COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF RELIGION ---Birchers Wrong Again!

In the early 1960's numerous disputes erupted around the country over purported Communist infiltration of our clergy and religious institutions.

One of the first triggers for what would become a major controversy was the February 1960 release of the “Air Reserve Training Manual” which was issued by the Continental Air Command at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. Approximately 3300 copies were distributed.

The Manual contained a section entitled “Communism in Religion” written by Homer H. Hyde. Mr. Hyde subsequently acknowledged that he used information supplied to him by Billy James Hargis (Christian Crusade), and Myers Lowman (Circuit Riders, Inc) as the basis for his comments. The themes and conclusions that Hyde presented were identical to those contained in literature published by Church League of America (Edgar C. Bundy), American Mercury magazine (J.B. Matthews), the John Birch Society, and the aforementioned Billy James Hargis and Myers Lowman.

The Manual stated, among other things, that Communists had successfully infiltrated our churches, and 30 of the 95 scholars associated with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible were affiliated with Communist fronts and activities.

"...the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of members of the Protestant clergy" --and--

"...there are, as the leading students of the subject all agree -- more than seven thousand Protestant clergymen actively helping the Communists to make dangerous progaganda and pressure weapons out of the National Council of Churches and some other church organizations. Now is the time to bring this whole issue into the open, in every way possible; and to start a determined drive to eliminate Communist influences from control over Christian churches." [John Birch Society Bulletin, April 1960, pages 18-19].

Mr. Welch repeated these remarks numerous times during a speaking tour which began April 11, 1961 in Los Angeles. [4/13/61, Santa Barbara CA; 4/14/61 Phoenix AZ; 4/15/61 Amarillo TX; 4/18/61 Houston TX; 10/11/61 Oakland PA, 10/12/61 in Indianapolis IN]

Another trigger in this controversy was the publication of several articles authored by Louis Cassels, a Senior Editor and Religion columnist for United Press International. In April 1961, Mr. Cassels wrote an article for his weekly newspaper column, Religion in America, which provoked an enormous outcry from the extreme right.

The Cassels column summarized speeches made by FBI Chief Inspector William C. Sullivan during the Spring of 1961 wherein Sullivan denied that there had been significant Communist penetration of U.S. clergy or churches. Subsequently, Mr. Cassels expanded his comments in two magazine articles (“What About Communism In Our Churches?, The Episcopalian, July 1961 –and—“The Rightist Crisis In Our Churches”, Look magazine, April 24, 1962.]

Mr. Cassels sent a copy of his April 28, 1961 column to J. Edgar Hoover and Hoover replied:

“It was a pleasure to cooperate with you in connection with your article…While the endeavors of private citizens with regard to combating the menace of communism must be given our most earnest encouragement, I have always cautioned against confusing communism with legitimate dissent on controversial issues. In addition, this opposition to communism must be careful, constructive and positive. Your excellent presentation of this subject particularly as it relates to unfounded charges against America’s clergymen, is a fine example of public spirit, and I do want to thank you for your support on this vital issue.” [100-403529-183, J. Edgar Hoover to Louis Cassels].

As newspapers across the country published the Cassels column, the Bureau was inundated with angry letters, phone calls, and telegrams from persons and organizations who were stunned by the remarks attributed to FBI Chief Inspector William Sullivan. There were furious objections by organizations such as Circuit Riders, Inc (Myers G. Lowman) and Church League of America (Edgar C. Bundy) and incredulous letters from ordinary citizens who demanded that J. Edgar Hoover set the record straight.

Circuit Riders was an organization that specialized in publishing “compilations” of alleged subversive affiliations of various groups of clergymen under such titles as: “A Compilation of Public Records on 2109 Methodist Ministers” and “658 Clergymen and Laymen Connected With The National Council of Churches” and “660 Baptist Ministers”.

