Cross-published from Firebranded.fm

Can you spot the lie from this false prophet? Let's see, and we'll deconstruct it 'together':

Did you spot it? What’s wrong with that statement?

It starts out sounding great. Very Catholic! The clarity and boldness might seem refreshing. Grounding. Even motivating. It may even make you question why priests and bishops in the Church don’t talk like this anymore.

The boldness and clarity are something we really do need to see return to the Catholic experience, but let’s put that aside for now. When you see a quote like that and feel “This is how Catholicism should sound” it begins the rift—the point when you question the state and credibility of the Catholic Church and its magisterium today.

“Traditionalism” begins to look like the real Catholicism, or Catholicism-without-error. It may not happen after one quote, but quote after quote after quote after shoddy theology on top of shoddy rhetoric, eventually a person who doesn’t know what they’re hearing begins to crack, and thus begins a shift to traditionalism.

But there is an error and a lie in that quote. Did you see what it was? Like most lies, it starts off with a truth. That’s how a lie gains credibility: by sounding believable. In this statement, ecumenism is truly not the mission of the Church. That is correct. The Church is indeed a missionary church. That is also correct, but the quote puts these two truths in opposition to each other.
It sets up a false opposition between ecumenism and mission, as though the Church has to choose one or the other.

Subscribe now

You can’t convert if you aren’t reaching out. How do you reach out without ecumenism? The trouble is that some in the Church have degraded ecumenism, have turned ecumenism into indifferentism, which indeed is counter-Catholic, but that was not the vision of the Second Vatican Council. Ecumenism isn’t supposed to go along to get along and leave people where we find them. Ecumenism is supposed to be a bridge to bring people to the truth, not a bridge to pay a visit and then come home. A bridge to bring people to the truth.

The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that authentic ecumenism is ordered toward unity in the truth, not toward indifferentism, relativism, or “everyone stays in the religion where they’re at. You’re fine. It’s all good.” In Catholic teaching, ecumenism and missionary activity are related, not contradictory.

That said, there is a legitimate concern underneath the quote that many traditional Catholics resonate with:

After the Council, in practice, some Catholics behaved as though ecumenism meant:

• never speaking about conversion,

• minimizing doctrinal differences,

• avoiding claims about the uniqueness of the Catholic Church,

• or treating reunion as mutual coexistence instead of unity in truth.

That practical distortion is real. But Lefebvre’s formulation overshoots by framing ecumenism itself as alien to the Church’s mission. A lie is a lie, no matter how it’s framed. But a Truth doesn’t remain a truth when a distortion forces it to mutate.

Stay alert, my friends. What I demonstrated here is happening everywhere in Catholic discourse. It’s more infectious than COVID. But you’ll never need to wear a mask at Fire Branded!

God bless you all.

There’s pattern in parts of the Church that has become an elephant in the room for me: Immense pastoral patience for Catholics publicly living in same-sex relationships, but visible suspicion toward apostolates like Courage International that actually encourage chastity and fidelity to Catholic teaching.

That’s a double standard, and a bad message to the faithful.

The latest example came this week, when Courage publicly rebuked a Vatican synodal study document for what it called a “false and unjust depiction” of the apostolate. The report included testimony from a man in a same-sex civil “marriage” who described Courage meetings as “secretive and hidden” and populated by people who were “lonely, hopeless, and often depressed.” Courage responded that confidentiality exists precisely so members can speak honestly and safely about deeply personal struggles.

What stands out isn’t just the criticism itself, but the asymmetry.

Stop scrolling for a second to subscribe to The Forge.

Subscribe now

For some time there’s been a visible eagerness in some ecclesial circles to emphasize accompaniment, affirmation, and dialogue with Catholics in openly irregular situations. Yet ministries that encourage chastity — not condemnation, not cruelty, but chastity — are often treated with suspicion, as though fidelity itself is somehow psychologically suspect and practically ridiculous.

• After the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family, Courage’s then-director Father Paul Check said there was “a voice that was not heard at that synod” — Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and are trying to live within Church teaching. They organized their own conference in Rome just to get that perspective into the room.

• When Outreach — a ministry that does not hold to the Church’s full teaching on homosexuality — held its conference at Georgetown, Pope Francis sent a warm letter of support and Cardinal Wilton Gregory presided at Mass. Courage held its own conference that same July. No papal letter. The local ordinary sent his regrets.

• Father James Martin was made a voting member of the Synod on Synodality. No one from Courage was. Sister Jeannine Gramick of New Ways Ministry — which openly dissents from Church teaching on homosexuality — received private letters of papal support. Courage did not

• Now a Vatican working group has taken one man’s negative personal experience and embedded it in an official document as a characterization of the entire apostolate — without a phone call, without fact-checking, without basic fairness.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. The pattern goes back years. We roll out the red carpet for so-called gay-friendly clerics and apostolate, while giving the shoulder to those who uphold Church teaching, and accompany same-sex attracted people to help them do the same.

Courage continues to receive support from many bishops and recently met personally with Pope Leo XIV, who reportedly encouraged the apostolate’s emphasis on chastity and holiness.

The deeper issue here is spiritual and pastoral.

The Church rightly teaches that every person possesses dignity and must be treated with compassion. But accompaniment can’t mean treating chastity as unrealistic, damaging, or oppressive. For Catholics experiencing same-sex attraction, chastity is not hatred. It is the same universal call to holiness placed upon every Christian according to his state in life.

And ministries helping people carry that cross faithfully should not be treated like an embarrassment within the Church.

For members of my inner circle, here’s a Fathers Know Best piece that’ll fire you up, and put a smile on your face, if you catch the humor in it.

St. Jerome is one of the most cited Church Fathers in Protestant apologetics, and it’s not hard to see why they reach for him. He preferred the Hebrew text over the Septuagint — though it should be noted that was his own scholarly opinion, and he deferred to Rome’s judgment without hesitation when it mattered. He had sharp words for bishops who deserved it, he took a hard stand against the laxity that had crept into the Church following the persecutions, and his willingness to challenge Church figures makes him look, at first glance, like a credible ally.

But Jerome didn’t sound anything like a Protestant. He thought like a Catholic, he wrote like a Catholic, and if anything, his letters are a direct admonishment of everything the Protestant reformers would later claim. Protestants are bold to bring Jerome into their corner at all — because in wrestling terms, he’s the tag team partner who waits for the right moment and then turns on his own “teammates” (the protestants appealing to him).

Let's get into some of Jerome's boldest admonitions and see how they actually apply

Read more

The SSPX is planning to consecrate new bishops on July 1 without a papal mandate— the same move that got them excommunicated in 1988. Rome offered dialogue. They said no. The showdown is coming upon us!

This has happened before. In 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—a French archbishop who had founded the SSPX in 1970 as a traditionalist seminary society in response to what he saw as the errors of Vatican II—consecrated four bishops without papal approval and against the express prohibition of Pope John Paul II. Rome called it schism, excommunications followed. It took twenty years and Pope Benedict’s intervention to begin unwinding that damage.

Now the SSPX is lining up to do it again. July 1. New bishops. No papal mandate (the canonical term for a specific authorization from the pope).

The announcement got Rome’s attention fast. Cardinal Fernández, the doctrine watchdog of the Church, summoned SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani to the Vatican. “Rome offered a path forward, but it would require a compromise from the SSPX. Cardinal Fernández summoned Pagliarani to the Vatican, and they met on February 12. If the SSPX agreed to postpone the July 1 consecrations, Rome was prepared to open renewed theological dialogue aimed at identifying the conditions for full communion. Six days later, on February 18, Ash Wednesday, Pagliarani’s rejection letter arrived.”

Subscribe now

Ash Wednesday. It’s either ironic or fitting depending on how you look at it. The Vatican’s response was unambiguous and unusually bold: proceeding without a papal mandate would constitute a “decisive rupture of ecclesial communion” (schism) with “grave consequences” for the society.

Under canon law, any bishop who consecrates without a papal mandate, and any bishop who receives that consecration, incurs automatic excommunication. No trial, no process. The act itself triggers the penalty.

The SSPX asserts they’re not in schism because they still believe everything the Church teaches. But that’s not how authority works. You don’t get to claim fidelity to the Church while openly defying the pope on a matter of ecclesial governance.

Here’s what frustrates me about this: there is a large segment of faithful, orthodox Catholics who have a soft spot for the SSPX. Some attend their Masses. Some read their publications. Some quietly cheer them on as a counterweight to the chaos in the broader Church. I understand that, I really do. But cheering for the SSPX right now isn’t cheering for tradition, it’s cheering for a group that’s about to fracture the Church.

We would never think of cheering for Martin Luther, we would never think of cheering for Arias, and we would never think of cheering for 1970s modernists. It doesn’t matter that Luther was wrong, that Arias was teaching heresy, or that the 1970s hippies were modernists. What they have in common that most deserves focus is this: They were each fracturing or attempting to fracture the Church.

Many people were on their side in each of those eras of Church history. We look back on it all now and see the error. It will be no different when we look back on this SSPX drama. The society is wrong. Their theological position is wrong, and their disobedience is wrong. A love for tradition should not make that pill easy to swallow. Poison that is sweet will still kill you, and it will still harm the mystical body of Christ.

Some things in the Church are frustrating and people are looking for a champion to set it all straight. But folks have to remember that’s what the Holy Spirit does. It’s His job. And he does that through people and through the Church’s mechanisms, but no tin a way that circumvents order and authority.

The SSPX is not a band of heroic resisters. They are a group that has spent decades operating outside of communion with Rome while insisting that’s not what they’re doing. July is coming. Either they pull back or they repeat 1988. Catholics who care about unity need to say that clearly, not after the fact but now.

The Vatican just published a letter, written in November 2024, in which the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith formally rejected a German bishops' proposal to introduce ritualized blessings for same-sex couples and other irregular unions.

The letter was signed by Cardinal Fernández, and it was more direct than we're used to seeing from the Vatican. What the German bishops were proposing crossed the line from pastoral flexibility into doctrinal legitimization. The DDF/Vatican caught it, and shot it down.

Here’s the part that surprises me, but probably shouldn’t: the German bishops went ahead anyway.

In October 2024, the German bishops sent Rome a vademecum — a practical reference handbook for priests — outlining how to perform blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples and couples in irregular unions. They were presenting it as a local application of Fiducia Supplicans, the 2023 Vatican declaration that had cautiously opened the door to blessings for irregular couples under specific conditions.

Subscribe now

Rome responded in November 2024 with a formal rejection. The vademecum, Cardinal Fernández wrote, crossed the line — what the Germans were proposing wasn’t a pastoral application of Fiducia Supplicans, it was a ritualized legitimization of unions the Church cannot sanction. Rather than comply, the German bishops revised the vademecum and brought it to a vote.

Then in April 2025 — days after Pope Francis died — they approved it under the title “Blessing Strengthens Love.” Rome’s response was unambiguous: the 2024 letter applied to the revised and approved vademecum as well. Nice try, German Bishops!

The Germans had made changes to the original vademecum, but those changes did not bring it into compliance, and Rome said so explicitly. Bishop Bätzing even claimed publicly that the Vatican had been consulted on its development. Cardinal Fernández contradicted that directly.

Germany didn’t just approve the vademecum and leave it on a shelf. Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising instructed priests and pastoral workers in his archdiocese to actively use it, and required any priest unwilling to perform the blessings to refer couples to another priest who would. It went a little further than that—Archdiocesan offices began scheduling training for clergy on how to carry out the ceremonies. The vademecum wasn’t a statement of intent. It was being implemented.

Is this pastoral disagreement? I’d say it’s closer to a regional church deciding that Rome’s authority applies to everyone except them when it’s inconvenient.

It’s funny how Rome speaks and some Catholics decide whether or not they want to comply. Real funny when that happens. 🤔

Watch Germany. Not because it’s a uniquely German problem — but because it’s a preview. The strategy is always the same: introduce the language, normalize the practice, and wait out the opposition.

Share your thoughts in the comments below. Is Germany on track for a hard schism, and make official the defiance they’ve put on display for years?

AFTERTHOUGHTS

For paid members of The Forge

Acts 15 is directly relevant to what is happening in Germany right now. The similarities are striking…

Read more

A few weeks ago I posted a video encouraging Catholics to pray in their native language rather than defaulting to Latin in private prayer. If you haven't seen that, check it out for reference

The responses were... instructive. Some of it was reasoned, but most of it concerned me. Because there was a lot of echo-chambering, a lot of emotion-over-reason, and a lot of reckless or sloppy “theologizing” that makes me wonder if Catholicism is still the “thinking man’s religion” anymore.

Quae vis Latinae??
(What power of Latin?)

Most of the pushback pointed to the same source: Father Chad Ripperger, and specifically his position that Latin carries a spiritual potency the vernacular simply doesn’t. I’m not sure I agree with that catechesis. But the comments didn’t help change my opinion, they confirmed it.

The claims in the comments ranged from “the demonic fear the language of Latin” to Satan himself having declared, during exorcisms, that he hates Latin. In other words, because those claims are purported to be true, they justify praying in Latin.

I think that logic is a little wonky, but apart from that, it rests on those claims about Latin being true. To me, the truth of those claims is debatable; so much so that I don’t accept them as truths but merely as possibilities.

But other Catholics are treating them like canon or even doctrine.

Read more

Some Catholics have a problematic fixation with Latin in Catholic life. A growing number of Catholics are convinced that Latin isn’t just traditional—it’s more powerful.
More effective. More spiritual. Even feared by demons.
In this Firebrand Brief, I break down the real problem behind the Latin obsession—and why so many of the arguments defending it don’t hold up.
This isn’t about attacking Latin.
This is about exposing bad theology, weak arguments, and a mindset that may actually be hurting your prayer life.
Because prayer isn’t about sounding holy.
It’s about actually connecting with God.
And for most of you… that’s not happening in Latin.

LINKS

👉 What have some saints said about this? Here's a short blog post:

CHAPTERS

00:00 Latin Prayer Debate Setup
03:25 Why Native Language Hits Home
09:25 Debunking Latin Power Claims
23:06 Debunking Latin Exorcism Claims
26:47 Chat Questions and Prayer Merit
32:05 Practical Prayer Tips and Wrap Up

This one comes out of some pushback I’ve been getting from listeners who were surprised to hear me suggest that praying in your native language matters — and that Latin alone may not be the best way to give God your whole heart.

Full Episode is on YouTube | Apple | Spotify | Many Others

There’s a moment most of us remember from childhood — your parent calling you by your full name. Not your nickname. Not a shortened version. Your full name. You knew immediately that something was different. The weight of it landed differently. Same person. Same name. Completely different effect.

Language does that. The words we’re formed in carry a weight that translations don’t. They’re not just sounds we recognize — they’re the sounds we think in, the sounds we feel in.

This is why, when it comes to prayer, it matters.

St. Teresa of Avila put it plainly in The Way of Perfection: “Vocal prayer must be accompanied by reflection. A prayer in which a person is not aware of whom he is speaking to, what he is asking, who it is who is asking and of whom, I don’t call prayer — however much the lips may move.”

She wasn’t making a rule about Latin versus the vernacular. She was making a point about what prayer actually is. If the words aren’t landing in you — if you’re not present to what you’re saying — you’re not really praying. You’re reciting.

St. Bonaventure made the same observation even more simply: “When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than the proceedings from the mouth.”

The voice of the heart. That’s the standard. And for most of us, the heart speaks in the language we grew up in. When I say Our Father, I mean it. Those words carry something — a relationship, a memory, a weight. When I say Pater Noster, I know what it means. But knowing what something means isn’t the same as feeling what it means. The difference is the difference between reading a word in a dictionary and saying it to someone you love.

God receives the Latin. Of course He does. But He’s also after your heart — not just your sounds. And your heart speaks the language you were formed in.

So pray in that language. Pray in the words that make you mean it.

Following Governor Kathy Hochul’s signing of the Medical Aid in Dying Act in February, New York’s bishops released an updated pastoral guide titled “Now and at the Hour of Our Death” — an eight-page pamphlet explaining Catholic moral principles around end-of-life care, set to become newly relevant when the law takes effect in August 2026. What makes this worth reading isn’t just the opposition to assisted suicide — the guide does something more useful. It walks through the Church’s distinction between ordinary care (which is morally obligatory, including nutrition and hydration) and extraordinary care (which is morally optional), and encourages Catholics to designate a healthcare proxy who will honor their faith-based values. This is practical formation, not just a protest document. If you have aging parents or are thinking through your own advance directives, this is worth tracking down.

Subscribe now

Barr Says Iran War Meets Just War Criteria — Pope and U.S. Bishops Push Back

At a NAPA Institute panel, former Attorney General Bill Barr argued that U.S. military action against Iran does not clearly violate just war doctrine, citing Iran's potential nuclear capability as a legitimate threat. His comments come as Pope Leo XIV has been increasingly outspoken against the war — calling the threat against the Iranian people "truly unacceptable," urging political leaders to return to the negotiating table, and stating that "God does not bless any conflict." The Pope has stopped short of a formal just war ruling, but his moral language has been pointed and consistent. Several U.S. cardinals and Vatican officials have gone further in questioning whether the war meets just war criteria. The debate playing out in Catholic circles is a real one — and Barr's invocation of Augustine and just war reasoning at a Catholic forum makes it worth following closely.

A Consecrated Host Found Intact After 47 Days in a Bombed Lebanese Church

A Melkite priest returning to the town of Tbenine in southern Lebanon following the ceasefire found a consecrated host intact after 47 days in his damaged church, saying that “Jesus was waiting for us.” This story isn’t making many headlines, but it’s getting quiet attention in Catholic circles. Whether one treats it as a miracle or simply as a remarkable fact, it carries weight — a small sign of presence amid destruction. Worth knowing about.

The World’s Oldest Nun Turns 113: “My Whole Mind Is on God”

Sister Francis Piscatella, the world’s oldest nun, recently turned 113. Born in 1913, she joined the Dominicans at 17 and spent her life as a teacher. When asked the secret to her longevity, she said simply, “My whole mind is on God.” In an era saturated with wellness content and longevity obsession, there’s something almost jarring about that answer in its simplicity. It’s not a program or a discipline — it’s an orientation. The contrast is worth sitting with.

Catholic Scholars Wrestle With What Just War Demands After a War Has Already Begun

America Magazine convened a group of Catholic scholars to address a harder version of the just war question: not just whether the Iran war was justified at the outset, but what moral obligations the United States carries now that damage has already been done — and whether an initial violation of just war principles affects those duties going forward. This is the kind of applied Catholic moral reasoning that rarely gets public attention. Most people only encounter just war theory as a yes-or-no question about whether to go to war. This conversation pushes further — into the territory of jus post bellum, the morality of how a conflict is concluded. Worth following.

The SPLC Was Just Indicted for Fraud — and the Story Is Complicated

The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on federal fraud charges in April, with the Justice Department alleging it secretly funneled more than $3 million in donor funds to paid informants inside the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups — without disclosing this to donors. The case has split people predictably along political lines, but the underneath question is genuinely interesting: SPLC attorneys have argued that their informant program shared intelligence with the FBI and helped put violent extremists in prison, while prosecutors claim that some informants continued engaging in extremist activity while being paid by the SPLC. For Catholics — especially those who have been labeled by the SPLC as a “hate group” for holding orthodox positions on marriage and sexuality — this story carries a particular weight. Whether the indictment is a legitimate prosecution or political targeting is worth watching closely as the case develops

For members of my inner circle (paid subscribers), here’s a Fathers Know Best piece that’ll fire you up, and put a smile on your face, if you catch the humor in it.

St. Jerome is one of the most cited Church Fathers in Protestant apologetics, and it’s not hard to see why they reach for him. He preferred the Hebrew text over the Septuagint — though it sho…

Read more

There’s a difference between wearing a cross and carrying one. One is an accessory. The other is a way of life. And lately, that distinction has been getting harder to miss.

On Easter Sunday, President Trump posted an expletive-laden threat against Iran on Truth Social, warning the country would be “living in Hell” if they didn’t open the Strait of Hormuz, and signing off with “Praise be to Allah.”

Easter Sunday. That same night, he posted an AI-generated image appearing to show himself as Jesus Christ, laying his hand on a man who appeared sick or dying, light emanating from his palm. He later took it down and claimed he thought it was showing him as a doctor. Nobody bought that.

And then Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at a Pentagon prayer service, read what he framed as a prayer inspired by Ezekiel 25:17—except the text was almost entirely lifted from Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. Granted, it seemed to have originated with an Air Force team who rescued American troop from Iran and Hegseth was merely incorporating it into the prayer service. But it’s still Christian-flexing without actual Christian identity.

The actual Ezekiel 25:17, for the record, is one sentence long. Everything else in that famous monologue was invented for the movie. Hegseth read it at a worship service. Solemnly. And asked everyone to pray along.

These aren’t minor slip-ups. They’re revealing. When you don’t read the Bible, you don’t know what’s in it. When Easter Sunday is just another morning on Truth Social, the Resurrection isn’t shaping how you move through the world, how you think, how you speak or withhold speech. It just becomes a holiday on the calendar, with Christian connotations.

Now, I’m not here to judge anybody. We’re all works in progress, God knows. I’ve said dumb things. I’ve made bad calls. The Church herself teaches that we meet people where they are, and that’s right. None of us gets to declare who’s in or out with God.

But there’s a difference between being flawed and being performative. A flawed Christian stumbles and knows it. A performative one puts on the costume when the cameras are on.

Franklin Graham called Trump “the most pro-Christian president ever” and defended the Jesus image as “a lot to do about nothing,” insisting there were “no spiritual references — no halo, no crosses, no angels.” Are we really supposed to believe this is Trump as a DOCTOR?

Even if the prompt to the AI wasn’t “Make me look like Jesus” surly somebody (Trump or whoever manages his social posts) had to see this image looked like Jesus, and they posted it anyway.

Hegseth himself said at the service that what happens in worship should “inform the remainder of our day” and “who we are and how we conduct ourselves, no matter what we are doing.” He’s right, and that’s a great message. And that’s precisely the standard by which all of this falls short. Don’t “Christian-it-up” if it’s about the optics and not the substance. I like that the Christian faith has made an appearance in the culture at these upper levels, but if you’re going to bring it there, don’t put on a show, make it real. Have someone else do the prayer service. Post something real about your faith life on Truth Social. Synthetic Christianity has no place anywhere.

We can accept people as they are. We should. But if you’re going to invoke the Lord — at a prayer service, in an Easter post, in an AI image on a Sunday night — you’re making a claim. And claims can be examined. The question isn’t whether someone is a real Christian in their heart. The question is whether the Christianity being performed publicly has any relationship to what Christianity actually is.

If it doesn’t, that insults the Lord. It insults the faithful. And it insults the intelligence of everyone watching.

You don’t have to be a saint to lead. But don’t put on the costume and call it a conversion.

The dying poor have almost no one. The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne have spent more than a century that someone, taking in cancer patients who are broke, uninsured, and out of options, accompanying them to their final reward without issuing an invoice.

Now the state of New York wants to tell them how to run their facility. The state is demanding they assign patient rooms by gender identity, use patients’ preferred pronouns, and submit staff to mandatory ideological training — comply or lose the license that keeps Rosary Hill Home open.

The Sisters are pushing back. They recently filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Kathy Hochul after receiving several warning letters from the New York State Department of Health. Refusing to violate or even pretend to violate Catholic teaching on the nature and dignity of the human person, the Dominican Sisters are taking their stand in federal court.

Here’s the detail that should stop you cold: the state’s own records show zero complaints against Rosary Hill Home. Not one. To their knowledge, the sisters have never even had a transgender patient. So no harm being remedied here yet the state is using a law—passed with almost no debate—to pressure a Catholic institution into affirming a worldview directly contrary to the Catholic faith.

That’s really what this comes down to. It isn’t about accommodation or inclusion, it’s about the state demanding that the nuns bend the knee—to formally affirm, in policy and in speech, a view of the human person that contradicts Catholic teaching. And it’s doing so in a facility where the situation the law is supposedly designed to address has never once actually occurred.

Catholics should recognize that this isn’t only compelled speech, it’s something closer to compelled endorsement. The state isn’t merely forcing these Sisters to mouth words they don’t believe. It’s conscripting a Catholic institution into the service of an ideology, so that the ideology can point to that institution and say: even they agree. Whether Albany intends that effect or not—and I believe that it does!—the result is the same. The Catholic Church’s moral authority gets leveraged to validate a claim the Catholic Church rejects. That’s not accommodation. That’s appropriation.

Consider checking out The Forge’s “little brother”, Firebranded.fm

The Sisters are not asking for the right to mistreat people. What they are refusing is the demand that they reorganize the care of the dying around a secular ideological framework and formally declare their agreement with it. This is clear coercion. And these sisters are having none of it.

The Sisters know what it means to serve God rather than seek the approval of those who would compel them to do otherwise. St. Peter writes: “For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.'“ St. Paul is even more direct: 'Am I trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.' That is the ground the Dominican Sisters are standing on.

Pray for these Sisters. And take a lesson from them — because the pressure they are facing in federal court is the same pressure the rest of us are feeling in our workplaces, our schools, and our parishes, in quieter but no less real ways. They are not bending the knee. Neither should we. Only at the name of Jesus should every knee bend. God be with you all.

One last thing! I’ll be recording a monologue discussing this further. Subscribe to The Forge to be notified when it drops.

Follow me on X | FB | YouTube

Gather ’round, crew. This is one of those posts where I share something only meant for my inner circle. Sharing this backstage, not on the public stage.

I’m noticing a pattern with my work and reactions to it. I upset a lot of people. Whether it’s Protestants responding to my video posts about true worship and the flaws of Sola Scriptura, secularists reacting to my moral exhortations and pro-Truth, pro-Catholic, or pro-Jesus messaging, or—more lately—Catholics taking issue with this video below.

I seem to upset everybody, even when I’m not trying to. Here’s the truth, the deeper story, and what we can learn from it…

Read more

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, former president of the USCCB, said this week on CBS News’ Face the Nation that it was hard to see how the ongoing U.S.-Iran war could be justified under just war theory. He acknowledged that military intelligence may hold information the public doesn’t have access to—but that even accounting for that, it was hard to see how the war could be justified.

During that interview, just war theory was brought up—specifically in reference to Augustine. And this is where I think a lot of commentary, not just in secular media but even in Catholic spaces, starts to go off the rails. The theory gets invoked, but not really applied. It’s used rhetorically rather than theologically.

That’s a major fail for me. Because just war theory isn’t a slogan that you cite to validate a position you already hold. It’s a framework that requires careful reasoning, full context, and intellectual discipline. And in this case, most of what I’m seeing falls short of that.

Just War Theory Applied

Diplomacy, and War as a Last Resort

Just war theory requires that war be a last resort. Commentators and those interviewed by news outlets say, “We need diplomacy!” But isn’t almost 50 years of diplomacy enough? It could be argued that we’ve been trying diplomacy for decades, and most clearly across the last three presidential administrations. It hasn’t resulted in improved relations with Iran, or a more tranquil, peace-loving Iran. Iran has only grown bolder, more influential, and more flagrant in its pursuit of building a nuclear weapon, and building an arsenal meant to end life, not defend it. It has also increased—by a wide margin—its influence and material support for proxy terror networks like Hezbollah.

Subscribe now

I agree that we always need diplomacy, but when do we acknowledge that diplomacy has only amounted to placating a hostile regime, and allowed it to buy time to develop its arsenal and to increase its malignant influence in the region?

I don’t know that we reached the end of the line for diplomacy. Maybe we haven’t. But the facts demand that we at least consider that possibility. War should be a last resort. But maybe that’s exactly what this war is—a last resort after decades of diplomacy have ultimately failed.

Right Intention

Even if diplomacy has reached its fail point, how exactly do we determine that? By an act of aggression from Iran? A refusal to come to the table? What was it that led to the U.S. and Israel to bring diplomacy to an end, and launch airstrikes on Iran now rather than later (or ever)?

What did American and Israeli intelligence know about Iran’s war posture that we aren’t being told? Was Iran preparing to strike? Was something more going on?

It’s possible there was intel that we aren’t hearing, in the interests of national security, to protect foreign intel assets, including those deeply embedded in the regime and its framework. It could be that there were credible threats of hostility made by the regime, or admissions of their nuclear capabilities that we’d previously underestimated. And yet it could also have been nothing new at all. The point is, the case has not been made in any way that satisfies me.

But on the flip side, I believe there is also no case to be made that Iran did not already pose a real and active threat that needed to be addressed militarily. They’ve been leveraging their power and influence in the region for decades, and the only nation on earth that denies that is Iran.

Preemptive Attack

Just war theory places serious limits on preemptive strikes. But that principle gets harder to apply when you’re dealing with a regime that has been waging proxy warfare against its neighbors and American interests for nearly half a century.

At what point does waiting become its own moral failure? Should we wait until Iran directly, or through its proxies, have killed another 100,000 people before we can justly deal with Iran militarily? Should we wait for missiles to fall on Europe, not just the Gulf states? Do we have to wait for Iran to launch a nuclear strike before we say, “We can now justly wage war against Iran”?

I’m not claiming the war is justified, or that it isn’t. I’m personally on the fence because I don’t have enough information. And I’d argue most people don’t, based on what’s been made public. We hear a lot of emotional opinions, but few rational ones. We hear a lot of “Just war theory!” but few actually apply it. Whatever your opinion of the war in Iran is, I respect it, because I think there are rational arguments to be made from both sides. I would only encourage you to remain diligent in resting your argument firmly in facts and reason, and not emotion. Continue to “think clean,” as I say, because discerning truth is a discipline to build, and one that can be lost. Stay diligent, and stay strong.

God be with you all.

You Might Like This

This is an experimental news brief which sparked this story

“Catholics have to be comfortable with being dangerous!”
-TJ, on episode #45

Christ did not come into the world to leave it undisturbed. To comfort those who are afflicted and brokenhearted, and to afflict those who are comfortable.

He said the light exposes darkness (John 3:19). He said the world would hate those who belong to Him because it hated Him first (John 15:18–19). From the beginning, authentic Christianity has never been harmless, it has been dangerous.

Dangerous to the fallen world. Dangerous to the enemy—the devil—and his plans and designs.

St. John Chrysostom once warned that a Christian who does not influence the world for the better is failing in his duty — because the Gospel is meant to change things. Make no mistake about it, the saints did not blend in and neither should you and I. The saints disrupt illusions. They unsettle comfortable lies. A serious Catholic goes to battle against himself/herself—his fallen nature and vices—and opposes the fallen world simply by being like Jesus Christ.

In that sense, Catholics are dangerous — or at least, they should be.

Here are five ways to do that.

1. They refuse to call evil good

A Catholic formed by the Gospel cannot simply go along with the spirit of the age; a Catholic must stand in opposition to it. And the world hates that very much. Dangerous!

Truth is not negotiable. That makes such a person a matter of concern to a culture that depends on moral flexibility and of wishy-washy character. The Truth is firm like hardened steel. We, who make it central to our lives, should be the same.

2. They belong to a higher authority

Caesar, the crowd, the algorithm, the party — none of these are ultimate. The Catholic conscience answers first to God. That independence is destabilizing to systems that expect total compliance. Very very dangerous!

3. They disrupt comfortable illusions

Sin thrives in silence and normalization. How do we make sin look like virtue? You make it normal. The presence of someone who refuses to participate in lies forces a choice: reconsider, or react.

People often choose reaction.

4. They go to war with themselves

The most dangerous Catholic is not the loudest one, but the most serious one. It’s the Catholic who is seriously committed to conversion and holiness—and the battles of the interior and external world that must be fought to attain it. Pride, lust, greed, envy, sloth — these are not managed in between visits to the confessional; they are fought. Even if we fail, we rise and fight on. A person who refuses to make peace with sin and vice becomes difficult for the world and the devil to manipulate.

Interior discipline produces exterior strength.

5. They become more like Christ

Christ was peaceful — but never harmless. He healed, forgave, and spoke truth with authority. And for that, He was treated as a threat. The more a Catholic reflects Christ, the more that same tension appears again.

A Catholic who lives the faith seriously becomes dangerous to everything that opposes God, the Eternal Truth. It’s not about temporal violence, it’s about moral determination and tenacity. It’s the fallen world that is violent. And those who reflect Christ are in direct opposition to it. That’s dangerous! Learn to love it, and live it very well.

Stay dangerous, Catholics!

Full Episode

Recently, the message “Catholics are dangerous” has stirred controversy in various corners of the internet. Some comments and direct messages have accused me of being proud… even boastful. One person went so far as to insist that it isn’t the faithful who are dangerous — it’s the world that is dangerous.

But what’s behind that response? It reflects a spirit of defeatism and fear — a victim mentality that has become characteristic of our age, and one that has even made its way into the Catholic community.

We are living in a time when people are so culturally separated from Jesus Christ that they have also become separated from the reality of the victory He has already won for us by His Cross.

Being dangerous does not mean being hostile. It means opposing the world, the flesh, and the devil in the name of Jesus Christ. God is a winner. Jesus Christ is the Father’s champion. And those who align themselves with Him in faith and in truth not only have nothing to fear in this world — the fallen world has reason to fear the witness of faithful Catholics.

Why do you think churches are vandalized? Why do you think some countries attempt to restrict the expression of religion? Do you think those efforts are directed equally at every religion? Do you really think vague spirituality provokes this kind of resistance?

No.

Again and again, social and legal pressure eventually focuses itself most directly on the Catholic Church — because Catholicism, when lived seriously, refuses to conform itself to the spirit of the age. Catholics are dangerous to a fallen world precisely because we belong to Jesus Christ.

Our Lord came into the world as light in the darkness, and He was rejected because many prefer darkness. As Saint Paul says in Philippians, we are meant to live in the midst of a crooked generation, shining like stars in the dark sky. That is not the description of a timid people.

It is time to get over this victim mentality. It is holding too many Catholics back from courage, and it is holding too many Catholics back from excellence in holiness.

If we are with Christ, who can be against us? To take Christianity seriously is to accept that we will sometimes stand in opposition to a fallen world.

Jesus Christ Himself was dangerous — dangerous enough that people insisted He should die. If Christ was dangerous to darkness, and if we are called to become like Him, then we should not be surprised that faithful Catholics will also be considered dangerous.

Not violent. Not hateful. But so clearly aligned with truth, and reflecting the light of Christ so distinctly, that we stand in visible opposition to a fallen world that still chooses Barabbas, and still chooses to do the work of its father the devil.

Stay dangerous, Catholics. God wills it.

Show Notes for this episode are available at firebranded.fm Rundown, short clips.

In this episode, I dive into the Gospel’s raw challenge—not the usual Palm Sunday reflection, but one that forces you to wrestle with the uncomfortable truth of your own choices. It's bold, unapologetic, and it'll leave you questioning: Who are we really choosing?

Join me, TJ, the 'Catholic firebrand' for a deeper look at the readings—like you'll get nowhere else but from Fire Branded. It's not a reflection, it's a forging fire, talking about why Palm Sunday might be more personal than you think. Don’t just listen—reflect. And for more, join the Inner Circle at FireBranded.fm for exclusive content that’s as real as it gets.

Episode Highlights:

Why Palm Sunday is more personal than you think
The uncomfortable truth about our participation in Christ's crucifixion
Why we still choose “Barabbas” in the Church today
A deep dive into the inner tension between corruption and righteousness
How to recognize the sin that keeps putting Jesus back on the cross
Becoming "dangerous" to the enemy: the true meaning of holiness

Be a part of my inner circle! It's free, and no gimmicks or BS:

For more unfiltered Catholic truth, become part of the Fire Branded Inner Circle. Visit https://FireBranded.fm to get exclusive commentary and audio/video content content and be part of crew that’s not afraid to tackle the hard stuff.

Make sure to like, subscribe, and turn on notifications to never miss an episode.

Also, some news to share, which I omitted from this podcast. The Fire Branded podcast is still the flagship podcast at The Forge but I have built its own “world” over at firebranded.fm. The new site also has hard-hitting commentary articles, but will focus on the podcast, and podcast related features, while The Forge will stay more focused on written editorial, as it has always done.

This will provide more flexibility for me as the commentator, and an enhanced and cleaner overall experience for both readers and podcast fans. If you enjoy my podcast, subscribe to the new site for free so that you stay in the loop of what I publish there.

Check Out FireBranded.fm

LINKS

These are the pieces covered in the podcast.

Podcast

Article sparked by the latest podcast

Commentary

The Holy Father has asked for increasing Christian-Muslim dialogue. In the past he has also said that 'Christians and muslims can live together and be friends". Well that's true. But "Muslims" aren't the problem. Historically Islam is—fundamentalist Islam especially.

Pope Leo may be a little naive here. This is the second time he's spoken about peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims and it's mildly annoying to me. Let's have a look at what's being reported, and then I'm going to give you my take—one that you'll only get from the 'Firebrand.

I don't oppose this message, I just question whether the spirit of the message is aligned with reality. I'm all for peaceful coexistence but it isn't Christians who are making coexistence difficult.

Christians and Muslims can and do coexist peacefully. The problem is that the more Islamic a Muslim becomes, the more fundamentalist they tend to become, and Islamic fundamentalism is, by design, a destroyer of Western civilization. It does not simply live within a culture; it seeks to replace the culture it finds with an Islamic social and legal order.

History has proven that.

Under the hood of what is labeled multiculturalism and described as peaceful coexistence with other religions, what ultimately emerges is Catholicism pitted against Islam. That’s what it is, when you trace the question to its logical origin and destination.

Hey! You’re not getting commentary like this anywhere else. You should subscribe, or upgrade

Subscribe now

Buddhists don’t try to destroy the culture they find themselves in. Hindus don’t do that. Zoroastrians don’t do that (see note below). Literally no other religion or religious culture does that outside of Islam — particularly Islamic fundamentalism. That distinction is important, because many Muslims do live peacefully within Western societies, but the tension appears when Islam is understood in its more fundamentalist form. The more “Islamic” a Muslim becomes, the more fundamentalist—the more like Muhammed—they become. The more Christian someone becomes, the more like Jesus they become. These are not the same progressions.

For Christianity to coexist with Islam, Muslims effectively have to remain the Islamic equivalent of “Protestant” — in other words, never proceeding fully into fundamentalist Islam—separated from the root of what Islam has been since its inception, and what all Muslims technically are called to be like.

Again, for a Muslim to become more Islamic is to become more like Muhammad. For a Christian to become more Christian is to become more like Jesus. That distinction matters. One becomes more fully itself through peaceful witness and conversion of heart; the other includes religious authority joined to political authority—it’s an ideology, not simply a religion. When the Christian and Islamic models are taken seriously, they do not move in the same direction, they diverge, and history proves the results are not the same.

That’s the distinction I am pointing to. Many Muslims are not fundamentalists, and many do not seek conflict with the culture around them. But the historical pattern remains: wherever Islamic fundamentalism becomes dominant, it does not remain one religion among many. It asserts itself over the surrounding culture and seeks to reorder society according to Islamic law. That reality is difficult to ignore once it is plainly stated.

That’s my take.

Afterthoughts: Wait, what are Zoroastrians?...

Available to paid members of The Forge

Read more

This article was sparked by my latest episode, available here

A decades-old photograph is making the rounds online, cited as evidence that Pope Leo XIV once took part in a Pachamama ritual during his missionary years. Did the future Pope Leo worship the pagan goddess Pachamama. The evidence doesn’t tell us. And yet the rumors are spread with confidence and boldness. Let’s analyze the evidence and see what it does and doesn’t tell us.

The evidence offered is a photograph from a 1995 theological symposium showing participants kneeling in a circle around ritual objects. From that image, some commentators conclude that the future pope engaged in idolatry.

That conclusion reaches further than the evidence can carry.

Imperfect Picture

A photograph captures a moment, not a person’s intention or the nuances of the setting. It shows posture, setting, and objects, but it does not reveal what each participant believed or intended, or was even there for. Moving from “kneeling in a cultural context” to “worshiping an idol” requires additional proof that has not been presented, it has only been suggested—and without a reasoned presentation.

Would you believe someone who questioned your mother’s virtue? Your fathers? Wouldn’t you demand better evidence than a suggestive and someone’s interpretation of it?

Subscribe now

Even if the symposium materials describe the moment as a “Pachamama rite,” (it is not described as worship) that alone doesn’t establish personal devotion, motive or intent. It’s very common for missionary clergy to attended cultural events as observers, educators, or participants in dialogue. Being present at a demonstration of indigenous practice is not automatically the same thing as religious assent.

PAID MEMBERS: At the end of this article you’ll find an “Afterthoughts” segment spotlighting some missionary saints who got caught up in similar situations.

The Church Speaks

A gesture by itself is ambiguous. Kneeling can express worship, but it can also reflect participation in a structured activity, following directions, or simple courtesy within a hosted event. Moral theology makes an important distinction here: an external action is not identical with an interior act of religion (CCC 1750–1752, and Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae II–II, q.81, a.7.) Idolatry is not defined by posture alone, but by intention.

There is also the problem of hindsight. The Pachamama controversy associated with the Amazon Synod didn’t erupt until decades later in 2019. Looking back at a 1995 photograph through the lens of later disputes risks injecting meanings into (or reading meaning out of) the image that may not have been understood in the same way at the time.

The evidence itself is also thin. Is that the future Pope Leo in the photograph? Look again

It could be Fr. Robert Prevost. It may not be. He also appears to be seated, not kneeling, as is the man to his right. If you zoomed in on that image before being told it was a young Pope Leo, would you have spotted it? Let’s look at another.

Subscribe now

The man in those photos could all very well be Fr. Prevost/Pope Leo. But the evidence isn’t at all strong enough to establish that claim.

One Last Thing

The headline says Pope Leo is participating in a ritual. The caption in the editorial says he’s merely “present”. The inconsistency is bad journalism. The false statement in the headline is bad journalism (the photo doesn’t show intent, or action, so we can’t say he’s “participating”). Placing it in a section called “Blog” is bad journalism, because it inherits the perceived authority of a news brand, without the ethical and legal requirements that news outlets are bound to. This whole story is a con, from its format, to its composition, to its framing and delivery.

The identification of the young man as Robert Prevost rests largely on visual comparison and projections circulated online rather than authoritative confirmation from some official records or firsthand testimony. For a charge as serious as idolatry, vague resemblance is not good enough, and a responsible journalist (or “catholic podcaster”) would have let it go. You have to wonder why they didn’t.

I’m not saying that the event is beyond criticism, and I’m not saying it rules out the possibility of irresponsible inculturation practices that were not uncommon in parts of Latin America during that era. But the current evidence doesn’t justify the confident claim that the future pope “worshiped an idol.”

Serious accusations require serious proof. Right now, the photograph raises questions. It does not answer them.
Don’t forget to check out the episode that sparked this article

🤔 Afterthoughts

Missionaries and Misunderstanding - How some saints used inculturation in ways that that might be considered “scandalous”

Paid Members Only. Hey, it’s five bucks a month, what’s holding you back? Go for it!

Subscribe now

Read more