What do you think?
Rate this book
The FBI and the Berrigans;: The making of a conspiracy,
Book by Nelson, Jack
317 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1972
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 29, 2022
In their book, Jack Nelson and Ronald Ostrow try to chronicle the FBI's attempts to stop Daniel and Philip Berrigan from engaging in nonviolent activism, such as the plot to convict the priests for allegedly planning to kidnap Henry Kissinger. I found Nelson and Ostrow's work insufficiently informative, as compared to books that do not focus on, but mention, the brothers' problems with the FBI, and there is also an instance of incorrect analysis in it, which Daniel himself criticized.
No narrative about the brothers seems to be complete without at least a page dedicated to their father, Tom Berrigan, who was, according to Daniel, tyrannical, angry, and excessively controlling, not accepting anyone who refused to succumb to his will. Daniel especially took the brunt of his father's abuse because, unlike his brothers, he was a house boy, who stood inside to help his mother, and liked to read – two things that Tom, deeply insecure, shamed him for. This is why Daniel came to harbor a strong dislike for his father, so strong that even Philip, who shared his sentiment, worried that it had turned into an obsession.
Going by the words of the brothers and those of their family's acquaintances, I would have to agree with every Berrigan biographer out there that Tom's influence on his sons was huge and enduring. This is where Nelson and Ostrow get the rest of the story wrong, though. They argue that Daniel and Philip's unswerving resistance to violence and illegitimate authority was inspired by experiences from their childhood, when they had united to resist the aggressive outburts of their father, the "old pirate" as Daniel called him. In the authors' defense, it seems that many biographers have been tempted to reach such a conclusion because this is not the first time that I read that those who want to understand the revolutionary priests should look no further than their experiences in early life.
However, Daniel disagreed. Regarding Nelson and Ostrow's claim in particular, he said that it was "interesting," but "it's a lot of bullshit." He did not want his life's work to be reduced to some form of psychological compensation for an unhappy childhood. Witnessing his father's expressions of anger was a formative experience for him and Philip, one that made them understand how invisible people's suffering could be, but their decision to engage in nonviolent resistance was not influenced by Tom.
This flawed understanding of the brothers aside, the narrative is mediocre in terms of analysis of the impact that the FBI's clash with Philip and Daniel had on the Catholic Left and their nonviolent resistance. The authors seem to have been so focused on writing a story that reads like an engaging novel – which they have succeeded to do – that they have forgotten to discuss the more important aspects of the Harrisburg trial, the Kissinger kidnapping, and the conviction of the two priests and their partners in crime. The fact that the FBI's intervention ruined the Catholics' resistance, taking away their motivation to continue to be involved in the protest movement, is not discussed, although the decline of the Catholic Left in the seventies was obvious. The authors wrote their account in the wake of the Harrisburg trial. They could have been way more observant than they were.
THE FBI AND THE BERRIGANS is a work that I have little more to say about. It is written like a long newspaper article, whose main objective is to entertain the reader. It lacks the depth of analysis and research needed to write about the topic of the Catholic protesters and the FBI. This book is not worth the read if you are familiar with other sources on the subject.
No narrative about the brothers seems to be complete without at least a page dedicated to their father, Tom Berrigan, who was, according to Daniel, tyrannical, angry, and excessively controlling, not accepting anyone who refused to succumb to his will. Daniel especially took the brunt of his father's abuse because, unlike his brothers, he was a house boy, who stood inside to help his mother, and liked to read – two things that Tom, deeply insecure, shamed him for. This is why Daniel came to harbor a strong dislike for his father, so strong that even Philip, who shared his sentiment, worried that it had turned into an obsession.
Going by the words of the brothers and those of their family's acquaintances, I would have to agree with every Berrigan biographer out there that Tom's influence on his sons was huge and enduring. This is where Nelson and Ostrow get the rest of the story wrong, though. They argue that Daniel and Philip's unswerving resistance to violence and illegitimate authority was inspired by experiences from their childhood, when they had united to resist the aggressive outburts of their father, the "old pirate" as Daniel called him. In the authors' defense, it seems that many biographers have been tempted to reach such a conclusion because this is not the first time that I read that those who want to understand the revolutionary priests should look no further than their experiences in early life.
