The Catonsville Nine File
About the siteAbout the collections
HomeThe planning and consequences of the Catonsville Nine actionThe trial of the Catonsville NineHistorical context of the Catonsville Nine actionProfiles of the Catonsville NineBrowse the collections
Letter from Philip Berrigan to Jim, December 2, 1967

Previous 2 / 3 Next
Letter from Philip Berrigan to Jim, December 2, 1967
View larger version of imageDivision of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library
Collection: Cornell University Library
Date: 1967-12-02
Date of Digitization: 2004
Source: Daniel and Philip Berrigan Collection at the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library
Original Dimensions: ?
Creator: Berrigan, Philip, 1923-2002
In the letter, probably to James Forest (one of the leaders of FOR and CPF), Philip Berrigan refers to the differences between the antiwar actions taken by himself and Daniel Berrigan, among others, and those of Fellowship of Reconcilliation and Catholic Peace Fellowship. He calls actions of both of the organizations as timid, over cautious and ineffective, in contrast to those taken by himself and his brother, where personal sacrifice, risk and suffering were required. He states that in these times only decisive protests are heard and taken into account, not the reluctant ones. He withdraws his support to both of the organizations.

be building their broad base as the Bombs come in. I will refuse to 
indict anyone's conscience, but I don't have to cheer their work, which 
seems to me safe, unimaginative, staffish and devoid of risk or suffer-

As Dan told Tom (and I agree) we have been led to different roads, ones 
which seem to us more at grips with this awful war and the insanity 
of our country. To stop this war I would give my life tomorrow, and 
I cannot be blamed if I have little time for those who want to run 
ads in the N.Y Times or deal with CRS. Both Dan and I are seriously 
dealing with clergymen and laymen, professionals and family people 
who have come to the point of civil disobedience and the prospect of 
jail, and are even foundering with convictions beyond that point. 
As Johnson continues to have his war, and that means the probabability 
of invading North Vietnam, we will either witness from jail, or we 
will go ahead with social disruption, including non-violent attacks 
against the machinery of this war. Naturally, I will identify with 
people willing to go this far.

In a word, I believe in revolution, and I hope to continue a non-
violent contribution to it. In my view, we are not going to save this 
country and mankind without it. And I centrally concerned with the 
Gospel view that the massive suffering of this war and American im-
perialism around the world will only be confronted by people who 
are willing to go with suffering as the first move to justice.

If George Mische developes this tack, I will help him- if he does not, 
I won't. There are too many other people to work with who will.

As I have said, I'm reluctant to hurt my friends- people to whom I 
have incalculable debts. But obviously, this is not always a service, 
and perhaps this is one occasion when it is not. I will continue to 
respect your conscience whatever the course you take. But it may not 
be my own, and it is most certainly not at the present. And if your 
conscience remains largely at variance with my own, while continuing 
to dominate CPF policy (as it must) then it would be inconsistent 
and false to continue using my name. In short, I don't support CPF 
policy now, so why say that I do on the letterhead.