. Blanshard's claims, or the validity of his argument or scholarship are not in my judgment refuted by Father Dunne's attack or response to Mr. Blanshard.  Well, then, so much for that.

        I want now to ask the speakers if they would consider whether these questions might not be regarded as preeminently important.  First of all, to distinguish questions of fact from questions of preference.  What the tendency, the purpose, the aims of the Church may be is one thing; what we hope will happen is another.  And I hope the speakers will be scrupulous to distinguish what they want to happen from what is likely to happen.

        I hope we will forget Mr. Blanshard's book and direct attention to the substantive issues.  I hope both Father Dunne and Mr. Blanshard will forget for a moment that Mr. Blanshard has written a book. (Laughter)

        I hope we will distinguish also the loyalty of the individual Catholic to liberal or democratic institutions from the question as to the ulterior dynamic of the Catholic Church as a world institution.

        I want also to ask the speakers if they make a distinction, and I think they do, between Catholicism and Clericalism, or between anti-Catholicism and anti-Clericalism.     My feeling was, and I simply put this to Mr. Blanshard as a question: Was his book both anti-Catholic and anti-Clerical or was it merely anti-Clerical? (Laughter)

        It gives me a great deal of pleasure now to introduce to you, Mr. Blanshard. (Applause)

MR. PAUL BLANSHARD: 
        Mr. Chairman, Father Dunne and Friends: (Laughter)  I am especially happy to be on this platform with Father Dunne because he is the only Jesuit Priest who has said anything nice about me for three years -- in this pamphlet, "Religion and American Democracy", by Father Dunne, 25 cents at all Catholic bookstores.  End of advertisement.  It actually says, at least by inference, that I may yet have a possibility of going to heaven. (Laughter)

        I was greatly reassured by this reprieve.  But I was somewhat distressed to discover later that it was based on the assumption that I have lived all my life in invincible ignorance.

        I wanted to discuss six points tonight.  First, that the Roman Catholic structure of power is totally undemocratic; and then that the Roman Catholic hierarchy seeks to impose that power partially on certain fundamental areas of our life that are partly political and cultural and medical and in the field of domestic relations.  I want to mention five of those areas: Taxation and the Separation of Church and State; Education; Freedom of Thought; Marriage; and Medicine.  I hope that before I get through I will be able to answer all the questions that Professor Aiken has raised; but it will have to be mostly in the Panel Discussion.

        Now, I assume that this is a mature audience and that this discussion is not going to sink to the level of Cardinal Spellman. (Laughter)  I am not anti-Catholic and I have never been.  I do not believe in an all powerful State.  I have never charged the Catholic Church with being a conspiracy except in that statement, in the words of H. G. Wells, an Open Conspiracy.  I have never attacked what I consider the core of Catholic faith.  I don't think anyone has a right to discuss this theme if there is in his heart or in his record the least trace of personal bias against Catholics as citizens and Americans and friends.

        I am talking tonight not against the Catholic faith or against the Catholic people or against their loyalty or patriotism.  I have great reverence for their loyalty to this country and to their loyalty to our freedoms.  I am talking against a system of power in which they are caught and of which they are the victims.

        First, the structure of the Roman Catholic power is wholly un-Democratic.  You have at the bottom of the pyramid of power our twenty-six million American Catholics.  They do not choose their own priests.  They do not own their own church and school buildings ordinarily -- here in Massachusetts they are owned by a gentleman called a corporation sole, Archbishop Cushing.

        Above the priests are the Bishops.  The people do not choose their leaders.  The Bishops choose the priests; the Pope chooses the Bishops at Rome.  At the top of this pyramid of powcr is an absolutely infallible Pope who says, "I cannot make a mistake in matters of faith and morals" -- and a footnote, "I have the right to define what is faith and morals."  At the bottom of this pyramid of power the American Catholic people are never given the chance to have a plenary session of their own.  All their doctrines and policies are handed down to them from above in the authoritarian system of control.

        Now, this wouldn't be so serious if this were only a Church that we were talking about.  But it's more than that.  It's a great system of government which is political in character, which has courts and diplomats -- nunzios -- at thirty-seven of the world's lading capitals today; political parties in many of the European countries; political blocs in the United States.

        And when the Pope speaks, all down through that gigantic structure of power the Catholics of the world are instructed to obey.  Whether it is a divorce law in New York where the divorce racket is notorious, largely because of Catholic opposition to liberal divorce laws; or whether it is sterilization in California where Catholic opposition is destroying the value of law; or whether it is the right to attend the public school; or whether it is the privilege of therapeutic abortion in a hospital; or whether it is the internationalization of Jerusalem in the United Nations Assembly; or whether it is President Truman's Health Insurance Program -- all down the line -- public power, Catholic power, is used to tell the Catholic people of the world where they ought to stand, allegedly in matters of faith and morals, actually in matters of politics.

        And while the American Catholic people pay for more than half of all the expenses of this gigantic diplomatic and political machine, because they are the money-bags of the Vatican and while they are profoundly opposed, I am convinced, of Fascism, their Vatican State is supporting Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal and Peron in the Argentine -- three Catholic Dictators who oppose every fundamental thing that American democracy represents.

        And this machinery, paid for by American Catholics, exists beyond the scope of their control.  I will be better able to discuss it with you when I come back from Rome where I am going in a few days as the "Nation" correspondent in Rome for the Holy Year. (Laughter)

        Second, Taxation and the Separation of Church and State.  I suppose the most distinctive principle of American democracy as distinguished from European is that our forefathers said, "We want the separation of Church and State."

        As a lawyer speaking to lawyers I recognize that that phrase is fuzzy.  I recognize that even the magnificent McCollum decision has many frayed edges and needs a lot of things to fill up the gaps.

        But let's not bother now in this hasty review about what Madison and Jefferson meant when they wrote the First Amendment.  This is the point: the point is that nearly all Americans believe enough in the separation of Church and State so that they don't want to see a nation which compels people to pay taxes for a religious establishment that they do not believe in.

        Now the Catholic hierarchy has never accepted that principle.  It uses smooth language about the issue, but in every nation in the world today where the Catholic Church gains power -- Spain, Portugal, Argentine, Quebec -- in Quebec they don't even have public schools the private school system is getting public money in every one of these nations.  Catholic power asks or gets the salaries, all or part, of the priests and nuns in the churches and schools.  Even in the Netherlands where Catholics are not in the majority -- but they have the largest political party -- the salary of all the priests and nuns is paid.  I remember in my days in the State Department going down to the little island of Sabar in the Caribbean and seeing a Catholic school on one side of the road and a private school on the other, or a public school on the other, both paid for by the Dutch taxpayers -- all the salaries of the priests and nuns.

        Education.  We Americans believe in the public school as the foundation of our democracy.  It isn't merely that we believe in public schools as a place to cram knowledge into children's heads.  We believe in the public school as a democratic community where the children of every creed can gather together and learn how to associate with each other without religious prejudice.  We built that system and we are proud of it.

        The Catholic hierarchy came into the United States and without any vote of the Catholic people, without any opportunity to choose for or against, they laid down in the canon law of their Church -- and it's right here in the book, No. 1374 -- that a Catholic parent who sends her child to an American public school without the consent of the priest may be denied absolution in the Confessional.  So the priests have imposed the idea of segregation, separating Catholic children from the main stream of American childhood at the most impressionable time in their lives.  And as Father Blakely said in that famous pamphlet, with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes, "The first duty of every Catholic father to the public school is to keep his children out of it."