However, Daniel disagreed. Regarding Nelson and Ostrow's claim in particular, he said that it was "interesting," but "it's a lot of bullshit." He did not want his life's work to be reduced to some form of psychological compensation for an unhappy childhood. Witnessing his father's expressions of anger was a formative experience for him and Philip, one that made them understand how invisible people's suffering could be, but their decision to engage in nonviolent resistance was not influenced by Tom.
This flawed understanding of the brothers aside, the narrative is mediocre in terms of analysis of the impact that the FBI's clash with Philip and Daniel had on the Catholic Left and their nonviolent resistance. The authors seem to have been so focused on writing a story that reads like an engaging novel – which they have succeeded to do – that they have forgotten to discuss the more important aspects of the Harrisburg trial, the Kissinger kidnapping, and the conviction of the two priests and their partners in crime. The fact that the FBI's intervention ruined the Catholics' resistance, taking away their motivation to continue to be involved in the protest movement, is not discussed, although the decline of the Catholic Left in the seventies was obvious. The authors wrote their account in the wake of the Harrisburg trial. They could have been way more observant than they were.
THE FBI AND THE BERRIGANS is a work that I have little more to say about. It is written like a long newspaper article, whose main objective is to entertain the reader. It lacks the depth of analysis and research needed to write about the topic of the Catholic protesters and the FBI. This book is not worth the read if you are familiar with other sources on the subject.
February 13, 2023
AN EXCELLENT ACCOUNT OF FBI ACTIONS UNDER HOOVER
Journalists Jack Nelson and Ronald J. Ostrow wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “criticism of [J. Edgar] Hoover and the FBI… [was] extremely embarrassing to a man who still had strong official support and a loyal public following. Perhaps nothing had been more embarrassing than the actions of the Berrigan brothers---Philip, a Josephite, and Daniel, a Jesuit. The priests were vociferous theorists and the most dramatic practitioners of a loosely knit group of radicals, mostly Roman Catholics, who destroyed draft board records and engage in other acts of civil disobedience to protest American involvement in the Vietnam war… Members of the Catholic Resistance prided themselves on individual acts of conscience and while they admired the Berrigans, they considered neither them nor anyone else to be leaders per se… Both Berrigans were now serving time for destroying draft board records… Daniel had managed to elude agents as a fugitive from the Catonsville case for more than four months. Daniel had taunted the FBI by giving underground interviews, popping up at hurriedly called press conferences, making impromptu speeches at small gatherings, and once escaping from the clutches of scores of agents at Cornell University. In one of the interviews, he referred to FBI agents as ‘Keystone Kops.’” (Pg. 14-15)
They report: “Sister Elizabeth McAlister… a New York nun whose close personal relationship with Philip Berrigan included discussions of possible marriage. The clandestine plotting of antiwar activities seemed to thrill her; she wrote of come of the plans in grandiose terms in letters smuggled into prison for Philip Berrigan. Some of her friends thought that in her extreme dedication to the Resistance they discerned an urge to project a Joan of Arc image.” (Pg. 20-21)
They suggest, “A leading theory of American Catholic super-patriotism had it that members of the faith expressed their loyalty to country so positively because of hostility and suspicion from Protestants who dominated the American scene. The church’s ‘just war’ doctrine… permitted Christians to fight inhabitants of another country if certain restrictive conditions were met… members of the faith rarely sought exemption from religious service as conscientious objectors… Through World War II, the American church hierarchy gave no support to Catholics who questioned the morality of war… against this backdrop, the Berrigan brothers’ proclaiming the Vietnam war to be evil … offended the state as well as a sizable segment of their church. The Berrigans, to be sure, were not the first American Catholic pacifists…” (Pg. 34)
They recount, “Daniel was ordained in 1952, and the next year the Jesuits sent him to France for a year’s study. There… he was exhilarated by the French worker-priest movement. The priests of that movement … spurred the workers on in their quest for better pay and working conditions. The worker-priests, Berrgan later wrote, ‘gave me… a practical version of the church as she should be.’ But the worker-priests stepped on too many toes to suit Rome..” (Pg. 42)
They report that in 1967, “the Berrigan-led protesters turned their attention to … destruction of government property… they settled on destroying draft files. To heighten the symbolism, the destructive agent would be blood, the symbol of purity in the Catholic faith. Some of Philip’s associated … counseled against the tactic. They reasoned that the symbolism would be missed---if not resented---by most persons, and that the participants would likely be imprisoned, removing them from the ranks of peace activists. Philip and his three colleagues would not be turned back.” (Pg. 50)
Daniel declined to report to prison, and “FBI frustration over the failure to capture Daniel Berrigan was
made all the more acute by the post-priest’s frequent interviews and articles in newspapers and magazines while he was on the run… The bureau, which has a large percentage of Roman Catholic agents, found such a gibe from a fugitive Jesuit priest especially grating.” (Pg. 64-65)
Sister McAlister wrote in a letter smuggled to Philip in prison, “To kidnap---in our terminology make a citizen’s arrest of---someone like Henry Kissinger. Him because of his influence as policy maker and yet sans cabinet status…” (Pg. 116) [The suggestion was probably not proposed seriously, nor as another suggestion she made about an escape attempt.]