In March 1961 the Bureau received a phone call from a representative of Circuit Riders, who demanded to know if Hoover had approved Sullivan’s remarks. A Bureau memo summarizes the encounter:

“Per DeLoach to Mohr memo dated 3-3-61, (name deleted) of Circuit Riders called SOG (Seat of Government-FBI HQ) on that day and made an emotional objection to a speech previously given by Inspector William C. Sullivan. (Name deleted) was informed that Mr. Sullivan was speaking with the full experience and background of facts concerning matters known to the Bureau and Mr. Sullivan was in no manner incorrect in any statements made.” [62-104401-1231, 5/3/61]

Another major player in this controversy was the American Council of Christian Laymen (ACCL), founded and headed by Verne P. Kaub.

Kaub authored one of the most widely distributed and long-lived pamphlets used by the extreme right to “document” their statements about the alleged “Communist affiliations” of many prominent clergymen.

The first edition in October 1949 was entitled, “How Red is the Federal Council of Churches?” but the title was later revised to reflect the subsequent merger and name-change of the FCC to: “How Red Is The National Council of Churches?” Many thousands of these pamphlets were sold to organizations all across the country and critics of the National Council frequently would cite this pamphlet as their source of information.

The preface of “How Red…” describes its content as “These are just a few of the hundreds of present and past officers, leaders and prominent members of the Federal/National Council who have aided and abetted God-hating, un-American organizations.”

One of the prominent religious leaders listed was Ralph W. Sockman. In 1952 Kaub wrote to J. Edgar Hoover to confirm whether or not Hoover had praised Sockman during a radio interview. One Bureau memo on the matter states that:

“On 3-11-52, the Director advised Kaub that Ralph Sockman had spoken before the FBI National Academy and he would not have invited him to make such an address unless he thought Sockman to be a loyal citizen.” [62-100432-17, 9/11/53].

A 1953 FBI memo refers to the “running feud between the ACCL headed by Kaub and the Federal Council of Churches. The Bureau has received numerous inquiries from individuals who have read ‘How Red Is the Federal Council of Churches?’ which brochure was issued by the ACCL. This brochure concerns itself solely with attacking the Federal Council of Churches…In this regard, the Bureau has not investigated the Federal Council of Churches and contact with informants and sources in New York fail to reveal that this council is in any way subversive.” [62-100432-1, 9/11/53].

In an October 19, 1958 letter to Patrick F. Scanlan, Managing Editor of The Brooklyn Tablet, Kaub gave his evaluation of J. Edgar Hoover’s 1958 book, Masters of Deceit. According to Kaub, Hoover’s book…

“exemplifies one of the best subversive tricks, namely present a great mass of anti-subversive material to convince the reader that the book is 100% American but insert one section or chapter of poison. In this case, the poison, or deceit, is the complete whitewashing of the vicious Zionist organizations including American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith and its subsidiary smear bund, Anti-Defamation League. You, of course, know that these organizations support all sorts of Communist devised subversion by way of developing and leading to their own master-plot for world domination and destruction of Christian civilization.”

Incidentally, in 1959 Kaub contacted both Billy James Hargis and Robert Welch to propose that the ACCL be “taken over” and operated by one of them.

To give the reader a sense of the tremendous impact of the Sullivan speeches, below is an excerpt from one letter sent to J. Edgar Hoover. This Birch Society member asserted that Sullivan made it seem that…

“anyone who alleged that many communists have infiltrated the clergy, was uninformed and very much an alarmist. You and I, I hope, know this is not true…All America owes you a debt we can never repay – but I trust that you will not hesitate to support the patriots who are dedicated and conscientiously trying to roll back the Socialistic Communistic tide which threatens to engulf this nation. Regardless of the risk, you must not break faith, but if the anti-communist John Birch Society goes the way that McCarthyism has gone I will always feel that yours was the key testimony which dealt us our most destructive blow.” [62-104401-1281, 4/30/61]

“The communists have tried to infiltrate every part of our society, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that patriotic Americans must continue to take a firm stand against communism…But this opposition to communism must be careful, constructive and positive, and it must always be kept within the due process of law. In reference to Mr. Cassels’ article, Chief Inspector William C. Sullivan in his discussion of communism dealt with this subject with all possible objectivity, candor and accuracy.” [Ibid].

