EX POSURE OF ZIONIST LEADERS
Feeney’s newsletter was one of the few voices that continued to speak out against Zionism: “[A]lthough the Jewish power of Communism has been quantitively a greater oppressor of the church—having killed more priests and desecrated more altars— the Jewish power of Zionism has hit the church at the very core by seizing and profaning the one land which above all others is the Holy Land.” (25)

The September 1959 issue gives a brief summary of the four leading figures of modern Zionism and their most vicious actions and statements against Christianity, beginning with Moses Hess (1812-1875). Hess is credited with launching the movement with the publication of his book Rome and Jerusalem. A German-born Jew, Hess openly attacked Catholicism writing, “Papal Rome symbolizes to the Jews an inexhaustible well of poison.”

He argued that ever since the French Revolution, Rome had been in decline, and it is the Jews’ task to substitute Jerusalem (under Jewish control) for Christianity which will “finally [be] replaced among the regenerated nations by a new historical cult. To this coming cult, Judaism alone holds the key.” (26) The “regenerated nations” referred to are the former countries that once comprised Christendom which, for Hess, will be Judaized in the years to come.

Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) was a Hungarian-born Jewish writer whose primary role was as propagandist for the Zionist cause among Western Jews who were initially skeptical of the idea because of their own growing acceptance and upward mobility in European societies which they did not want to upset.

“Herzl,” wrote The Point, “was the capable calculator who brought order to the Zionist frenzy … and gave permanent direction to the Jewish resurgence by advocating the immediate establishment of a self-governing Jewish state.” (27)

That Herzl was able to gain an audience with a number of European sovereigns and also the Turkish sultan shows the extent that Jewish influence and power had grown. He even got a meeting with Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914) to discuss the matter.

In a famous exchange between the pope and the Zionist leader, Herzl recounts the pope’s unfavorable reaction to Zionist aspirations:

We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to
Jerusalem but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not
always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ.

As the head of the church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized
our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people. (28)

Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952) was a chemist born in Belarus which then was part of the Russian Empire. From ages four to eleven, he attended a traditional Jewish primary school and later, to support himself, taught Hebrew at an Orthodox boarding school. He moved to Berlin in 1892 and joined a cadre of influential Zionists.

It was Weizmann who took up the mantle of Herzl and, after settling in Great Britain, was instrumental in the promulgation of the Balfour Declaration which granted Zionist concessions in the Holy Land after WWI:

It was Weizmann’s task to acquaint the British government with Jewish designs on the
Holy Land. In exchange for an official smile on these Zionist ambitions, Weizmann
could promise that his race— its financiers, presidential advisors, newspaper publishers
and all— would join whole-heartedly in helping Britain win the war. (29)

Weizmann settled in Palestine in 1918 as head of the Zionist Commission, which pushed Jewish settlement and land acquisition. While immigration increased the Jewish population to about half of the total number of people living in Palestine before the Zionist takeover in 1948, Jewish ownership of land remained at only about 6% of available property.

While it was hoped by Zionist leaders that WWI would “do the trick” in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, a second global conflagration “was needed to bring the Jews’ otherwise unthinkable scheme to perfection.”

After the conclusion of WWII, Weizmann went to Washington to get U.S. support. President Truman, “defying all protocol, accorded this infant monstrosity official United States recognition” within minutes after the Zionist leaders announced the formation of the Jewish state. Truman would later admit:

I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as
I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated
by political motives and engaging political threats— disturbed me and annoyed me. (30)

David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) was another Eastern European who would become known as “Israel’s Founding Father.” Ben-Gurion displayed an interest in Zionism at an early age and immigrated to Palestine in 1906 and quickly became involved in Zionist activities.

Ben-Gurion became Israel’s first prime minister from 1948 to 1954, resigning in 1954 only to come back in 1955 to serve until 1963. Under his murderous regime, Ben-Gurion oversaw the massacre of Arabs, their forced displacement from their ancestral homeland and the confiscation of those lands by Israelis.

In 1958, The Point aptly described this Jewish henchman:

As effective head of the Jewish state, Ben-Gurion represents the fulfillment of Hess,
Herzl and Weizmann; the achievement of Zionist victory. He is the symbol of Jewry
on its own—the crucifiers of Christ free at last of Christian standards and surveillance.

How alien the Jews are to those standards, their 10 years of sovereignty have enabled
them to show. (31)

Prior to becoming prime minister, Ben Gurion was active in the mayhem that took place in Palestine right before the British were set to leave and abandon the Arabs and Christians to the Jewish zealots who were maniacally set on the establishment of the terrorist state of Israel:

The acts of Jewish terrorism that had marked the final months of the British Mandate
(when Jews were blowing up British buildings in Palestine, hanging British soldiers,
mailing time-bombs to members of the British Cabinet) seemed like mere schoolboy
pranks when the Jews went to work on the Arabs.