During their 1972 trial, “The defendants were forever hugging and kissing friends attending the trial, to the irritation of traditional Catholics … early to arrive, as usual, were Philip Berrigan and Elizabeth McAlister, sitting side-by-side facing the jury across the room… The deep affection there was obvious… Some of the defendants’ supporters had expressed fear that the jury might be prejudiced by the sight of a priest and a nun on such personal terms… But that never inhibited Father Berrigan and Sister McAlister.” (Pg. 223)
Ultimately, the jury found Philip and Sister McAlister guilty of smuggling letters, but “the jury was hopeless deadlocked on the principal charge of conspiracy and on the counts charging Father Berrigan and Sister McAlister with sending a threatening letter. Judge Herman declared a mistrial on those counts… It was a bitter end for J Edgar Hoover’s great kidnap-bombing case. Even … William F. Buckley Jr…. called it ‘the greatest federal fizzle of recent years.’” (Pg. 295)
They state, “Not all of the blame for the Berrigan case rests with the government, of course. The Catholic left[‘s] … protest actions … did violence to a system of government that could only function if its citizens obeyed the law. Philip and Daniel Berrigan … who fled rather than surrender after their court appeals ran out … helped create a climate that would encourage Hoover to overreact. Refusing to accept punishment for their illegal act of protest violated an established precept of civil disobedience, as practiced by Thoreau and Gandhi and King.” (Pg. 304)
They conclude, “History probably will record the Berrigan case as one of the fallouts of the nation’s involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the conflict produced a degree of prolonged resistance to government authority surpassed only by the Civil War… But in the Berrigan case, there was a special lesson: So powerful had the director of the FBI become that the President of the United States … chose to ignore Hoover’s blatant violation of the Bill of Rights… When a nation that prides itself on being a system of laws---not men---permits itself to be so corrupted, the portents are ominous.” (Pg. 306)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Berrigans and the Catholic Peace movement, Vietnam protests, and the FBI under Hoover.
Journalists Jack Nelson and Ronald J. Ostrow wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “criticism of [J. Edgar] Hoover and the FBI… [was] extremely embarrassing to a man who still had strong official support and a loyal public following. Perhaps nothing had been more embarrassing than the actions of the Berrigan brothers---Philip, a Josephite, and Daniel, a Jesuit. The priests were vociferous theorists and the most dramatic practitioners of a loosely knit group of radicals, mostly Roman Catholics, who destroyed draft board records and engage in other acts of civil disobedience to protest American involvement in the Vietnam war… Members of the Catholic Resistance prided themselves on individual acts of conscience and while they admired the Berrigans, they considered neither them nor anyone else to be leaders per se… Both Berrigans were now serving time for destroying draft board records… Daniel had managed to elude agents as a fugitive from the Catonsville case for more than four months. Daniel had taunted the FBI by giving underground interviews, popping up at hurriedly called press conferences, making impromptu speeches at small gatherings, and once escaping from the clutches of scores of agents at Cornell University. In one of the interviews, he referred to FBI agents as ‘Keystone Kops.’” (Pg. 14-15)
They report: “Sister Elizabeth McAlister… a New York nun whose close personal relationship with Philip Berrigan included discussions of possible marriage. The clandestine plotting of antiwar activities seemed to thrill her; she wrote of come of the plans in grandiose terms in letters smuggled into prison for Philip Berrigan. Some of her friends thought that in her extreme dedication to the Resistance they discerned an urge to project a Joan of Arc image.” (Pg. 20-21)
They suggest, “A leading theory of American Catholic super-patriotism had it that members of the faith expressed their loyalty to country so positively because of hostility and suspicion from Protestants who dominated the American scene. The church’s ‘just war’ doctrine… permitted Christians to fight inhabitants of another country if certain restrictive conditions were met… members of the faith rarely sought exemption from religious service as conscientious objectors… Through World War II, the American church hierarchy gave no support to Catholics who questioned the morality of war… against this backdrop, the Berrigan brothers’ proclaiming the Vietnam war to be evil … offended the state as well as a sizable segment of their church. The Berrigans, to be sure, were not the first American Catholic pacifists…” (Pg. 34)