In the Fall of 1961, Chief Inspector Sullivan prepared a comprehensive overview of the subject of Communist infiltration of religion which he proposed giving as a speech at Highland Park Methodist Church in Dallas Texas---reportedly the largest Methodist Church in the world. By cover memo dated October 5, 1961, Sullivan circulated the proposed text of his speech to top Bureau officials, including J. Edgar Hoover, seeking authorization to give the speech on October 19th. Hoover initialed the memo and wrote “OK”.

Here, then, are some major excerpts from Sullivan’s remarks. Notice how carefully Sullivan crafted his comments to specifically address assertions in extreme right literature and speeches. (The numbers in parentheses refer to footnotes in the printed version of the speech).

“Protestants in particular have been singled out by critics, mainly within their own ranks, as being especially susceptible to communist appeals and tactics. It has been charged that the most sizable single body giving support to the American communist movement is comprised of Protestant clergymen (3). Additionally, it has been said that, of all the Protestant denominations, Methodists have been the most extensively infiltrated by communists. (4)”

Footnote #3 refers to a July 1953 article by J.B. Matthews in American Mercury magazine which was the basis for Robert Welch’s subsequent numerical claim of “7000 Protestant clergymen” cited above.

According to Matthews, the 7000 figure he used in the year 1953 reflected the total number of clergymen “during the last 17 years” whom he believed were involved as fellow-travelers, unwitting dupes, party-line adherents, and outright Party members and espionage agents.

Matthews did not attempt to establish how many individuals belonged in each category that he specified nor did he estimate the number of clergymen from his aggregate 7000 total who remained active in 1953. As will shortly become apparent, the 17-year time frame suggested by Matthews refers to the apogee of Communist activity within the U.S. – and had no significance to events in later decades.

“In arrangement, handling of names, selection of facts, and in its implications, the article is not at all fair to the Protestant clergy of this country” and the Bureau characterized Matthews' charges as “more in the nature of sensational journalism than serious reporting of the facts.” [100-5821-22, 7/29/53]

By way of illustrating the imprecision of this “numbers game”, ex-Communist (and FBI informant) Joseph Zack Kornfeder testified before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities in July 1953, that only “600” Communists had infiltrated the clergy in America. [Kent Courtney, Tax Fax #31 – “Communist Infiltration of Religion”].

As noted above, seven years after the Matthews article, Robert Welch resurrected the 7000 figure and used it as a contemporary number (i.e. present-tense…”There are…more than 7000 Protestant clergymen actively helping the communists…”). Apparently, in the Welch scheme of things, no clergymen died, retired, were disabled, or otherwise no longer were interested in assisting the “communists”!

The next 17 pages of Sullivan’s speech discuss the nature of communist attempts to infiltrate religion. He made a particular distinction that seems lost on the adherents of the extreme right:

“Over the years, some well-meaning, intelligent, and patriotic Americans of distinction---including clergymen—have been induced to give their names, their prestige, and often their talents to communist fronts or causes without apparently being aware of their true nature or purpose. These men and women were mostly motivated by a genuine and idealistic desire to further what they thought or had been led to believe were worthwhile and laudable social objectives and programs. These individuals were frequently too busy or too unsuspecting, or both, to investigate the nature and backing of the organization with which they had identified themselves. Even though in some cases they have known or suspected that communists were involved, they were too unfamiliar with communist practices to realize that communists were not interested in the cause itself, but only in the way it could be twisted and used to advance communist aims and goals.” [William C. Sullivan, Communism and Religion in The United States, Highland Park Methodist Church, Dallas Texas, October 19, 1961, pages, 3, 11, and 12.]

In a section of his speech entitled “Extent of Communist Infiltration of Clergy” Sullivan comes to grips with the core allegations made by the extreme right:

“We have seen why and how communists have made continuous and persistent efforts over the years to penetrate American churches and to exploit American clergymen. But to stop here would result in conveying a totally erroneous impression as to the extent of communist infiltration of the clergy. To give an objective appraisal, it is essential to point out that the apogee of communist activity, penetration, and influence among clergymen and churches in the United States coincides with the zenith of the numerical strength, activity, and influence of the American communist movement generally. This peak was reached in the late 1930’s and during and just after World War II. It was in 1944 that the Communist Party USA boasted of a top membership of 80,000 plus an extensive communist front apparatus.”

“Since the late 1940’s, communist influence within the churches and among the clergy has waned along with the dimunition of the Party’s membership, activity, and influence on the American scene. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Communist Party USA has achieved any substantial success in exerting domination, control, or influence over America’s clergymen or religious bodies and institutions on a national scale. The fact of the matter is that no substantial number of clergymen have been closely identified with the Communist Party over the years.”

“According to estimates, there are 300,000 ordained clergymen in the United States, the great majority of whom are Protestant. When this large figure is compared with the total number of clergymen who have had communist affiliations, joined communist fronts, engaged in communist activities, supported communist causes, signed communist documents, or otherwise---wittingly or unwittingly—aided and abetted the communist movement during the past four decades, the proportion is actually exceedingly small. Moreover, many of the most active, most vocal, and most publicized of these clergymen who have worked so digilently on behalf of communism do not have or never have had their own churches or congregations. Of those who did have, many were removed when their procommunist backgrounds and connections became known.”

“To recapitulate, it can be stated factually and without equivocation that any allegation is false which holds that there has been and is, on a national scale, an extensive or substantial communist infiltration of the American clergy, in particular the Protestant clergy. This statement applied with equal force to the Methodists as it does to other religious denominations.” [Ibid, pages 18-19].

Note: In January 1961, William Sullivan wrote a review of a recent book entitled Communism and the Churches by Ralph Lord Roy. In his review, Sullivan inserted a comment which reveals the FBI’s evaluation of the extent of Communist penetration of clergy and religious institutions:

“Note: In a study prepared by the Bureau in March 1960, 15 clergymen and 18 church workers were listed on the Security Index.” [100-3-82-320, 1/9/61; also see 100-403539-112].

The FBI was not the only agency to receive numerous heated inquiries about the Sullivan speeches. Francis E. Walter, Chairman of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, replied to critics of Sullivan—including Edgar C. Bundy of Church League of America.

In his 3/21/61 letter to Bundy, Walter observed that Sullivan was “probably the most knowledgeable of any agent in the Bureau on the subject of Communism”, and in a subsequent August 7, 1961 letter to another Sullivan critic, Walter wrote: “I do not find that our Committee is in disagreement in any way with the statements contained in Sullivan’s speech.” [FBI HQ file 94-4-4644, serial #66].

"There can be no doubt, of course, that the communists' aim is to penetrate and control all mass-type organizations of our society, including our churches. Their efforts in this regard have been thwarted by our internal security program...Regretably, numerous charges have been made concerning the extent and success of communist influence among our Nation's religious leaders and institutions. Actually, the Communist Party USA has had no appreciable success in influencing, controlling, or dominating America's clergymen or religious organizations. These facts, based on our investigative results in the internal security field, have been the basis of the FBI's stand on this subject when it arises." [100-403529-432, July 19, 1963 Hoover letter in response to an inquiry on the subject]

The evidence you cite in your replies to my post is the same evidence that was in FBI files.

For example, at one point the Bureau was asked to run a name-check on every official of the National Council of Churches. If I recall correctly, the total number was about 160 names. About one-third of those persons had at least one reference to some sort of affiliation with a Communist front. Some had numerous "citations".

But here is what I think you guys are missing.

1. First: as FBI Chief Inspector William Sullivan pointed
out, many Americans joined a group or signed a
petition that seemed legitimate -- but they were
"unaware of their true nature or purpose".

Do you propose that, in a free society, we should forever damn individuals who may have innocently been involved in some activity or group that, later, is determined to be a Communist front?

2. Second, J.B. Matthews (formerly associated with HUAC
and the John Birch Society!) pointed out that
to inflate their credentials, Communists would
routinely claim that some prominent person or
organization endorsed their committees, petitions,
candidates, proposals, etc. or shared their grievances
against this, that, or the other. In fact, Matthews
mentioned that during his own "pro-Communist" period,
he found HIS name (wrongly) used on letterheads as
an endorser of several Communist-front organizations
when, in reality, he NEVER approved use of his name
nor even agreed with their position.

Anytime you see literature that merely provides a listing of purported "Communist affiliations", it is important to remember the point Matthews made. Otherwise, you could easily defame someone who had done nothing whatsoever to deserve your rebuke.

3. As J. Edgar Hoover pointed out on countless occasions,
Communists attached themselves to all sorts of
LEGITIMATE causes and groups. They sought this
"protective coloration" to make it APPEAR that they
were in the vanguard of all progressive and right-
thinking forces on the planet.

Surely you don't suggest that someone becomes tainted or should be suspected of "subversive" intent simply because their position may coincide with positions announced by the Communists?

4. Finally, there is nothing that you can say about
people like Harry Ward or Bishop Oxnam that was
not known to the FBI (and other security agencies).
Notice, however, that the FBI still came to the
conclusion that the Communist Party "has had no
appreciable success in influencing, controlling,
or dominating America's clergymen or religious
organizations."

Yes, some prominent clergymen were duped into supporting Communist proposals and disseminating pro-Communist viewpoints---but they never achieved any substantial or lasting success.

Keep in mind the FBI's Security Index -- which was designed to list persons they considered dangerous to our internal security. In March 1960 there were a total of 33 (!) clergymen and church workers listed (not 7000 as the Birch Society and others absurdly claimed!)

Finally, let's be VERY careful about suggesting that one's personal political or religious beliefs must become the benchmark against which all other person's loyalty and patriotism are measured.

Honorable and decent men and women within the American Family can disagree about all sorts of important matters
without calling into question their love of country or integrity or moral character.

Ernie

SubMareener:

I appreciate your candor but I don't think you understand the gravity of what you are proposing.

Let's go back to what J. Edgar Hoover said, namely, for tactical purposes, Communists attach themselves to LEGITIMATE causes and organizations. So, for example, Communists can claim to support civil rights, or to be in favor of legislation that would address some legitimate grievance, but their ACTUAL purpose was NOT to redress those problems.

According to your statement, a person becomes "pro-Communist" the minute their position coincides with a Communist position. Whom, might I ask you, would decide what was GENUINELY a "Communist position" versus their PRETENDED interest in something for tactical purposes only?

Let me take this one step further. According to the 1961 Annual Report of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (page 129), Communist objectives at that time included:

* the ending of colonialism everywhere
* the dissolution of NATO, SEATO and other free-world
defense alliances
* abolition of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities

Is it YOUR position that no genuinely patriotic American could adopt positions that called for ending colonialism, or desired a more isolationist foreign policy (withdrawing from overseas alliance commitments) and not wanting government committees to investigate political thought?

Do you really believe that, in a free society, there is always ONLY ONE viewpoint that can be found acceptable, i.e. we always have but ONE option to choose from?

The John Birch Society opposed NATO and SEATO. Does that make their position "pro-Communist"?

And what is your evaluation of J. Edgar Hoover's often-repeated warning that it isn't what we are "against" but what we are "for" as a society that determines our strength as a country?

Ernie

Is it YOUR position that no genuinely patriotic American could adopt positions that called for ending colonialism, or desired a more isolationist foreign policy (withdrawing from overseas alliance commitments) and not wanting government committees to investigate political thought?

The last colonial power was the Russian part of the Soviet Union. That is gone now. While isolationists may serve the communist agenda, they may also simply be stupid idealists. The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was investigating activities, not political thought. That is what communists and their Democrat fellow travelers do, now.

Do you really believe that, in a free society, there is always ONLY ONE viewpoint that can be found acceptable, i.e. we always have but ONE option to choose from?

Gee, Ernie, excluding the communist agenda still leaves a lot of room for disagreement! In fact, it is only by excluding and defeating the communist agenda that you will have the freedom to disagree.

Still think you missed my point. My reference to colonialism was in the context of the 1960's (not today). Your position seems to suggest that any American whose views were amenable to anti-colonialism would, by definition, also become pro-Communist.

Your answer does seem to confirm my point about Americans having only single options. Especially revealing was your reference to isolationists being perhaps only "stupid idealists" instead of pro-Communist. In other words, there is always, in every instance, ONE clearly identifiable pro-American position (which ALWAYS coincides with YOUR personal preferences!) and anyone who disputes that position is, ipso facto, pro-Communist!

HUAC did NOT "only" investigate "activities". But even if I concede that to you, for the purposes of our discussion, you seem to be saying that no genuinely patriotic American could take a position that called for the elimination of HUAC because that was a "Communist" idea.

Why, may I ask, do YOU elevate Communist doctrine or objectives to the ultimate arbiter of what choices a free people may make in their national life?

Are you afraid that our institutions and our people are so fragile that we cannot thwart whatever a small band of radicals (and their fellow-travellers) might wish to accomplish?

In other words, that our people are so stupid or so gullible or so cowardly that we don't have the sense to recognize threats to our way of life and deal with them appropriately?

My experience has been that people who talk about the "communist agenda" usually have in mind something quite different. Typically, they have an "enemies list" circulating in their head, sort of like a roladex, and it is comprised of anyone who comes along offering ideas or positions that are contrary to their personal political preferences. And that becomes the basis for names being added to the roladex as a "Communist" or "fellow-traveller".

For example: during the 1950's and 1960's many politicians and government officials in our southern states routinely referred to the civil rights movement as a "Communist" operation because they were anti-integration.

Consequently, anybody or anything that opposed their viewpoint was considered "subversive" and "Communist" -- which even the FBI verified during its investigations into charges of "Communist activities" in the south. More often than not, the FBI reported that being "pro-integration" was considered being "pro-Communist".

Well, we've come a long way since that time. Your equivalent soulmates in that time didn't win that debate (thank God) and we are all better off as a result!

Ernie

Surely you don't suggest that someone becomes tainted or should be suspected of "subversive" intent simply because their position may coincide with positions announced by the Communists?

In theory you're right, but the NCC is and always has been a communist front. In my opinion the FBI information supports the Birch claim. It certainly doesn't refute it.

The John Birch Society opposed NATO and SEATO. Does that make their position "pro-Communist"?

Don't you consider the Birch Society a "subversive" organization? They often repackage communist propaganda as their own anti-establishment conspiracy theories. It was certainly correct for Hoover to keep an eye on them. As far as I know they have never been implicated in anything criminal.

First, according to the FBI HQ file on the NCC (100-50869), the NCC was NOT a Communist front. That doesn't mean, of course, that some individuals within the NCC did not come under suspicion.

At one point, the Bureau ran a name-check on 160 top officials of the NCC. About 1/3 had records of "Communist front affiliations" which could be anything from signing one petition to endorsing one group to contributing money, or, being an official within one or more fronts.

MERELY CITING AN "AFFILIATION" TELLS YOU NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

1. Remember J.B. Matthews' point about how Communists added names of prominent persons to their letterheads and literature -- CLAIMING endorsements were made when, in fact, that wasn't true?

2. Remember the point made by FBI Asst. Director Sullivan (and Hoover made this point also) that Communists ROUTINELY attached themselves to LEGITIMATE organizations and causes? Julia Brown and Herbert Philbrick
both joined Communist organizations that they THOUGHT were legitimate groups working to improve conditions in America. We could logically expect that some persons within the NCC were no different with respect to
the "nature" of their "affiliations"?

3. How about the groups that did NOT start out as Communist fronts but LATER were taken over? Should our methodology include ALL persons connected with an organization REGARDLESS of what time-frame they
lent their "support"?

4. What if the "affiliation" was nothing more than signing one or two petitions because they saw the name of a friend or acquaintance they respected on the same petition? Should they forever be damned or suspected as
"pro-Communist" because of that?

5. How about the folks that had "affiliations" during the period when the Soviet Union was our ally in World War II and persons joined fronts merely as a gesture of solidarity with a wartime ally?

With respect to your presumption that I consider the JBS to be a "subversive" organization --- that really is a very SILLY conclusion which is totally WRONG. Simply put, I think the JBS has often been an organization that demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth and it NEVER is prepared to admit substantive error. Furthermore, it has an incredibly hostile attitude toward ANYONE who dares to dispute its conclusions---even conservatives.

For educational purposes, I encourage everyone to read the full trial transcript of Elmer Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. in order to learn how the JBS went about "fact-checking" before it committed libel against Mr. Gertz.

The JBS eventually paid $400,000 to Gertz but the "educational" organization "whose only weapon is the truth" never bothered to tell its members that its American Opinion article was false and defamatory (although during the trial, they did admit "falsehoods" were contained in it.)

Ernie

Tailgunner:

After I posted my reply to your message I found three FBI documents that specifically address your presumptions about the NCC and the extent and nature of Communist success at infiltrating/influencing our religious institutions. Here are the facts:

FIRST DOCUMENT:
FBI HQ file 100-403529, serial #9, dated October 29, 1953:

"The files disclose that an investigation confined to contacts only with informants of the New York Office in 1950 was conducted concerning the National Council of Churches of Christ in America. No data was uncovered indicating any Communist or subversive action on the part of any persons affiliated with that organization."

The FBI did conclude that 5 "national officers have been affiliated with communist front organizations" but they were not members of the Communist Party nor was the Communist Party able to place anyone on the staff of the NCC.

SECOND DOCUMENT: 100-403529-306 = 2/24/60
One must understand something about FBI procedures in order to appreciate the significance of why the Bureau never conducted an official investigation of the NCC.
Here is the official explanation from a February 1960 FBI memo:

"Under our policy, we initiate investigation regarding Communist infiltration of any church group if the Communists have infiltrated the group in sufficient numbers to substantially influence or control the affiars of the group."

Ergo -- the FBI did not consider the NCC to be infiltrated sufficiently to warrant their concern.

Finally, also from the 1960 memo, a comment that you should read carefully. According to the FBI, the primary method by which Communists were able to secure "support" from clergymen was its...

"ability to obtain the names of clergymen and prominent church people on various types of petitions aimed at furthering some communist program. The Party carries out this program very subtly and most of the clergymen who sign such petitions are not aware that they are affixing their name to a communist-sponsored paper."

So whatever fear and suspicion you want to arouse should keep in mind that we are talking primarily about people who INNOCENTLY sign petitions!

THIRD DOCUMENT:
100-403529-415 - July 27, 1962

In my original message I referred to a footnote in Sullivan's speech which contained a reference to a March 1960 FBI summary on the extent of success Communists had in infiltrating/influencing clergy or religious organizations. This 1962 memo updates the 1960 report and it is based upon reports from all of its field offices for the period January 1960 through June 1962:

"The Party in carrying out its mass organization program continues to urge its members to join and infiltrate church groups, but for the most part, it has not been able to infiltrate any of our religious institutions to the extent it exerts any control over its policies. The Party continued to secure some support from some of the clergy in lending their names or signing petitions either knowingly or unknowingly, on various issues such as peace, disarmament, civil rights, et cetera."

The memo goes on to observe that the Communist Party mailed out literature to numerous clergymen in an effort to "influence their thinking on the issues involved". However, the FBI's conclusion was: "However, compared with the thousands of clergymen in the United States today, the number which the CP is able to 'dupe' or otherwise secure support from is a very small percent."

The concluding paragraph of the memo summarizes everything known from its investigations and general monitoring of Communist activity:

"All in all, the situation has not changed materially since our last analysis in March 1960. The anaysis at that time disclosed (1) the CP had a program aimed at attempting to infiltrate religious organizations in the United States; (2) CP members has been instructed to join churches and church groups in an attempt to influence church members along communist lines and (3) what little success the Party had in the religious field was its ability to secure the support of some clergymen, either knowingly or unknowingly in signing pettitions and lending their names in support of communist causes."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.