        Now, I know that these Catholic Parochial Schools have thousands of devoted nuns and priests and many of them render a splendid service.  But they are not fundamentally democratic schools.  They are controlled entirely by the priests.  They are an organic part of the Church System.  Their schools boards aren't elected as public school boards are.  Their nuns are not allowed to read newspapers or magazines or books of their own choice.  How can they teach freedom when they don't know freedom of thought themselves?  And yet we see Cardinal Spellman denouncing Mrs. Roosevelt as anti-Catholic because she dared to state the fundamental principle -- that America stands for public money for public schools only.  That, I think, is going to be the great battleground of democracy in the next ten years.

        Fourth, Freedom of Thought.  We believe that freedom of thought is basic in our democracy and that you can't have honest public opinion unless you can hear both sides of every important controversy.

        I have been after the Catholic authorities for months to find out whether any Catholic can read my book.  Well, of course they can't.  But they haven't bothered to put it out the index yet.  What they do is they don't put English books on the index because they know that censorship is so unpopular in the United States.  But when the "Nation" was banned in New York's public schools and went to Albany to fight that ban, every single organization that appeared there was a Catholic organization.

        Throughout the universities of the country today, Catholic Chaplains habitually tell students, "You must not take this course; you must not read that book, this professor is dangerous."  I could produce a letter from the University of Buffalo that shows exactly how that works in the American university.  I know a Professor of Philosophy in a great American University, a Catholic, who started to read my articles in the "Nation" and the Catholic Chaplain said, "No, you mustn't do that; and you mustn't read Blanshard's book." And to this date he has read neither, although he is an authority in refuting both.

        When Father Dunne wrote his series of seven articles in "America" attacking my book, "America" submitted an advertisement which was joyously accepted by the "Nation": "You have read Paul Blanshard's 'American Freedom and Catholic Power', now read Father Dunne's reply."  Whereupon I suggested to the Beacon Press, and we offered, a parallel advertisement to "America": "You have read Father Dunne's reply, now read the book itself." (Laughter)  And, of course, "America" refused to print the ad because they said it was against their principles.

        Now, this applies very directly in the field of birth control.  Birth control is one of the world's great necessities today, not only for the happiness that comes from planned parenthood but because of the overwhelming danger of over-population, especially in the Orient.  The Catholic unmarried hierarchy lays down a flat law that birth control is against God's law.  Now, there isn't a word in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible, to bear that out.  And yet up and down Massachusetts subways and street cars, when there is a fight, they say, "Birth control is still against God's law."

        Well, that is what Bernard Shaw would call unanimous, eloquent and trumpet-tongued lying.  For after all, the right to plan a family is one of the basic human rights, and the Catholic hierarchy has laid down that rule without any real authority.  And most of us don't realize how serious it is.

        Up in that hospital near Greenfield there were four non-Catholic doctors who were fired from the staff of that hospital, not because they practiced birth control or broke the laws of the hospital, but because as citizens they voted for a revocation of the law here in Massachusetts, a revocation that might have brought Massachusetts back into the United States of America. (Laughter)  And what happened?  They were brought into the hospital office afterwards and they were told, "You can come back only if you sign a written pledge: 'I forsake my sin and deny my error.  I will never participate in the planned parenthood movement again'."

        You know, we attacked Soviet Russia for forcing Lysenko to lie on the matter of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.  But the Catholic sociologists of this country are being forced to lie all the time in the field of over-population by this pressure against the freedom of thought.

        Five, Marriage.  We think that America has the right to pass laws on domestic relations.  We may have made a mess of marriage and divorce.  But we say, "After all, it's our mess.  We have a right to control these things and we pass laws about them."  We say it is part of the rightful area of a democratic government.

        Now, the Catholic Church has never admitted that fact -- has never conceded that the civil government has the right, the ultimate right, to lay down the law about marriage of Catholics.  It concedes only that the civil government has a right to affect the civil effects, so-called, of marriage.  But the real thing must come from the priests.

        Imagine what would happen in the Methodist congregation if a preacher said, if he stood up and pointed his finger at the audience and said, "Every man in this audience that wasn't married by a Methodist preacher isn't married at all."  But that is exactly what the Catholic priests say to their people.  "If you are not married by a priest, you are not married at all".

        And they lay an intolerant and fundamentally un-American -- and I am coming to that later on -- a fundamentally anti-American doctrine in relation to marriage; that no Catholic may marry a non-Catholic on a basis of equality; that if the Catholic marries a non-Catholic -- he is not supposed to in the first place, according to Canon Law -- but if he does, then he is supposed to have a written agreement that every child of that marriage shall be brought up as a Catholic.

        Now there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that justifies that peculiar type of clerical monopoly; and there is nothing in the American spirit that is in favor of that use of marriage as an engine of separatism and monopoly.

        The Church goes beyond that and it says that there can be no real divorce of a Catholic after a Catholic marriage.  And so those of us who have fought in various places for more liberal divorce laws find every time that we are blocked in the Legislature in Albany or any where else by the Catholic hierarchy.

        And, because of that rule against divorce, we have some amazing anomalies.  We have people, millions of people walking around this country who think they are married.  Oh, no, they are not.  The Catholic Church says they are not married at all.  There is Mrs. O'Dwyer in New York, a very charming lady.  The paper said she was married before she married Mayor O'Dwyer, but that, you understand, was a mistake.  The papers said she was married and then divorced, but the Catholic papers corrected us on that point.  They said she never really had been married because she was married by a Justice of the Peace.  Or Rudy Vallee.  We thought he had been married three times before. (Laughter)  Again, that was an optical illusion because the first three ceremonies were not performed by priests.

        So the priests stand up and tell the American people, "You are not married".  They go beyond that.  They say to their congregation, "If you are married by a Protestant minister, that's enough sin to be excommunicated.  If you marry a Jew, that's an even worse offense because you have got to go all the way to Rome to get special permission."

        If Ingrid marries Rossellini -- and I hope she does (Laughter) -- if Ingrid marries Rossellini, Rossellini under this bizarre priestly dictum can actually go to a priest later on, pay fifteen dollars, ask for a single sheet annulment and supposedly get an annullment, because the Catholic rule is that any marriage that began in sin can be annulled because of that fact, and all he has to do is offer the baby in evidence.     Monsignor Sheen actually married his brother not so long ago to a divorced lady, and she was a very nice lady.

        Now, it may seem ungracious for me to criticize Monsignor Sheen, because he is a fallen rival.  For the last six months he and I have both been on the best seller list and usually he has been very far ahead of me.  But in order to celebrate this debate tonight, I passed him yesterday on the best seller list of both the Times and the Tribune. (Applause)

        Now, the Catholic Church does not endorse that choice.  The priest preaches the doctrine of equality of mother and fetus, all in the name of saving life, because its theory is that the soul of the fetus, even if it is just a little blood clot that has no chance to survive, is of equal value with the soul of the mother.  And they pretend that it is a choice between two lives.

        But actually the doctrine is much worse than that.  The fundamental doctrine is stated by that famous Father Finney in his "Moral Problems in Hospital Practice". And if there was any reason why I wrote my book, it's this: I found out what the priests are really standing for in the field of medicine -- most Americans don't.  This is what Father Finney said:

"If it is morally certain that a pregnant mother and her unborn child will both die, if the pregnancy is allowed to take its course . . . "

Please notice, both die --

". . . but at the same time the attending physician is morally certain that he can save the mother's life by removing the inviable fetus, is it lawful for him to do so?

ANSWER: No, it is not.  Such a removal of the fetus would be direct abortion."

        Notice, it is not a choice between two lives.  It is a choice between one death and two deaths, and the priests deliberately choose two deaths.  And when I pointed that out in the "Nation", I was attacked from end to end in this country as not knowing what I was talking about.  They didn't know that I consulted some of the leading gynecologists in the country before putting that in print; and when the figures were divulged at Johns Hopkins University, a very conservative estimate on the basis of those figures would indicate that there are more than a thousand Catholic mothers who die every year because of that priestly rule.

        They have no chance to voice their opinion.

        Birth Control.  Every opinion poll taken impartially has shown the majority of Catholic women in the United States favoring birth control.

        Education.  The actual majority of the Catholic children in the United States go to the public schools.

        Taxation.  I don't believe the American Catholic people want to take taxation from the State or break down the principle of separation of Church and State.

        I don't believe the American Catholic physicians and nurses who are kind and humane really want to be tangled in that outworn web of medieval theology that leads to the loss of life of Catholic mothers.  But where and what can they do?  They have no forum, they have no power.

        That's why I believe that it is a challenge to us as Catholics, as Protestants, as Jews, as unbelievers, to reach across that Iron Curtain, without rancor and without prejudice, and say, "Here is a challenge we can accept as Americans".  And if we can stand together as Catholics and Protestants and Jews and unbelievers, we can save our fundamental freedoms from the threat of a very substantial danger. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        That was a mouthful.  But I would earnestly urge you, as the Moderator again, to distinguish -- without wishing at all to challenge any of the statements of fact which Mr. Blanshard has made -- to bear in mind the distinction between his rhetoric and his statement.  And I hope that we will bear this in mind throughout this discussion.

        Father Dunne was a man whom I knew nothing about, unfortunately, until a week ago, when I was asked to moderate this evening.  Since then I have had occasion to read Father Dunne's work, and to read articles about him.  I have rarely read more eloquent and more moving praise of a fighting liberal than the articles that I have read concerning Father Dunne.

        Here is that very interesting magazine called "Ebony", which has another article on Father Dunne and his work in the opposition to racial intolerance.

        Father Dunne has done yeoman work throughout the West in the opposition to racial intolerance, to anti-Negro feeling and conduct, to anti-Semitism.

        He maintains -- and it gives me great delight to say that he maintains -- that intolerance, racial intolerance, is a sin.

        I honesty believe from conversation with him tonight that Father Dunne is a man of the utmost loyalty to American ideals, of the utmost integrity, a truly fighting priest in a good cause.

        Father Dunne. (Applause)

FATHER GEORGE H. DUNNE, S.J. 
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Blanshard, whom I include among my friends, with the audience. (Applause)

        I must say that in view of Mr. Blanshard's gracious remarks about me at the beginning of his speech, and his graciousness to me before the meeting tonight, that I feel a little bit like a character who lives, or rather used to live, out in the state of Arizona, from which I come to you.

        His name was Tom Jones.  He lived in a town known as Tombstone, Arizona.  You probably have heard about it.  He is buried in Tombstone, and his epitaph, I think, is one of the most eloquent that I have ever read.  It's very simple.  It simply says, "Tom Jones, died February 12, 1898.  Hanged by mistake." (Laughter)

        I think Tom Jones, wherever he is, must feel that this is a very gracious gesture on the part of his townspeople, who have taken this means of assuring him that they really have nothing against him at all.  It must make him feel very good to be assured of that.

        Now, the Moderator tonight said that he hoped we would both forget that Mr. Blanshard had written a book.  I am sorry that I cannot accede to that request, because I think that one of the real issues involved in this whole discussion is precisely Mr. Blanshard's book.  And I do not think that we can divorce the question of Mr. Blanshard as a critic of things Catholic, from Mr. Blanshard as the author of the book called "American Freedom and Catholic Power."  Because one of the vital issues, it seems to me, is precisely whether or not, and to what degree, Mr. Blanshard is qualified as an impartial objective critic of things Catholic.

        You might say that this really has no bearing upon the question, because his book raises admittedly serious issues about Catholicism.  I say, admitting that his book raises such serious issues, it is still important to know whether or not Mr. Blanshard is qualified to discuss these issues as an objective impartial critic.

        I would say that the case is exactly the same, for example, as with anti-Semitism.  Admittedly, there are serious issues that have to do with the problems of Jewish people and American democracy.  For instance Zionism, to cite one example, is a problem that needs to be seriously discussed, that has been seriously discussed.  A person may be opposed to Zionism, I personally am not, but a person may be opposed to Zionism without, therefore, being anti-Semitic.

        But I would seriously question the qualifications of Mr. Gerald K. Smith, for instance, to discuss Zionism.  I think, therefore, that Mr. Smith's general attitude towards Jews and Judaism has a definite bearing upon his qualifications to discuss Zionism.  And I think the same principle applies -- I see no reason why it shouldn't -- to Mr. Blanshard.

        And I think the question of Mr. Blanchard's qualifications as a critic is determined by an examination primarily of his book, because I think that an examination of his book is conclusive evidence that Mr. Blanshard, however sincere -- and I recognize his sincerity and his moral idealism, too -- however sincere he is, I think that his book is evidence that his mind is definitely biased, and thus is not in a position to form objective opinions about anything Catholic.

        I don't have time to examine his book manifestly in detail.  I want, however, to give you a few examples of what I mean.  Mr. Blanshard's claim to objectivity is based, I think, chiefly upon two allegations.  One is that specific facts of his book cannot be successfully challenged; the second that his book is heavily documented.  I think it is perfectly evident that it is possible to write a book which is definitely biased and prejudiced, the facts of which, nevertheless, on the whole, cannot be successfully challenged, and which is, at the same time, documented.  Let me cite you two examples of people who do, and have done this very successfully.

        One is Westbrook Pegler.  I think that it is a fact that very few of Mr. Pegler's specific facts have been successfully challenged.  And yet I think it is also evident to any intelligent person that the total picture created by Mr. Pegler in his columns on labor unions, for instance, is entirely false.

        I think the same thing is true of Mr. Wegler's -- Mr. Pegler's -- Wegler would be just as good a name -- Mr. Pegler's obsession with the Roosevelt family.  I think that many of the specific things he has said about members of the Roosevelt family are probably true.  I happen personally to be a great admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and also a great admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt, whom I had the pleasure of meeting more than once, and for whom I have a great deal of respect.  Nevertheless, I think it is properly true that Elliott Roosevelt has done some rather foolish things; and that he showed very bad business judgment on several occasions in Texas; and probably his father, like any good father, used his influence and position a couple of times to save his son from having the whole scaffolding fall upon him.

        Yet I think it is perfectly obvious again that the total picture of the Roosevelt family created by Pegler is not only totally false, but is calumnious and scurrilous in the extreme.

        I cite the example of Ilya Ehrenburg, a Soviet journalist who visited this country a few years ago, went back to Russia and wrote a series of articles in "Pravda".  Very few of the specific facts mentioned by Ehrenburg in his "Description of American Society and Civilization" could be successfully challenged.  It is true that terrible lynchings take place in the South.  It is true that we have a lot of big city political machines, which are ridden with corruption and graft.  These and all, or most of the other specific facts mentioned by Ehrenburg are true.  Yet I think any American reading Ehrenburg`s description of American civilization would say tu himself: "This is not the country that I know, the society in which I live.  This is not America."  He creates this false picture by selecting carefully simply all the unfavorable facts and omitting the other side of the picture.

        Now, I would like to read -- since you probably would conclude that I am speaking myself from a biased point of view -- I would like to read you the opinion of a man who is not a Catholic, and who has read Mr. Blanshard's book -- it is David Rome, who is a Jew, writing in a Jewish magazine called "Congress Bulletin" published in Montreal, on the question of Mr. Blanshard's objectivity and partiality.

        "Mr. Blanshard claims to be honestly engaged in objective search for the truth.  He denies any anti-Catholic motivation or desire to arouse anti-Catholic sentiments.

        "Whatever his intentions, he has scored at least a stylistic failure in this regard, for the book is written in an anti-Catholic tone.  His facts are marshaled with an effect to arouse anti-Catholic feelings, and even prejudice.  It may even be that a more judicious attitude toward his subject would have led him to a more critical evaluation of his own well-documented facts."

        Now, in the further substantiation of my charge that Mr. Blanshard is not objective, impartial, I would like to read to you front my own pamphlet:

        "The American Jewish people have done their best to join the rest of America, but the rabbis have never been assimilated.  They are still fundamentally Eastern European or Near Asian in their spirit and directives.

        It would be a mistake to judge the power of the Jewish community in terms of numbers only.  Even a minority bloc in the population can make a tremendous impression if it is closely knit.

        The Jewish synagogue is an important item in the technique of denominational display.  The synagogue is usually a big synagogue, and often an oversized synagogue.

        . . . The big synagogue in the American community is the Exhibit A of rabbinical power, and the Jewish people have accepted it as their symbol of success even when it is heavily mortgaged.

        The observer of any Jewish religious ceremony is impressed by its foreign character.  Even the names of their feast days emphasize their foreign provenance: Rosh Hodesh, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Hanukah, Lag Beomer, Shavuot.  They are celebrated with elaborate ceremonies in the synagogues, with impressive pageantry and a great many chants sung by a be-shawled cantor and be-shawled choral assistants.  These chants sound strange to ears accustomed to the traditional American melodies of Cole Porter or even, though he is a Jew, of Irving Berlin.

        Now, I ask you, does this sound to your ears like an impartial objective criticism or discussion; or is this anti-semitism of the purest kind?  I think the answer is evident.  And yet these paragraphs I lifted from Mr. Blanshard's book, simply substituting for the word "Catholic" the word "Jewish" -- for the word "priest" the word "rabbi" -- for the word "church" the word "synagogue", and for a description of the Catholic ceremonial pageantry, a description of Jewish ceremonial pageantry.

        This is the question of tone that Mr. Rose rightly calls attention to -- and I say it definitely reveals the partiality of Mr. Blanshard in his whole treatment.

        The same with Mr. Blanshard's specific facts that he cites in his book.  Many of his facts are entirely innocent.  But put into a context of Mr. Blanshard's assumption that Catholicism constitutes a conspiracy, even though it be as he termed it in his address tonight an open conspiracy, the most innocent details take on a conspiratorial atmosphere.

        He is greatly disturbed that 150,000 Catholic American men marched in a Holy Name parade in Boston, Massachusetts.  Nevertheless, 150,000 American men marching in a Shriners parade in Chicago doesn't disturb him at all.  This is part of the American scene.  Evidently there are two standards of judgment.

        The offices.of the National Catholic Welfare Conference in Washington, D. C. are described by Mr. Blanshard as a honeycombed nest of busy young priests, lawyers, bustling about engaged in sending out their tentacles into every nook and cranny of American life as part of the great Catholic conspiracy and grasp for power.  I have spent a great deal of my time in the offices of the Anti-Defamation League in Chicago, and I should say that they are just as busy as the offices of the N.C.W.C. in Washington.  It never occurred to me that the activities of these people interested in promoting Jewish interests in this country were in any way a threat to American democracy.

        Mr. Blanshard bases his claim also on documentation.  Let me give you one example of the kind of documentation that we find in Mr. Blanshard's book.  This is a very minor detail, and a much more serious example could be given on documentation when he is discussing the declaration of the infallibility of the Pope and the Council of the Vatican -- I will say a word about that.

        With the single exception of Döllinger's pamphlet -- which no scholar, I think, would claim to be itself an impartial source -- with this one exception, the sources that are mentioned by Mr. Blanshard cannot even be classified as secondary sources.

        None of the primary sources of the Vatican Council is included in his documentation.  To mention a few: Granderath-Kirch, Histoire du Concile du Vatican, 7 Vols., Brussels, 1907; E. Cecconi, Histoire du Concile du Vatican, 4 Vols., Paris, Brussels, 1907; E. Cecconi, Histoire du Concile du Vatican, 4 Vols., Paris, 1887; C. Butler, The Vatican Council, 2 Vols., London, 1930; Acta Et. Decreta Consile Vaticani, Herder, Friburg, 1892; Friedrich, Geschichte der Vatikanischen Konziles, 3 Vols.; Olivier, L'Eglise et l'Etat au Concile du Vatican, 2 Vols.; all of which are recognized by scholars to be the primary sources of the Vatican Council and decree of infallibility.

        It is no wonder, therefore, that Mr. Blanshard discussion of what happened at that Council and of the declaration of infallibility by the Council is entirely at odds with the facts as substantiated by these heavily documented primary sources.

        Another example -- a very minor detail:  Mr. Blanshard substantiates his opinion of the baneful influence of the Church in Mexico by citing from a Smithsonian Institute study of George M. Foster, called "Empire Children, the people of Tsin-Tsutsen", a village in Mexico.  On this authority he states that in 1945 the priest took an estimated 30 to 40 thousand dollars from the inhabitants of this poverty-stricken village.

        Now, this is just a question of the use of documentation, the uses to which it may be put.  I am not defending by any means everything that has taken place in Mexico and the policies of the Church in Mexico.  I am simply citing this as an example of the objectively dishonest use of documentary material.  I am saying nothing about Mr. Blanshard's subjective honesty, which I concede readily.

        Now, as the author of this pamphlet, Mr. Foster, is at pains to state in his introduction, but Mr. Blanshard says nothing about it, the dollar sign does not represent American dollars, but Mexican pesos -- so that the real figures comes to about $6,000 to $8,000.  Furthermore, he makes no mention of the fact, stated by the author of the pamphlet, that this estimate is based upon the estimate of an ex-sacristan as to the income in 1930.  Furthermore, he makes no mention of the fact, mentioned by the author of the pamphlet, that more than half of this total was derived not from villagers alone, but from inhabitants of the neighboring ranches.

        Now, my time is running out so fast that I must leave this subject and get to some of the issues raised by Mr. Blanshard tonight rather than in his book. (Applause)

        His charge that the Roman Catholic Church, the structure of the Roman Catholic Church -- he prefers to say of the Roman Catholic power -- is wholly undemocratic; we do not choose our priests, we do not own our buildings (he says priests do; I suppose, therefore, I do; as a matter of fact I don't own a dime); our people can't have plenary congress' of their own.

        I think, underlying, it is true the Church in its organization, is not organized along democratic lines -- institutionally, structurally.  I would say two things about this.  The first pertains to fundamental underlying principles.  I think there is involved in Mr. Blanshard's attitude towards this a basic fallacy which fails to recognize, as Catholic philosophy recognizes, that the Church and the State are two totally different entities, two wholly distinct societies.  Each has a different origin; each has a finality of its own.  Therefore, it is just as fallacious for Mr. Blanshard to argue that, because in the political order Democracy is a preferable form of organization, therefore, in the supernatural and spiritual order of the Church, Democracy is the necessary and certainly the preferable order, as it was for certain Catholic theorists to argue in past centuries that because the Church was in its structure monarchic in character, therefore the ideal form of the State was monarchic in character.  There is no logical transition from one order to the other.

        The question of sterilization:  Mr. Blanshard considers this a political problem.     Catholics consider this a moral problem.  There are serious moral issues involved in sterilization.  In euthanasia there are moral issues involved.  In the question of abortion there are moral issues involved.  And consequently I don't see how Mr. Blanshard is on defensible grounds when he denies to Catholics the right to express their views, to pass moral judgment and to attempt objectively through the democratic processes to persuade their fellow citizens of the rectitude of their moral judgment in these particular matters.

        Is he saying that Catholics have no right to an expression of an opinion about the morality of abortion, about the morality of divorce, about the morality of euthanasia?  If he is, I say then he is definitely expounding a philosophy which is fundamentally undemocratic in character and leads to totalitarianism. (Applause.) That's my claque. (Laughter and applause).

        As Mr. David Rome points out in the Jewish periodical that I mentioned before, he says: "Mr. Blanchard emphasizes that Catholics in the United States differ in many ways from the accepted norm in their traditions, point of view, government ideals, etc.  He takes that as proof that they are to that extent in error and should conform.  Above all he is afraid of the challenge they may constitute to the State."

        "This emphasis," says Mr. Rome, "upon the majority and its State is a frightening one to any democrat today.  For one thing it is not a libertarian concept at all, and this is a period when liberty should be cherished more than ever.  Indeed, it is distinctly totalitarian.  The only equality inherent in such a view is the equal flatness in the track of a steamroller.

        "Mr. Blanshard's concept of democracy in this phase is a democracy that finds some 90 per cent support in every vote that is taken behind the Iron Curtain.  It fits poorly into a defense of American democracy and it sounds unpleasant in the ear of a Jew."  And I think Mr. Rome is correct.

        Mr. Blanshard seems to be saying to me that because Catholics have moral views that differ with what he judges to be the accepted moral views and political views of the majority of our people, that, therefore, they are a threat to Amcrican democracy.  I don't know what he wants us to do.  Is he denying to us our right to express these views, to defend them?

        Now, there is a very serious question about what one means by separation of Church and State.  I think Catholic political philosophy certainly accepts it and heartily approves -- and I can cite you documents which I have here, if I had the time, which would show that the Church does, her philosophy does accept separation of Church and State in the American sense of the word.  She does not accept nor do I, the notion of separation of Church and State that is peculiar to continental liberalism of the 19th century -- which was a form of absolutism, which not only set a lay state, but a laicized and secularized state, which attempted to make religion irrelevant in all areas of life and attempted to define the judicial status of the Church, as it attempted to define the judicial status of the human person.  And Catholic political philosophy denies this right to the State.  The State accepts the Church as it is, as it accepts the human person as it is.

        This sense of separation of Church and State which would deny to the Church, through the conscience of its citizens, the right through democratic processes to bring to bear upon society its moral concepts, the Church does not accept, we Catholics do not accept it, the American Constitution did not accept it.  And it will be a tragedy for this country, I should say, if the American people are misled into accepting it.  Thank you. (Applause)

BROADCAST PORTION

MR. NUGENT, JR.: 
        Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen.  This is the Law School Forum coming to you from Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The subject of our discussion this evening is "The Catholic Church and Politics".

        The next voice you will hear will be that of our Moderator, Professor Henry D. Aiken, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University.  Professor Aiken.

        Mr. Blanshard, who will speak next, has written a heavily documented and powerfully persuasive -- at least to many people, a powerfully persuasive book, "American Freedom and Catholic Power," which substantially asserts that the Catholic Church in world and particularly in American politics, is definitely a threat, if I understand him, to the American way of life.

        We shall now hear Mr. Blanshard.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        My assertion of a criticism against the Roman Catholic system of power is not against the Church's religion or against the Catholic people.  I do not question their loyalty or their patriotism.  It is a very specific indictment: first, that the Roman Catholic organization is un-democratic; that it does not give the American Catholic people the chance to vote on many major matters of policy which are important in the political sphere, such as birth control, more liberal divorce laws, the opportunity of attending a public school without coercion by a priest, and a number of other policies.

        I pointed out that the Catholic hierarchy opposes the fundamental principle of separation of Church and State, and in every nation of the world asks for public money for its enterprises.

        I pointed out that the Church definitely uses coercion in maintaining a segregated separate school system, which has splendid merits, but which I think is morally wrong in asking taxpayers to support an enterprise in which they do not necessarily believe.

        I pointed out that in this country because of the great political and social power of the Catholic hierarchy, there is a definite censorship bloc which opposes any books, magazines or newspapers which frankly and critically discuss the abuses of Catholic power.

        I pointed out that the system of marriage instituted by the priests is a system above, and in some ways in opposition to, American freedom and American sense of fair play in marital institutions, because the priests oppose equality of marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics in mixed marriage, and do not recognize Jewish and Protestant and government official marriage as other sects in this country do.

        I pointed out finally that even in the field of medicine, in such problems as birth control and the need of therapeutic abortion, the priests literally enter American hospitals and lay down rules that are made by the congregation of the Holy Office in Rome without giving the American people a chance to make decisions for themselves. This in essence is the indictment that I bring against Catholic power and I think it constitutes a challenge not only to non-Catholics but to liberal Catholics as well. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        Next, you will have a chance to hear from Father Dunne in reply to this charge.  At the end of his main speech, as you remember, he directly joined issue with Mr. Blanshard and I hope that in his next remarks he will not continue the discussion -- of course he is free to do as he likes (laughter) -- that he will not discuss further the question whether Mr. Blanshard is to be compared to Mr. Gerald K. Smith (Applause), but will confine himself -- if he wishes again to the question of the Catholic Church in Politics.

Father Dunne, I remind you again, is well known for his powerful defense of Jews and Negroes.  His opposition to racial segregation and racial inequality is a source -- and seems to me must be a source -- of admiration to everyone in this room and to all Americans.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I had no intention of continuing to discuss Mr. Blanshard and Gerald K. Smith, whether there was any similarity between them.  However, the remarks of the Moderator compel me to do so.  I refuse to be confined. (Applause)  In other words, I think that there is an issue involved of whether the criticism of Mr. Blanshard is objective, impartial or not.  That was my only reason for bringing up the discussion at all.  And I think certainly in a discussion of the book that is a fundamental issue involved.

Now as to the other issues -- the question of the Church and democracy and Catholic power.  I think there is a basic confusion underlying Mr. Blanshard's attitude in this whole matter.  He says that he does not attack Catholic doctrine.  Probably from his point of view he does not, but from the Catholic point of view he does.  He simply substitutes for Catholic doctrine the word "power" constantly.

        I should ask, for example, whether or not when Mr. Blanshard in his book discusses the question of Catholic belief in miracles -- to which he refers as a system of sorcery, fetishism, superstition, the manufacture of relics -- whether he is discussing Catholic doctrine or Catholic power.  What this has to do with Catholic power I do not comprehend.

        The question of separation of Church and State; there is a sense in which the Catholic Church refuses to admit the principle of separation of Church and State, and this is the sense in which it refuses to admit the principle of separation of Church and State -- when separation is interpreted to mean, as it meant in continental liberalism of the 19th century -- but does not mean under the American Constitution, the denial or ignoring by the State of the unique juridical personality of the Church, and consequently the denial or ignoring of the fact that there exists in an order higher than that of the State, an external spiritual authority that has an independent sovereignty over subjects in all that concerns the spiritual and moral life, even as citizens or rulers.  In that sense of separation of Church and State, the Catholic Church, including myself, docs not admit that principle.  But this is not separation of Church and State in the American constitutional sense.  Quite the contrary.

        Under our American Constitution, constitutional documents took explicit and specific recognition of the fact that there did exist, over and above the State, a spiritual and supernatural order in which the consciences of citizens had full play, which enjoyed a primacy to the State in its origin and finality, and with this the Catholic Church fully agrees.

        The same with Mr. Blarshard's discussion of the Church's intervention in the field of medicine: I say again, the Church does not intervene in the field of medicine, but manifestly there are manifold ramifications that are moral in character associated with the field of medicine.  In this field the Church does intervene, again through the consciences of her citizens, of her subjects.

        And I ask again, what does Mr. Blanshard ask?  Is he asking a Catholic to abdicate the right to have moral opinions in these fields that involve moral problems -- to have a moral position with regard to birth control, with regard to euthanasia, with regard to abortion?  If he isn't, then I don't see how this problem arises or how it concerns him or concerns the American public.  These are moral problems.  All Catholics do and the Church does is take a moral position with regard to them.

        It's the same with science.  I don't know how this problem has any relevancy today.  The Church doesn't tell scientists how or what they must do, and in what field they must operate.  It doesn't tell scientists that they may not, for example, experiment in the field of nuclear fission and produce an atom bomb.  But when the question arises of whether or not atomic bombs should be dropped upon human beings, there immediately arises a moral problem and certainly the Church claims in this and in all other countries the right to take a moral position and express a moral judgment about the rightness or wrongness of dropping an atomic bomb upon the heads of human beings.

        Now on the question, on the whole, of lack of democracy in the Church.  First of all, I have discussed that.  My time is up.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I appreciate very much those statements of Father Dunne because they helped to bring out the real meaning of the criticism that I am making of the Catholic system of power.

        Of course, none of us denies the right of the Catholic Church to have opinions.  There is no question of religious freedom involved.  The Pope or any leaders of the Catholic Church are absolutely free in the American environment to stand for any doctrines that they please.  They can make fools of themselves if they wish.  They can drag out medieval doctrines that have no relation to reality.  They can create a separate and segregated school system and control the thinking in that system.  They have a right to do that because that's a part of the American scene.  I am questioning, however, two facts about that system of thinking.

        First of all, the judgments that the Catholic hierarchy impose upon the American Catholic people are not democratic judgments.  They are called beliefs established by conscience, but they are not the conscience of the Catholic people.  They are the conscience of the priests.  The priests impose upon the American people a definite, flat, moral and political formula in regard to some of the most important social and cultural problems in American life.

        No Catholic woman may stand up in a Catholic Church in the United States, even if she practices and believes in birth control, and stand for birth control -- because the priest tells her it is a mortal sin to do that.  So, one by one, you could run through the great judgments of policy that the Catholic Church stands for in America and you will find that some of the most important of them are imposed against the wishes and desires of and the understanding of the Catholic people.  And there is absolutely no forum given to the Catholic people to deny those things.

        Now, Father Dunne says that the Church doesn't intervene in the field of medicine.  I would like to ask what does it mean that here in Massachusetts the Church not only prohibits Catholic physicians from giving contraceptive advice to Catholics.  It flatly tries to impose that same rule on non-Catholic physicians. (Applause)

        Now, Father Dunne claims that the Church and the State are two wholly distinct features or structures.  If that were true, then we wouldn't need to debate here tonight.  There wouldn't be any problem. The real problem is that that isn't true in actual life; that much of the territory of the Church overlaps with the territory of the State, and it is precisely in that overlapping area that I have pointed out where and exactly how the Catholic system of power challenges the American system.

        Now, of course, Father Dunne replies that God has conferred upon the Catholic system of power, the Catholic Church, a special right to control the moral thinking of the world on certain issues.  I am sorry to talk about religion even for thirty seconds, if it may seem that, but I really question whether even in Christian traditions there is an authority for that position.  I don't think Jesus of Nazareth ever attempted to establish that kind of a system of power. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        I am sorry, the time is up for Mr. Blanshard.  There will be a reply from Father Dunne in a moment.  There will be a question period immediately following Father Dunne's reply and those of you who have questions, will you be sure to prepare them in advance to try to make them as clear as you can?  And now, we will hear a rejoinder from Father Dunne.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I should like, first of all, to say a few words about the charge made by Mr. Blanshard that the conscience of the American Catholic is not the conscience of the American people, but is something imposed upon them by the priests.

        We are right at this point, I think, confronted with what is manifestly a basic, fundamental difference of theological views between Catholics and Mr. Blanshard.  What Mr. Blanshard does not recognize, and what he would not admit, as he is entitled not to admit, is that included in the conscience of Catholics is a recognition of the principle of divine authority of the Church.  This is included in their consciences. (Applause)

        Consequently, the Catholic is perfectly free, and in this respect I want to say to Mr. Blanshard, who in his book accuses Catholics of constantly using the word "freedom" in a sophistical sense, I think he himself unconsciously does so.

        The reason that I accept and submit to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and the dogmatic teachings of the Church is that by reason of my faith I am convinced that the Catholic Church truly speaks with divine authority.  There is no coercion upon me to believe this. I am convinced of this in the way that Methodists are convinced of the truth of the Methodist position.  The moment that I cease to believe that, which is equivalent to losing my faith, I am free to cease to be a Catholic -- and the Church does not and cannot bring to bear upon me any coercion of any kind. (Applause)

        From the protests of some of you I gather I don't make myself clear. (Laughter)  I would like to ask what the coercion is that is brought to bear upon me.  Can the Church put me in jail?  Can she invoke material penalties against me?  The only sanction that is in the power of the Church is excommunication, which is rarely invoked and which is nothing else except a declaration of the fact, that I have already admitted, that I no longer agree with the position of the Catholic Church and that I have lost my faith.

        And consequently the Catholic woman, in whose conviction of faith is included a recognition of the divine authority of the Church to teach on moral matters, the Catholic woman for that reason accepts the rectitude of a moral judgment pronounced by the Church on birth control.  In fact, for that Catholic woman there is no coercion.  The moment that she ceases to believe, through a loss of her faith, that the Church speaks with divine authority, the Church cannot put her in jail or bring any other type physical of coercion -- nor does she attempt to do so -- to bear upon her.

        In other words, there is a fundamental difference between Catholic convictions with regard to the conscience and the non-Catholic conviction.  We accept, but as a matter of our conviction, and surely Mr. Blanshard does not deny the right of Catholics to be convinced, unlike himself, that the Church was founded by Christ and does speak with divine authority on these matters.  And as long as we are convinced of that fact, there is no coercion upon us except the coercion of our own conscience.

        The only freedom that the Catholic Church asks for her citizens and her subjects is precisely this freedom to obey their conscience, including the freedom that I have spoken about with reference to the moral doctrines affecting birth contol, euthanasia, abortion and so on.

        Now, the question of whether or not the Church has a right to seek to impose these convictions upon others that Mr. Blanshard referred to -- birth control in Massachusetts. I am not familiar, frankly, I must confess, with the situation in Massachusetts.  I would say as a matter of principle: No, the Church does not have the right to impose these views upon those outside her faith.

        But she does have the right -- (Applause) she certainly has the right, it seems to me, in her own institutions, therefore -- in Catholic Hospitals, to require the observance of Catholic moral teaching.  If she attempts to force doctors to conform to her teachings in this respect outside of the Catholic institutions, I would say: No, that would definitely be a violation of her authority.  I don't think, at least from my experience, that the Church is accustomed to do that.

        I think Mr. Blanshard himself will be the first to protest if in Spain, for instance -- my time is up (Laughter).  (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        I think that this debate and its impressive facing of the issues at last. (Applause)  Be it said that facing of those issues is a convincing proof and a moving demonstration of the power of human discourse and open debate, of the value of the Town Meeting type of discussion where people reasonably get together to express their attitudes and opinions.  And if they cannot agree, at least they know where the area of disagreement lies.  It's very, very important to know where you disagree.

        But now, let me before I throw the floor open for discussion and for questions, make a plea for a continuation of this sort of candid, hard-hitting open discussion.  (Applause)

        Let me further make a plea that this sort of discussion be continued, not merely in this hall under the auspices of the Harvard Law School Forum, but in the public papers, in the press, in the magazines -- (Applause) -- and that it be discussed without rancor as far as possible, and without prejudice.

        And now, questions from each side of the room.

QUESTION PERIOD

MR. NATHANIEL GREENSTON: 
        My name is Nathaniel Greenston, Harvard College; my question is addressed to Father Dunne.  Cannot Catholics and the Catholic Church enforce without political action moral laws and so not deprive non-Catholics of their democratic right of choice?

THE MODERATOR: 
        Let's not have clapping at the questions, I think. (Laughter)

FATHER DUNNE: 
        The question is, as I understand it, cannot Catholics strive to implement their moral laws without imposing these through political action upon non-Catholics.

        I should reply in terms of Catholic political philosophy, that is, the authentic main current of Catholic political philosophy, not only may Catholics do so and should do so, but Catholics and the Church are specifically inhibited, prohibited in terms of their own philosophy from attempting to implement their own moral teachings through political power.

        I stated before that the Catholic political tradition is that the State is natural in origin and has a natural finality.  Thus, for example, there would be no philosophical right at all for the Church to demand of the State the passing of a law against blasphemy, we'll say.  The only time in which in terms of Catholic political thought the State may intervene in fields that are moral is when the particular problems are a threat to the peace and order of the State itself.

        Thus, to take a specific example, because it is one that has been mentioned so often, birth control.  I do not think that Catholics or the Catholic Church would have any right to appeal to the State to pass a law illegalizing the practice of birth control, because there is no justification of this except in terms of using political power to enforce a moral principle of its own.

        So my answer to your question is:  Yes, Catholics should, may, prosecute their moral ends outside of political measures and can only appeal to political measures when there is a definite reference to the interests of society or the State.

THE MODERATOR: 
        In the interest of having as many questions as possible asked and as many as possible answered as are given, I am going to ask both speakers to make their replies as crisply and briefly as they can.

        Now, one from the right.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I hope it doesn't increase the anti-Catholic feeling in the sense of a personal feeling.  My appeal has been studiously and scrupulously directed as an American to other Americans and I have never at any moment attacked the Catholic people or what I consider the core of Catholic faith.  I think when you suggest that my own suggestion is that this is anti-Catholicism, that that is a misuse of words.  Actually, it is simply the assertion of certain fundamental rights to discuss the problems of American citizenship.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        May I add a word to that?

THE MODERATOR: 
        Father Dunne wishes to add a word on that point.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        While I am sure that Mr. Blanshard did not, and does not, intend to increase anti-Catholic feeling, I think the facts are that he has and one of the documentary proofs of it is the mail that I have received from the readers of Mr. Blanshard's book.  Some of these letters I have right here in my portfolio.  That mail is as scurrilous and vindictive and poisonous and violent as anything that has ever been inspired by such publications as the "Menace", and I recall that this used to be Father Coughlin's defense.  He used to say the same thing, that he was not anti-Semitic; and I used to say that Father Coughlin's influence should be judged by its effects.  And I should say the same about Mr. Blanshard's book. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        The speakers seem to be enjoying sucking this gumboil, so I will let them do so for another moment.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        May I immodestly point out that while there may have been a few fanatics wrongly stirred by my attack on the Catholic policy, for every fanatic I think there has been at least one university student and graduate.

        For many months "American Freedom and Catholic Power" was the No. 2 best selling book in college bookstores throughout the country.  I am delighted that the new movement against Catholic aggression in the field of politics is rising not on the fringes, the lunatic fringes of religion and fanaticism, but right in the hearts of American University leaders. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        And now a question from the left.  I think this time it should be directed to Father Dunne.

MR. JOHN HARVIS: 
        My name is John Harvis; I am a student at Boston College; I would like to address my question to Mr. Blanshard.  Mr. DiGasperri of Italy, Bidault of France and Conrad Adenauer of Germany are outstanding Catholics today in Europe.  I could name more like them in the United States.  For example, Howard McGrath, Philip Murray, who all represent us as outstanding Catholics.  Are these men, and numberless others like them, a refutation to your argument that teachings of the Catholic Church are a threat to the democratic way of life?  (Applause)

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I think there are more facts to be noted and I think that I have never tried to be mean or ungracious or partisan in saying that many of the greatest leaders fighting for freedom and democracy throughout the world are Catholics.

        But that, after all, doesn't affect the fundamental thesis that I have tried to develop tonight, primarily out of the documents of the Church itself.  In spite of many good Catholics, the Catholic hierarchy continues to stand for principles that are undemocratic and I have laid down the specific bill of particulars here tonight, and I am sorry to say I have not heard a specific reply. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        I think I shall insist this time that the question be directed to Father Dunne.  From the right.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        It's a very good question.  The moderator wanted to exclude it.  It's a very good question because I think it serves to bring out some of the fallacies of Mr. Blanshard's position. (Applause)

        I think that there are several things to be said.  First of all, it indicates that the lack of freedom of expression that exists, according to Mr. Blanshard, in the Church is not as great as he and those who think like him think it is. (Applause)

        Number two -- I would say that this the thing that always has struck me in the case of Father Coughlin -- that during the years when he was at the height of his activities, I never gave a lecture but that someone in the audience, and they were generally audiences who were liberal people, did not ask me exactly the same question.  Now, it is very curious.  These very same people are the first ones to denounce the Catholic Church for its limitations upon freedom of expression and thought control; and yet they are still the first ones who, when the ideas to which expression is being given offend their own ideas, demand that the Church do something about it.

        I would say that this liberal demand for the silencing of Father Coughlin had a rather unfortunate consequence upon people like myself and other men of the Clergy.

        It is probably true that in this country the American hierarchy has tightened up since the day of Father Coughlin and precisely for that reason.  And if the question is asked as Mr. Blanshard has asked it, "Why does the Church control the expressions, particularly of her Clergy?", this is the precise reason: because of the bad habit of liberals of holding the Church responsible for every expression of opinion to which a clergyman gives utterance, and this happened during Father Coughlin's day.  And because the Church was held responsible, many bishops I think have concluded that they are not going to give any priest the kind of a head start that Coughtlin got until he had built up a mass following which made it very difficult for them to deal with him.  So, today, the raps are on much more than they used to be.

        We have the liberals to thank for that. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        I am very glad I didn't squclch that question.  Now, I think somebody from the left has one.

MR. AL McKELLER: 
        My name is Al McKeller, and I am a Senior at Harvard College.  And I would like to ask a question of Mr. Blanshard.

        You complain of conscience judgments as the formulation of priesthood.  Now, I wonder whether they are not rather the inevitable result of any revealed religion with an interpretive priesthood or a documentary foundation, be it Talmud, Koran or something else.  And if these conscience judgments are the inevitable results, how do you solve the problem of the existence of such revealed religions in secular democracy?

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I believe that no one has a right of conscience that is in direct contradiction to his reason.  I wouldn't try to separate those two things.  I would have religion based upon absolutely free expression, free understanding, without coercion.  I believe it is possible to have profoundly effective religion and morality without an authoritarian structure which dictates ideas and judgments to human beings.  I believe that religious conclusions should be duduced from human experience.  (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
Now, I believe a question is called for from the right. This seems to be the even hand of justice.  Somebody now from the right.

MR. EDWIN BENNETT: 
        My name is Edwin Bennett and I am from the Episcopal Theological School and my question is addressed to Father Dunne.  Would you contend that the totalitarian Church organization is derivable from the Gospel -- or is not democracy closer to the ultimate regard Jesus gave to the personalities of individuals in his life, death and resurrection?

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I would say that to answer the question in the space of a minute is manifestly impossible.  This involves a whole theology and a whole ecclesiastical history.

        First of all, there is the assumption made in the question that Catholicism is totalitarianism.  This is becoming a rather popular epithet where the Church is concerned and I think altogether unjustified.  I didn't have a chance to point this out before, but I would like to say that one of the errors made in thinking things Catholic is to think that there is no democracy in the Church.

        I admitted initially that the organizational structure of the Church is not democratic, admittedly so.  It is authoritarian and not totalitarian, which are not the same concepts, philosophically speaking.  There is a very, important difference between the two as any political scientist, I think, could tell you.

THE MODERATOR: 
        I am sorry to cut Father Dunne off at this point, but we are going off the air now.

        You have been listening to a discussion of the Catholic Church and Politics by two distinguished speakers, Father Dunne and Mr. Paul Blanshard.

        We are now signing off, but for a few more minutes, if there are further questions from the floor, I believe that if the speakers aren't too tired that we might continue.  I perhaps ought to ask them first.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I would like to, especially if I could answer that last question myself. (Applause)

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I should like to be allowed first.

THE MODERATOR: 
        I agree.  I think that is definitely indicated, and I think for a minute more or two Father Dunne should be allowed to proceed. (Applause)

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I would say that there is far more democracy in the Church than is generally recognized by people who look at it from the outside instead of realizing that Catholicism in the Church is a living, dynamic thing.  The thought of the Church which eventually finds itself incorporated into Catholic doctrine, even defined doctrine, is not suddenly taken out of the blue by a Pope.  It is the final product sometimes of centuries of elaborate thinking; which proceeds on the level of experts, if you will; for example, in the great theological discussions in the universities that were the leaders of thought during the Middle Ages; the University of Paris, of Bologna, etc.

        Thus it was, too, with the great theological discussions and controversies during the second and third centuries that gradually illuminated and elaborated the truths contained in the revelation of the Trinity and eventually led to the formation of a body of Trinitarian doctrine.

        I think there were controversies that went on during the second and third centuries, and eventually found their way down through the controversial pronouncements with regard to the nature of the Trinity.

        In the field of education there is far more democracy in Catholic schools than Mr. Blanshard realizes, although I realize that looking at the Catholic schools from the outside and not living on the inside, one is easily led into the illusion about them.  Democracy expresses itself in public opinion, expresses itself in more ways than simply in the institutionalized way of electoral and parliamentary procedures and this is true in the Catholic schools.

        The Catholic parents exert very definite pressures upon policies in Catholic schools; and their chief pressure is that despite the Canon law -- about which I would like to say, but I don't know as I can within the interpretation of the Catholic jurisprudence we should understand, and Mr. Blanshard will be surprised to hear this and no doubt some Bishops will be surprised to hear this too, that there has always in the Church been a definite prejudice against law in favor of custom.

        The great canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries who are the sources from which the whole Canon Law of the Church has been erected, the thing they emphasized -- prejudice against the law.  And in this they differed from the Roman lawyers who emphasized always strict legality.  They were not concerned about the letter of the law but of the entirety of the law; and custom took prevalence over the law.

        Thus the Canon Law cited by Mr. Blanshard must be interpreted in terms of these criteria of canonical jurisprudence.  This is why I don't think Mr. Blanshard will be able to adduce any evidence of any Catholic who has ever been ex-communicated or subjected to sanctions in this country in virtue of that law.

        And these are the reasons why I say there is a vast amount of democracy in the living Church, though not in the organizational structure of the Church.

        And that is why the Canon Law prescribes that no canon law can overthrow a custom.  That is why a student of the Canon Law must plow through things.  The Canon Law in the Church is a living thing.

        It is a thing that points in a direction, but it must be adapted to sociological conditions and, therefore, I say there is a vast amount of democracy in the living Church, although not in the organizational structures of the Church.

THE MODERATOR: 
        Mr. Blanshard has a word to say now.  (Applause)  Mr. Blanshard ought to state the question.  At least, I no longer remember it.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I want to comment on that last crack about the absence of alleged coercion in the Church.  On the question of schools, if there isn't coercion; then why in the name of common sense do we have in Catholic Canon Law on page 706 of the last edition the flat ruling of the Pope that an American mother may be denied absolution in the Confessional for sending her child to a public school against the will of the priest?  A Bishop finally told a reporter not long ago there were eleven dioceses in the United States in recent years that were enforcing that rule.  There is the rule.  If Father Dunne says there is no coercion, how can you explain that fact?

        I think the original question was largely directed to the nature of the Catholic Authority and I would like to flatly disclaim or dispute the contention that the Catholic system of power represents Christianity.  I think the whole elaborate trappings of the Catholic system were very, very far from the spirit and teachings of Jesus.  They hang  (Applause) -- the priests, for example, hang the whole Catholic system of Vatican power on that one slender peg in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus is alleged to say that "Peter, thou art the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

        It's quite possible that the interpolation varies because the Greek word "ecclesia" for church -- Jesus didn't use that word habitually in the rest of the Gospels.  But even if it was a genuine statement of Jesus, what does it say?  There isn't a word in that verse about a gigantic system of power, about a Pope, or Roman Bishops, or about the great system of power that the Church has become.  Actually,. I don't think there would be any person in all history who would more naturally be opposed to that system of power than Jesus of Nazareth.  (Applause)

FATHER DUNNE: 
        One more thing I would like to say. Mr. Blanshard's remarks prove conclusively the fallacies of his claim that his book and he are concerned with the question of American democracy and Catholic power as he called it.  He is concerned -- (Applause) -- he is concerned and he is attacking the Catholic doctrine, and here we are -- (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        I am afraid that it's getting late.  I will limit the discussion to two more questions.  One from the left; and then after that one, one from the right. 

MR. HAROLD E. BARRETT: 
        My name is Harold Elliott Barrett from the Episcopal Theological School and I am directing this question to Father Dunne.  Because of the apparent confusion between moral matters and political matters, I would ask this question: What is meant when one refers to the Roman Catholic Church in America as an absolute moral monarchy within a liberal democracy?

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I don't know.  You will have to ask Mr. Blanshard because in that description of the Catholic Church I don't recognize the Catholic Church, not as I know it in America. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        Perhaps Mr. Blanshard will have something to say on this.

MR. BLANSHARD: 
        I think it is a fairly sound description -- (Laughter) -- because, as I tried to point out, virtually all of the great moral tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are decided in Rome by the Congregation of the Holy Office and other Committees of appointed Cardinals.  And I call your attention tonight that Father Dunne, in spite of his very fine spirit at this debate, which I have enjoyed very much, has not specifically denied that charge of a genuine dictatorship. (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        One last question from the right. 

MR. JAMES McNULTY: 
        My name is James McNulty of Boston College.  I should like to direct my question to Mr. Blanshard.  Since you have stated our religion should be based on human experience, do you believe that there is any absolute moral law, or do you believe that moral standards are subject to the changing opinion of the majority of the people?  (Applause)

THE MODERATOR: 
        Now, I think at the very end each speaker should have about a minute.  It's almost 10:30, and each can give an independent statement of his own for just about a minute, and then we will sign off.  Father Dunne, I think, will have the first chance.

FATHER DUNNE: 
        I will merely say I have enjoyed meeting Mr. Blanshard and meeting you; that I have enjoyed the friendly nature of Mr. Blanshard's relations with me tonight.

        Evidently I displeased him and some of you by the first part of my talk this evening, but I think that it was relevant to establish the full context of Mr. Blanshard's criticisms.

        I recognize the sincerity of Mr. Blanshard the moral idealism of Mr. Blanshard.  Even in his attitude toward abortion, therapeutic abortion, I concede the moral idealism there present.  I think he is mistaken in his premises and therefore disagree with the rational basis of his position, but I recognize that his concern for human life, in this case the life of the mother, reflects a moral idealism, though I believe his position a mistaken one.  I think, on the other hand, that M