They recount, “Daniel was ordained in 1952, and the next year the Jesuits sent him to France for a year’s study. There… he was exhilarated by the French worker-priest movement. The priests of that movement … spurred the workers on in their quest for better pay and working conditions. The worker-priests, Berrgan later wrote, ‘gave me… a practical version of the church as she should be.’ But the worker-priests stepped on too many toes to suit Rome..” (Pg. 42)
They report that in 1967, “the Berrigan-led protesters turned their attention to … destruction of government property… they settled on destroying draft files. To heighten the symbolism, the destructive agent would be blood, the symbol of purity in the Catholic faith. Some of Philip’s associated … counseled against the tactic. They reasoned that the symbolism would be missed---if not resented---by most persons, and that the participants would likely be imprisoned, removing them from the ranks of peace activists. Philip and his three colleagues would not be turned back.” (Pg. 50)
Daniel declined to report to prison, and “FBI frustration over the failure to capture Daniel Berrigan was
made all the more acute by the post-priest’s frequent interviews and articles in newspapers and magazines while he was on the run… The bureau, which has a large percentage of Roman Catholic agents, found such a gibe from a fugitive Jesuit priest especially grating.” (Pg. 64-65)
Sister McAlister wrote in a letter smuggled to Philip in prison, “To kidnap---in our terminology make a citizen’s arrest of---someone like Henry Kissinger. Him because of his influence as policy maker and yet sans cabinet status…” (Pg. 116) [The suggestion was probably not proposed seriously, nor as another suggestion she made about an escape attempt.]
During their 1972 trial, “The defendants were forever hugging and kissing friends attending the trial, to the irritation of traditional Catholics … early to arrive, as usual, were Philip Berrigan and Elizabeth McAlister, sitting side-by-side facing the jury across the room… The deep affection there was obvious… Some of the defendants’ supporters had expressed fear that the jury might be prejudiced by the sight of a priest and a nun on such personal terms… But that never inhibited Father Berrigan and Sister McAlister.” (Pg. 223)
Ultimately, the jury found Philip and Sister McAlister guilty of smuggling letters, but “the jury was hopeless deadlocked on the principal charge of conspiracy and on the counts charging Father Berrigan and Sister McAlister with sending a threatening letter. Judge Herman declared a mistrial on those counts… It was a bitter end for J Edgar Hoover’s great kidnap-bombing case. Even … William F. Buckley Jr…. called it ‘the greatest federal fizzle of recent years.’” (Pg. 295)
They state, “Not all of the blame for the Berrigan case rests with the government, of course. The Catholic left[‘s] … protest actions … did violence to a system of government that could only function if its citizens obeyed the law. Philip and Daniel Berrigan … who fled rather than surrender after their court appeals ran out … helped create a climate that would encourage Hoover to overreact. Refusing to accept punishment for their illegal act of protest violated an established precept of civil disobedience, as practiced by Thoreau and Gandhi and King.” (Pg. 304)
They conclude, “History probably will record the Berrigan case as one of the fallouts of the nation’s involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the conflict produced a degree of prolonged resistance to government authority surpassed only by the Civil War… But in the Berrigan case, there was a special lesson: So powerful had the director of the FBI become that the President of the United States … chose to ignore Hoover’s blatant violation of the Bill of Rights… When a nation that prides itself on being a system of laws---not men---permits itself to be so corrupted, the portents are ominous.” (Pg. 306)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Berrigans and the Catholic Peace movement, Vietnam protests, and the FBI under Hoover.
December 4, 2018
Off the pigs.
November 21, 2021
If Jack Nelson is still writing, someone needs to tell him not to include the entire text of letters and criminal statutes in his books
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews