Pope Paul and Saul Alinsky . . . Who’da Thunk It?

Certainly not me.  I mean, Pope Paul VI?! the author of Humanae Vitae, which forbade Catholics from using contraception?  Seriously, how much more reactionary can one get?  (Next, you’ll be telling me that two men can marry each other!  Or that drag queens dressed as Baphomet will be reading fairy tales to children.  How absurd!)

Now that you’ve picked yourself off the floor, I can assure you –astonishing as it sounds–it’s all true.  Saul Alinsky and Archbishop Giovanni Cardinal Montinivof Milan, the future Pope Paul VI, were well-acquainted with each other.  

Don’t take my word for it.   Please take the time to watch this latest podcast from Dr. Taylor Marshall.  He lays it all out there:  how Saul Alinsky, a Jewish atheist, a “community organizer” from Chicago, and known admirer of Satan, was BFFs with Montini.

And get this:  he not only met with Montini on at least three occasions in the 1950s but bragged that if he were ever elected pope, “the drinks would be on [him] for years to come”.  

Clearly, things aren’t always as they seem.  

Marshall, of course, has written a book about the infiltration of the Catholic Church entitled Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within, about how nefarious organizations have spent the last two centuries meticulously planting moles throughout the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy.  He lays it all out chapter and verse. 

So ultimately, I guess he’s not surprised.  Me?  Very surprised.  

However, the supposed conservatism of Paul VI makes sense in a sick, twisted, Alinskyite fashion.  Unlike the violent revolutionaries of the past (e.g. Robespierre, Lenin, Mao), Alinsky had no need for bloodshed.  His approach was more subtle:  infiltrate an organization from within.  Use ostensible conservatives.  Make sure they’re presentable.  If necessary, make sure they’re compromised.  Homosexuals should fit the bill.

But whatever you do, don’t rock the boat.  Let the nice ladies know that your not one for fire-and-brimstone sermons; that you like tea and scones when you come calling.  And by all means, dress well and be soft-spoken.  Don’t be too masculine.  As another famous community organizer from Chicago said in the first of his three autobiographies, “Don’t make any sudden moves.” 

In other words, be nice, not Nicene.

And don’t let your top operatives mess with the original structure of the organization.  Like the Roman Catholics, keep your brand intact.  No need to overturn the theology or the ecclesiology whole-hog.  Be incremental.  If you feel the need to monkey around with something, undertake liturgical reforms.  When people start screaming about the new mass, tell them that it’s all in line with Vatican II.  The liturgical dancers may be a distraction but for every step forward with liturgical innovation, it’s OK to take two steps back by preaching against condoms and the birth control pill.  That way you can tell the people not to believe their lying eyes because the Catholic Church is still “traditional”.  

And so Alinsky found in Montini a man whom he could trust to transform the Catholic Church into an organization more amenable to his type of soft radicalism; all the while making sure that externally, things appeared to be pretty much the same.  Just some minor tinkering around the edges.  

Still, the mind boggles at the audacity and success of this enterprise.

I suppose the question before us as Orthodox Christians is not why we should follow Patriarch Bartholomew as he tries to hitch the Orthodox wagon to Rome’s falling star, but instead how we got here in the first place.  To be blunt:  the question is whether or not it is because some of our top people have already succumbed to the Alinsky treatment?  You know, when we keep up the appearance of being pro-life when we are told that “generally speaking our Church is pro-life”. 

After all, nobody —but nobody–would have thought that Paul VI was an ally of Saul Alinsky.  Not in a million years.  Oh sure, those pinko priests in Latin America with their “liberation theology” were but they were priests, not bishops.  Certainly not cardinals.  Anyway, it took sixty years for this to come out.

So the next time you read some Russophobic screed in some mainstream journal (or online forum) that casts aspersions on “fundamentalists”, or you watch a bishop march with known terrorists, you might want to consider the possibility that the subversion has already begun.  

And don’t say “it could never happen to us”.  Because it did happen to the most conservative institution in the Western world.  


  1. I suppose the question before us as Orthodox Christians is not why we should follow Patriarch Bartholomew as he tries to hitch the Orthodox wagon to Rome’s falling star,

    I don’t really think any serious Orthodox lay person, priest, monastic or bishop outside of Patriarch Bartholomew’s little echo chamber will even consider the idea of going to Rome. Other than a few Phanariot bishops, I just don’t see it, and honestly the videos I saw yesterday from Greece and their Orthodox chants and protest just doesn’t scream a “lets go to Rome” faith of the lay people.

    One a separate note….and related to the post, Pope Francis has issued a Motu Proprio effectively banning the old Latin Mass. I’m curious if the TradCaths will make their way to Orthodoxy, or, pivot the other way and go to the SSPX…I hope it’s the former and not the latter. As someone who used to be Roman Catholic I really feel bad for them, but, they need to become Orthodox.


    • Gail Sheppard says

      They [TradCaths] would be much happier with us. I would love that.

      • George Michalopulos says

        I would not be at all averse to the Orthodox developing a Latin Mass for them (provided it’s Orthodox in theology).

        At the end of the day, the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were minor speed bumps on the road to outright liberalism/syncretism.

        • Erasmus already did a Latin translation of the liturgy, although it’s a little different from what we do today.

          The tradcaths won’t convert. If they would have, they would have done so already. They don’t want to be 800s Catholics — they want to be 1800s Catholics. Whatever rolls in from Rome, they will just accept.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            Why do you think that is? They are critical of the pope. They actually have two popes which is a bit unusual! The one named Francis is a thorn in their side. Why are Catholics so committed to having a pope?

            • Seraphim says

              Why is anyone committed to anything? It’s all they know. But I don’t take quite as pessimistic a view. I do think there’s hope for some coming this way, just not in large droves. I only knew protestantism but God slowly drew me to the Church, one step at a time. It can happen for Catholics as well.

            • I can’t say for certain, but my theory is because Catholicism is all about being united to the pope. For us Orthodox, unity and salvation come through doctrine, but for the Catholics, all that comes through the pope. This is why you have eastern rite sects commemorating condemned heretics, because all that matters is unity with the pope.

              I don’t understand it. I don’t see what the pope offers or why he matters. Obviously the papacy has been beyond corrupt for centuries now.

              Maybe it’s just painful to renounce the pope. They can accept everything else, but saying, “I renounce the pope,” it hurts.

              I think another reason is because Catholicism is more of a tribe than a religion. It’s about being on team Catholic. So whatever complaints they have, to leave the pope would be to leave the family.

            • TradCats, as the name suggests, are the most traditional of Roman Catholics. These guys actually believe that we, the Orthodox, are heretics and schismatics. Despite their own problems, they will not – except for certain exceptions – look to us as another option.

              Pope Francis messing with their church won’t make them Orthodox, it will just make them angry TradCats. It will take something dramatic, something that will cause them to doubt the entire papist edifice, to make them consider Orthodoxy.

        • Antioch has parishes that use the Tridentine rite. We usually visit St Augustine in Denver when we travel. Its quite lovely, though strictly speaking the majority of the Liturgy is in English rather than Latin.

    • I’m a former Catholic. The chatter is SSPX, then Eastern Catholic, then maybe Orthodoxy. For many it’s a slow journey in stages. I’ve been through it, too.

      I think EC would be a good intermediary for Trads before going full EO, they can be pretty legalistic, guilt and wrath oriented. EC would cure them of that. A more gradual process.

      • That’s somewhat my experience as well as a RC -> Orthodox convert. Novus Ordo to TLM to EC to Orthodoxy, though its not that clear cut

      • Antiochene Son says

        The problem for Catholics are these:

        1. The SSPX is schismatic, and Francis especially thinks so. They are in open rebellion against the Vatican I dogmas that they claim to uphold.

        2. Eastern Catholics don’t want Latins coming in and wrecking what they have. And legally it requires your bishop’s permission to switch rites; it can only be done for a good reason (like getting married) and is irreversible. Plus, from what I hear the Uniat churches are not the bastion of pure conservatism that people think. I wonder what the RadTrads will think on the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas though. LOL!

        Orthodoxy is the only legitimate option. But I don’t want Latins with baggage in our Church. So either make a sincere conversion to Orthodoxy or stay in your little ghettos.

  2. DayofReckoning says

    Speaking of “Russophobic screed in some mainstream journal (or online forum) that casts aspersions on ‘fundamentalists,'” the chief homosexual apologists and LGBTQ cheerleaders at Public Orthodoxy, George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, have recently published another hit piece against the Russian Church written by Robert C. Blitt.

    The gist of this latest pro-LGBTQ attack piece is near the bottom of the article:


    Church outreach to conservative civil society has similarly led groups like C-Fam, a U.S.-based “pro-family” NGO, to fawn over the ROC’s opposition to sexual orientation and gender identity rights at the UN. More dramatically, another U.S.-based group, the International Organization of the Family, has sought to boost ROC and Kremlin standing, accepting Kremlin-connected Orthodox oligarch funding, celebrating Russia as “the Christian saviors of the world,” and going so far as to endorse “a very prominent role [for Russia]…on a global scale.”

    Against this backdrop, the amendments noted above provide constitutional cover for reenergizing the Kremlin’s global efforts to challenge democratic values, supplant the international human rights system, and destabilize institutions and societies through misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Given the ROC’s readiness to advance these efforts in lockstep with the Kremlin, the constitutional amendments are likely to usher in an even tighter era of church-state integration. Policymakers should take note of the ROC’s burgeoning foreign policy role and make necessary adjustments to account for the church’s increasing proximity to the Kremlin and its ongoing influence campaigns unfolding among governmental and non-governmental interlocutors alike.

    • George Michalopulos says

      “…challenge democratic values”. That’s a hoot!

      It wouldn’t be so funny if we had democratic values here in the West.

    • Russia’s constitutional amendments of 2020 augur an ever-enlarging foreign policy role for the Russian Orthodox Church—Moscow Patriarchate (ROC). Constitutional entrenchment of the Kremlin’s selective understanding of state sovereignty and non-interference; a state-sanctioned vision of historical truth…

      -Public Orthodoxy

      Although some in the West question the integrity of the the voting – as they always do unless they approve of the result, these constitutional changes, though proposed by Putin, were approved by 79% of Russian citizens.

      So much for the Left’s concern for “democratic values.”

      And then there’s this chilling conclusion…

      “Faced with this emerging reality, policymakers should reassess the nature and substance of their interactions with church officials and take measures to scrutinize ROC activities more closely in their respective jurisdictions.”

      Russia = bad
      Friends of Russian Orthodoxy = presumed traitors to “democratic values” (Read: More dangerous than al Qaeda)

  3. It’s been going around in the Catholic world for awhile, though not many Catholics are yet aware. And yes, I suspect attempts to influence, if not infiltrate, the Orthodox have been underway for awhile, though not as advanced. But possibly very much influencing the EP. Why the rest of us must not go along with him, especially if he tries to reunite with Rome. With things as they are right now in the RCC, that would be a disaster that would only drag us all down.

  4. Did Pope Francis canonize Pope Paul VI? If so, does this make Alinsky a church father?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Yes it does!

      I also understand that Pope Paul VI is on a mural at the Nouvelle Skete somewhere back East.

  5. Supposedly the famous parts of Humanae Vitae were ghost written. Paul VI wanted it to be a progressive document, but a leading cardinal intercepted it and added the portions that are always quoted. Paul VI was outraged, but he couldn’t retract it. That’s at least what I’ve read from Anne Barnhardt.

    If you view the Catholic Church as a mirror inversion of Orthodoxy where everything looks the same but in reverse, it makes a lot more sense.

    • Johannes says

      The College of Cardinals = The Sanhedrin. It’s an inversion of Orthodoxy, but has surprising parallels to other heresies.

  6. The Episcopal Church was taken down by infiltrating the seminaries.

  7. Non-traditional bishops, who appoint non-traditional Dean’s/faculty at the seminaries, often produce non-traditional priests, who pastor non-traditional parishes. It starts at the top. The good news is that the Holy Spirit can break through the confusion (often through exposure to monasteries) and produce pious priests that hold to the Holy Tradition of the Church.

    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

      One word that cannot be applied to Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville NY (where I served as Dean from 2017-2019) is “non-traditional.”

      • Fr. David says

        Absolutely, Father Alexander. I was simply stating that as a principle in general.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        As you surely know, there is nothing “traditional” about that.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Saunca, that’s horrible. But those were the times. I remember my father sending me home from Holy Thursday services for not wearing a jacket (just a shirt and tie). I also remember standing when a woman entering the room. Telling an off-color joke in mixed company would get you shunned permanently from polite society.

        May father’s reasoning (as well as everybody else’s who was over 30) was that if you’re going to dress up to see the President you’d darn well show up dressed to the nines when going to see the King of Kings at your local parish.

        I understand that mentality. That doesn’t excuse what happened to your mom but context is everything.

  8. Love that word, thunk!