More than 1 million Arab residents of Palestine were forced to flee their ancestral homes
—the orchards, pastures and farms their people had worked [and owned] for centuries. (32)

The editors of The Point accurately predicted that once the Jews finished with their genocide of the Arabs, they would turn their diabolical sights on the Christians:

When Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s plans for the further expansion of the Jewish state
are realized (when international circumstances have been ordered to that end), there will
be a fresh field open to the Jews. And it will be open not only for additional confiscation
of Arab property, but for further desecration of Christian shrines and churches in those
parts of the Holy Land that the Jews do not yet control.(33)

PERVERSION
In his book After the Boston Heresy Case, Gary Potter speculates that another reason why the church wanted to get rid of Feeney was that he might have begun to expose the growing problem of sodomy and pedophilia that was taking place in the priesthood.

As more evidence has become available, sexual deviancy on a significant scale was in fact taking place in the church long before the scandals broke in Boston in 2003 under the disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law

It is ironic and no doubt providential that the very diocese that persecuted Feeney and the St. Benedict Center was where the church’s largest sex and embezzlement scandals broke, which continue to this very day.

In an exchange with one of his Jesuit supervisors to resolve the controversy, Feeney contended that it was more than his adherence to the salvation doctrine for which he was being persecuted. Because he had converted a goodly number of Harvard students, the priest believed that the school was “embarrassed” and began pressuring the Boston Catholic hierarchy to shut him and the St. Benedict Center down.

Feeney also voiced his displeasure with the Jesuits for allowing their priests to take classes at Harvard, where they were being taught, in Feeney’s words, by “atheists, Christ haters, Mary haters, Communists and sexual perverts.”34

Potter seems to think that his “sexual pervert” reference may have struck a chord with his Jesuit inquisitors, although there was never anything written down by Feeney about the subject. Anyone, however, who knew the priest understood that he found the practice of sodomy an abomination.

Furthermore, it is well known that, of all of the religious orders, the Jesuits had been the most rigorous and demanding in formation of their priests. That they allowed their clergy who were, in most cases, more learned than most of the Harvard faculty to be subjected to leftist propaganda demonstrates that the Society of Jesus had been infected with modernism long before the Second Vatican Council.

Sadly, since Vatican II, among the religious orders, the Jesuits have been the worst in promoting the LGBTQ+ agenda, demonstrating once again that Feeney’s concerns were not unwarranted.

THE WAR ON FEENEY
It is quite telling that church authorities, knowing that they had no doctrinal case against Feeney, employed similar verbiage that the Jews had been using to condemn the priest and the center. In a speech shortly before silencing the priest, Richard Cardinal Cushing, archbishop of Boston (1944-1970), laid the groundwork for his later action:

I cannot understand any Catholic who has prejudice whatsoever against a Jew or other
non-Catholic. If there is any Catholic organization harboring such prejudices, I will
assume responsibility of remedying it. A Catholic cannot harbor animosity against
men, women and children of another creed, nationality or color. (35)

After the “official” ruling on Feeney came down, the use of such weaponized words took center stage in the church’s war against the priest. It is interesting to note that the same Cardinal Cushing was a one-time “Man of the Year” of the B’nai B’rith and was close to the family of his sister’s husband, who was Jewish, and, to show his ecumenical spirit, once boasted that he had “never made a convert in his life.”36

At the time of Feeney’s dismissal in 1949, three teachers at Boston College affiliated with the St. Benedict Center were fired. The president of the college, Rev. William L. Kelecher, S.J., in a statement to the Boston Evening Post, said that the three “continued to speak in class and out” promoting “ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance.” The statement continued: “Their doctrine is erroneous and, as such, could not be tolerated at Boston College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.”37

The above quote from Kelecher is just one of the many displays of hypocrisy, distortions, calumnies and outright lies told by the church in its battle with Feeney. While Kelecher was charging the teachers with being “intolerant” on the one hand, he was, nevertheless, relieving them of their duties because their position could not be tolerated. What happened to open debate and acceptance of all views? Did the three teachers not have a right to express their opinions in the new ecumenical climate?

It is the duty of the church’s hierarchy to protect their flocks spiritually from the wolves seeking to devour them. It is clear that post-WWII Catholicism has failed in this duty and has, in fact, willingly allowed and actually promoted the enemies of the faithful while, at the same time, it has condemned those such as Feeney who sought to guard the church’s doctrines and the faithful who follow them.

CONCLUSION
Besides his courage, what is remarkable about Feeney is that he saw, at a time when most Catholics believed the church was flourishing, the revolutionary forces underneath that were laying the groundwork to fundamentally change it and create a new institution with a different set of dogmas, disciplines and practices. The change could be seen most clearly with the new policy toward the Jews that would come into full fruition at Vatican II.

While Feeney gallantly pointed out these ominous trends, he did not act out of hate or intolerance, as many of his enemies alleged. Instead, he sought the conversion of the Jews as the church had done for 2,000 years. Conversion could never be accomplished through interfaith get-togethers or watered- down doctrines, but a transformation of the heart and soul.