Vatican Makes Peace With Beatles? Context for the Comment attributed to the Vatican story ** Headline: Vatican Makes Peace With Beatles?**

If you google Vatican and Beatles, you will get so many news stories saying the Vatican has approved the Beatles. This is nonsense. So here’s another chance for me to bash the Beatles.

I learned my lesson thinking the L’Osservatore Romano can be depended upon to report solid newspaper stories. Check out my previous thread on this topic here: Vatican’s Top Ten Songs; it’s where I learned a good lesson on this newspaper.

It’s been reported that L’Osservatore Romano has, in the past, wrote on matters that were and are opposed to official Vatican teachings. My warning to you is to treat the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper with extreme caution. It does not speak for the Vatican!!!

It is highly unlikely the Vatican agrees with the opinion of this newspaper. While the Beatles will be remembered for their transformation of the Rock’n’Roll world; to even suggest “Their beautiful melodies, still gives us emotions and live on like precious jewels” is really the opinion of the writer of that article, Giovanni Maria Vian. He does not speak for me when he uses the word “us”. He also does not speak for the Vatican.

Many artists write and record songs and will go on record saying they like to leave the meanings up to the listener to interpret their songs any which way they want to. In other words, the meaning of a song’s lyrics is in the ear of the beholder so that anyone can interpret lyrics in their own way. They do this because they can sell more records that way.

An artist has 3 options when presenting their work (1. Explain its true meaning, 2. Don’t say anything about the work, 3. Lie about it so as to hide its true meaning). Be careful when the artist uses option 2 or 3. Don’t get get “brainwashed” in the cases where the message from the artist is an “anti-christ” one. Which is what a lot of Rock’n’Roll artists like to do. Many many song lyrics are cryptic. In order to get the true meaning, many times you have to examine the kind of lives the artist leads and what their belief mechanisms are.

For example, one night, John Lennon pissed on church-goers, inlcuding catholic nuns, from the balcony of a Hamburg apartment. I can go on on things like this, but can he be forgiven, yes he can. But as probabilities go, the music John created will tend reflect an anti-christian belief. In order to sell this belief, a real good con job had to be implemented, otherwise nobody would buy the records.

The Beatles did admire Alister Crowley whose motto was “do your own thing” or “if it feels good do it” or using his own words “do what though wilt”.

So lets take a song called “LET IT BE” by the Beatles. For me, that song is a tribute to Alister Crowley. For Giovanni Maria Vian, it means something else ,otherwise he wouldn’t be praising Beatles music (unless he’s a satanist). You can visit to see how other people interprest the song “Let It Be”. You will see many different versions.

Enough said.

Lucky for us, Paul McCartney explained the meaning of Let it Be. His mother’s name was Mary, thus the lines that say “Mother Mary comes to me…”

From Paul McCartney
“One night during this tense time I had a dream I saw my mum, who’d been dead ten years or so. And it was great to see her because that’s a wonderful thing about dreams, you actually are reunited with that person for a second… In the dream she said, ‘It’ll be alright.’ I’m not sure if she used the words ‘Let it be’ but that was the gist of her advice, it was ‘Don’t worry too much, it will turn out okay.’ It was such a sweet dream I woke up thinking, ‘Oh, it was really great to visit with her again.’ I felt very blessed to have that dream.”

I also don’t see anything wrong with an artist leaving their lyrics up to interpretation rather than explain them directly. I write poetry and songs, and I would rather people take from my lyrics what fits their lives and is meaningful for them. Also, sometimes one writes a poem or song (or creates other art) to deal with a very painful personal situation, and maybe they don’t want to share that with the world.

This looks like another news story concocted by the secular News Media to try and make the Vatican look silly:

Actually, the only comment I able to find on the internet from the Vatican in 1966 about this matter is a sentence of rather mild criticism, which is never related in any of the current news stories.

There were many people and different organizations, including secular radio stations and a Baptist minister from Cleveland, who criticized John Lennon when he made his remark in 1966.

*From the Beatles Timeline:

"July 29, 1966 . . . Also enforced was a radio ban on Beatle records that was started by a Birmingham, Alabama D.J. The ban picked up momentum by other radio stations in the southern Bible belt. By August 6, thirty US radio stations have banned all Beatles records from airplay.

World reaction to John’s remarks:

South Africa: Piet Myer of the South African Broadcasting Corporation temporarily banned Beatles records from being played and noted that “The Beatles arrogance has passed the ultimate limit of decency. It is clowning no longer.”

Spain: Three radio stations immediately bans the airing Beatle records.

Holland: One radio station bans the airing of Beatle records.

**The Vatican **had a somewhat different view on Lennon’s remarks: John’s remarks were made "off-handedly and not impiously…the protest the remark raised showed that some subjects must not be dealt with lightly and in a profane way, not even in the world of beatniks."

That is all I can find the Vatican said about Lennon’s remark in 1966.


You see how the secular News Media distorts the facts, tries to make it seem like the Vatican issued some sort of ban on Beatles music in 1966, or had a 40 year feud with the Beatles, when the Vatican never did.

The secular News Media doesn’t mention that their colleagues at 30 U.S. radio stations banned the playing of Beatles’ music in 1966, or the record burning and destruction of Beatle memorabilia that took place in the south.

This current News Media story is a piece of Anti-Vatican and Anti-Catholic propaganda.

Notice in all versions of this current news story, none of the stories by the Mainstream Media attempt to explain or refresh our memories exactly what the Vatican said about the Beatles in 1966.

It looks like the secular News Media can get people to believe whatever they want about the Vatican and Catholicism.

Yep, and not to mention that articles in L’Osservatore Romano are usually not official Vatican pronouncements.

Moreover, the this story was done 18 months ago, when L’Osservatore Romano ran a similar article.

Actually during the whole hoopla and boycott back in the 60’s when John Lennon made the “bigger than Jesus” comment, the Catholic Church kept quiet. I think it was only last year, it made the first public statement about it which was basically they were young kids with talent who might have been a little mis-guided when making a comment like that. It took them 40 years to say anything. Contrarty to popular belief, the Church does not issue a statement on every little thing.

The AP quoting L’Osservatore Romano all over the place this week as though it were speaking for the Church is just an attempt to make the Church look stupid right now I think.

Anwyho, the Beatles were quite anti-Christian. John Lennon did in fact pee on nuns and church-goers from his balcony on Sunday mornings and threw condoms at them. They were heavily influenced by Mr. Crowley and the occult. They also pushed an agenda of religious relativism. They were no fans of Jesus, lets just put it that way.

I understand this is not really on point of the original post, but the “bigger than Jesus” quote by John Lennon was greatly misunderstood and taken out of context. If you watch and listen to the entire interaction, he was clearly talking about how amazed he was at the band’s success. One might even sense humility at the way expressed his surprise and amazement at his popularity.

He was talking about the sheer popularity of the Beatles, how many people all over the world knew about them, and he made a (arguably moderately) hyperbolic comparison to the popularity of Jesus. He picked Jesus as an example of a person of extremely high global reknown. He meant no comparison of greatness or other qualities. To me at lesst, it was clear by his tone that it was as if he had said, shaking his head in amazament “this is just nuts how popular we have become.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit