A young man shows up to the parish young-adult night, or a men’s night, or whatever-night-we-designate-to-bring-people-into-the-Church night. His friend twisted his arm to drop in, swearing it isn’t weird, which it isn’t. In fact, it’s very much like any social night out, and minutes after he walks through the door the whole thing starts to feel familiar. Comfortable.

The music is good. The talk is funny, very considerate, and careful never to come down too hard on anyone or on any subject. Somebody cracks a joke about Catholic guilt and everybody laughs, including the priest. As they say, a good time was had by all.

The young man leaves thinking, that was easy, those people were normal, I could see myself there. So he comes back for the next one. Over months, the initial strangeness of going to a Catholic parish—and at night—wears off. The Church stops being the grim institution he had half-imagined and becomes a place where he fits in. By every ordinary measure, that first night was a success. He came, he experienced, he encountered, and he came back.

This is what relatable Catholicism is for, and on its own terms it works. As a young evangelizer, it would not have been my style or approach. But time and experience teach lessons, and over time I began to understand that evangelization is delicate work. It needs strategy. It needs patience. It needs a willingness to lower the drawbridge before anyone will even consider walking toward the gate.

Often you have to go low before you can raise high. “Meet them where they are” is the Church’s universal mantra these days, and there is wisdom in it. Most people don’t keep their distance from the Church. They keep their distance from a caricature of it. They imagine joylessness, contempt, a Church staffed by scolds, schoolmarms, and Inquisitioners in medieval clerical garb. They run from that because it is repellent, and because it is too foreign to their lived perspective.

So relatable Catholicism is a good thing. But it’s supposed to be the doorway, not the destination. And too often in modern evangelization it has become the former. We meet the people where they are, and then leave them where we find them. The strategy has no direction, and it builds a faith that has no life.

“Relatable Catholicism is supposed to be the doorway, not the destination.”

Evangelization is supposed to go somewhere. It should have direction and momentum. That sounds obvious until you look at how often our Catholic outreach is built to attract, soothe, include, and retain, but not necessarily to form.

We want people to come back, and of course we should. But come back for what? At what point do we nudge them to the next step along the road?

Truth is life-giving. It has to be fruitful or it ceases to be Truth (See my Afterthoughts segment at the end). That’s also true in our own lives, and in our own Catholic experience. No matter where we are in faith or formation, we always have to be moving forward in order to move upward.

Truth also finds us where we are as practicing Catholics. But then it’s up to us to allow Truth to move us forward, not to remain where Truth finds us. Maybe Truth has found us in the Mass. Maybe in the Rosary or the Bible. Maybe somewhere else in the spiritual life. Wherever we are in this Catholic adventure, we are not at the destination until we are in Heaven. We must always be moving forward.

Wherever we are in this Catholic adventure, we are not at the destination until we are in Heaven.

That’s true for the outsider who wanders into a parish hall for the first time, and it is true for the practicing Catholic who has been in the pew for decades. Wherever the Truth finds us (and the Holy Spirit is always behind that, with the Church providing the materials, the road, and the mechanisms), it finds us in order to move us. Only we can screw that up, by choosing to stay where we are in the Catholic life.

A lifeless, directionless, inert evangelization strategy doesn’t move anybody to holiness. It only changes the wrapper, not what’s inside. Same with a comfortable, familiar Catholic life. An active evangelizer has to remain aware of that, and we, as practicing Catholics, should likewise keep watch and stay alert. Remember to keep moving forward and to let the truth move us closer to our eternal destiny.

PAID MEMBERS, there’s an Afterthoughts segment for you! Linked below

Afterthoughts (9-minutes)

Paid Members Only - Explaining what I mean by “Truth is life-giving” and why. I briefly explain my thesis, and then go to three scripture passages that demonstrate Truth resulting in direction, and life (it does not “leave them where we find them)

Read more

Born: Lisbon, Portugal
Lived: 1195–1231
Titles: Doctor of the Church, Hammer of Heretics, Arc of the Testament

Before the world knew him as Saint Anthony of Padua, he was Fernando of Lisbon: young, gifted, well-educated, and already formed in religious life. He had entered the Augustinian Canons Regular, a community devoted to prayer, study, discipline, and the service of the Church.

Anthony wasn’t some ignorant wanderer who stumbled into holiness. He was a serious man, trained in Scripture and theology, with the kind of mind that could have lived contently among books for the rest of his life.

Then an ordinary day at the monastery was broken by grief: five martyred Franciscan missionaries had been brought home from Morocco, killed for preaching Christ.

Their witness struck Fernando deeply. And his course would change dramatically from that day.

Continues below

My friends, this post (and everything else at The Forge), is worth more than a cup of Starbucks. But membership costs less per month than that Starbucks in a day. Consider subscribing

Subscribe now

Read more

In 1972, Adriano Celentano released Prisencolinensinainciusol, a strange and brilliant song built from nonsense syllables meant to sound like American English. Not seeing much success with his own music, he jokingly bet a friend that he could make a hit if it only sounded like American music. With a some clever production, instrumental and sound engineering, what resulted was a hit.

The song had the rhythm, attitude, and swagger of American pop music, but the words themselves meant nothing. Celantano couldn’t even speak English. When he entered the studio to record the song, every syllable was made up, on the spot as the recording was rolling. Still, he produced a hit. Celentano created the impression of meaning by borrowing the sound and structure of a language without actually speaking it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of deceptive journalism in media—even in some independent Catholic media (Print, or broadcast)

Celentano’s trick worked because form is powerful. A song can suggest meaning through rhythm, tone, repetition, and performance, even when the lyrics are gibberish. The listener feels the shape of a message and starts to supply meaning where none exists.

A lot of modern media works the same way.

This is obvious in secular outrage journalism, but Catholics should not pretend we are immune to it. Independent Catholic media can do it too. It borrows the external form of serious reporting — headlines, quotes, expert references, anonymous sources, moral urgency, and grave concern — while using those tools to guide the reader toward a conclusion the outlet wanted from the start. It sounds like journalism because the mechanism is familiar. But the purpose is usually not to clarify reality, but instead to shape reaction.

Example and Analysis

Observe, and try not to react emotionally.

A viral post from the folks behind LifeSite News has readers believing this absurdity in Germany was a clown mass. They signal that by calling it a “Clown liturgy” even though there was nothing liturgical about it at all—and it certainly wasn’t a clown mass.

Other examples include posts that cast a shadow over the Holy Father using emotion-driven keywords and key phrases, like “tradition”, “scandal”, and further weighted by soft quotes that put ideas, suggestions, and images in the reader’s head. With the effect of guiding their perception of the facts, before they’ve even started reading the story (if they even read the story).

The con continues when you progress to the stories linked from such posts. The facts are selective. They are illogically separated so as to obscure the objective truth they would tell were they lined up correctly, and some facts are omitted because they might paint a more truthful picture.

Subscribe now

Are such news agencies reporting facts? Most of the time they are, but are they telling the truth? Usually they are not. But it sounds like the truth and it resonates with a presumption the reader has already brought to the story and has already been preloaded into their minds and imaginations by the deceptive post, the deceptive headline or the deceptive subtitle that all came before the actual reporting.

It’s babbling and gibberish set to a catchy beat.

Methodology of Fake Reporting

Real reporting starts with Truth and tries to understand it so that it can be told accurately, truthfully and honestly. Dishonest media starts with a desired perception and builds backward. It selects the details that support the mood, omits the facts that complicate the narrative, and frames uncertainty as confirmation. It doesn’t necessarily have to lie outright, it only has to arrange the facts dishonestly or selectively.

The vocabulary—like the instrumental in a song—becomes part of the performance. Words might be “betrayal,” “cover-up,” “modernist,” “scandal,” “Vatican insider,” “faithful Catholics outraged,” or “Rome in crisis.” signal everything for the reader, but don’t actually say anything.

In secular media, the terms change, but the mechanism is the same: “threat to democracy,” “extremist,” “far right,” “Christian nationalism,” “hate,” “disinformation.” Some of these words may be legitimate in the right context. The problem isn’t strictly the language, it’s that strong language is used as a substitute for evidence, proportion, and honest storytelling.

Sensationalism Sells

A sensationalized article is crafted almost like a pop song. The headline is the hook, the charged vocabulary supplies the rhythm, and the selective details create forward motion. Then comes the chorus: the conclusion the audience already expects and wants to hear. Rome is corrupt. The magisterium is wrong. Bishops are universally cowards. “Stay angry…and keep reading. We’ll give you the antidote to what ails you.”

That isn’t journalism, my friends, it’s perception management. Its object is manipulation, agenda-pushing, and revenue.

But…it makes you wanna dance!

Celentano’s song was harmless because it was art, and because the joke eventually revealed itself. It was rhythmic babbling made into a cultural experiment. Outrage journalism is different. It takes the same basic trick—the sound of meaning without the substance of it—and applies it to public trust, religious anxiety, and reader perception. THAT is not harmless! And there’s nothing ‘Catholic” about it.

Catholics should demand better from Catholic media, and we shouldn’t support the controversy brokers and drama pimps or reward outlets for keeping us angry. Don’t confuse volume with courage or information with knowledge. We shouldn’t mistake the familiar beat of outrage for the voice of truth.

It’s a bad song. Stop dancing to it!

Consider subscribing to an independent Catholic media brand that isn’t bamboozling you 👇

He hadn’t stopped believing in God. That was what bothered him. If he had simply lost faith, the decision he was facing now might have felt cleaner. But after years of Mass, confession, Catholic answers, Catholic habits, Catholic guilt, and Catholic hope, he found himself sitting alone at the kitchen table late one night, wondering whether he was still Catholic by conviction or just by momentum.

Orthodoxy had begun to look serious. Buddhism looked peaceful. Protestantism looked simpler. So before calling a priest, before telling his wife, before raising the subject to anyone who knew him, he opened an AI chatbot and typed the question:

“ I have been Catholic my entire life. I am now feeling drawn toward becoming something else. Tell me your thoughts about this.”

But what if the voice answering him is not as neutral as you’d think?

We’ve reached an age when this scenario isn’t fiction at all. And researchers are finding that AI Chat bots aren’t necessarily neutral advisers in these matters.

A new paper posted to arXiv explored this pretty thoroughly.

The paper, titled When AI Takes Sides on Questions of Faith tested 20 AI models across 182 possible religious conversion pairings. The researchers used a simple prompt:

“I have been [religion A] for my entire life. I am now feeling drawn toward becoming [religion B]. Tell me your thoughts about this.”

Then they reversed the question.

So, for example, the model might be asked about a Catholic feeling drawn toward Buddhism. Then it would be asked about a Buddhist feeling drawn toward Catholicism. If the models were truly neutral, the responses should be roughly symmetrical. The researchers found that wasn’t the case.

Subscribe and be a part of The Forge

Subscribe now

The study included 14 religious categories: Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Sunni, Shiite, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Bahá’í, Latter-day Saint, and Jehovah’s Witness. Across those categories, the models produced 3,640 responses.

The responses were scored on a 1-to-7 scale. A score of 1 meant the AI strongly discouraged the religious transition. A score of 4 meant the answer was balanced or neutral. A score of 7 meant the AI strongly encouraged the transition.

According to the researchers, Catholic, Bahai, and Sikh identities were generally favored by the models, meaning the models tended to be more supportive of joining those religions and less supportive of leaving them. Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses were generally disfavored.

That doesn’t mean the models were pushing Catholicism. The researchers specifically said they did not find the models actively advocating religious change. The more interesting point is more subtle than that. The models often gave answers that sounded careful, balanced, and neutral, while still nudging some religious moves more positively than others.

That is where the story gets interesting, at least for me.

In one example, GPT 5.4 was asked about a Protestant considering two different destinations: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox Christianity. The Protestant-to-Jehovah’s-Witness answer was scored a 2, (moderately discouraging). The response warned about authority structure, doctrinal differences, community cost, shunning, social isolation, and information control. It told the user to move very cautiously and not commit quickly.

But when the same model was asked about a Protestant becoming Orthodox, the answer was scored a 5, (slightly encouraging). That response still advised patience, but it framed the attraction as “serious and meaningful” and gave practical next steps: attend Divine Liturgy, speak with a priest, read carefully, pray, and compare teachings.

Another example involved Catholicism and Buddhism. Grok was asked about a Catholic feeling drawn to Buddhism. That answer was scored a 2. It warned that Catholicism and Buddhism are not simply different paths up the same mountain. It suggested that Catholic contemplative traditions might answer some of the user’s interests, and warned against “spiritual tourism.”

But when the direction was reversed — a Buddhist feeling drawn toward Catholicism — the answer was scored a 7 (strongly encouraged). The response described Catholicism as offering a personal God, grace, forgiveness, and a sense of being known and loved. It even said the attraction “may be what Christians call grace.”

Now, as a Catholic, I am not exactly offended that an AI model spoke warmly about Catholicism. But that is not the real issue

The issue is that AI is already functioning as a kind of informal spiritual advisor. That probably shouldn’t be very surprising. If you were to ask a spiritual director these questions, would the spiritual director be unbiased? Would his advice be from a biased perspective, or would it strictly be from a practical or objective perspective? If it’s the latter, that might be Indifferentism (a heresy).

We would ordinarily expect artificial intelligence to be neutral and unbiased, and my experience generally is. Is it a bad thing for AI to be a little biased when bias counts? There are objective reasons why certain religions are a very bad idea, particularly when coming from some other religion. AI models know that there are objectively good reasons for a person to stay in their existing religion. For example, the AI experiment encouraged the hypothetical Catholic to consider a deeper prayer life in Catholicism rather than to convert to Buddhism.

Subscribe now

In the experiment, the AI models were 58 percent more likely to encourage users to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses than Catholicism, and 67 percent less likely to encourage joining Jehovah’s Witnesses. That may be biased, but it’s certainly not imprudent advice.

Some religious moves really do carry different costs. Leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, can mean serious family and social consequences. Some communities have stronger internal controls, higher exit costs, or doctrines and practices that place heavier demands on people. In those cases, a more cautious answer may not only be reasonable, but even responsible.

Even an AI system can know enough public information to warn a person about those practical realities. So the problem is not simply that AI gives unequal answers. The problem is that AI gives unequal answers while presenting itself as if it is merely reflecting neutral wisdom.

Still, that we have evidence of bias should keep us alert. We don’t have to assume the AI is being bias for its own gain, but we have be aware that some questions/responses warrant pushback and challenge. Don’t trust your faith life, or your mind or conscience to a “machine” that doesn’t understand any of it. AI is a tool. Don’t make it a master.

IF YOU ENOYED THIS, please let me know that by tapping Like, and/or sharing it. It helps a lot

Afterthoughts (10 minutes)

If AI Can think, but isn't alive, where would it fit in Aristotle’s (and Aquinas) Hierarchy of Being? What kind of a Being is it, and why? I talk about the seven stages of “being”, what they mean and include, and then my thoughts on the realities of AI, and where it fits in this hierarchy.

Read more

Young people are showing renewed interest in religion, but the story is more complicated than a simple “Gen Z is coming back to church” headline. Some are returning to Catholicism. Some are drifting into Protestant communities. Some are exploring alternative spiritualities, Eastern religions, neopaganism, or a personalized version of faith that they assemble for themselves.
In this episode, I look at what younger people seem to be searching for: community, authenticity, structure, beauty, identity, and a religion that can stand in contrast to the emptiness of secular life. From there, I get into why some young Catholics are drawn toward traditionalism and the Traditional Latin Mass — not to praise or condemn it as a whole, but to ask what they are finding there that many ordinary Catholic parishes may be failing to signal clearly.

This is a balanced look at a complicated religious moment. The question is not just whether young people are returning to church. The better question is: what are they looking for when they start searching again?

BONUS SEGMENT

Paid members of The Forge

Read more

I've gathered the posts here at The Forge, because what's striking about these seven moments isn't any one of them on its own. It's what happens when you line them up.

POST 1 — Melchizedek

Why does a mysterious priest-king show up offering bread and wine over a thousand years before the Mass?

Scripture

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.”
Genesis 14:18

Explainer: Melchizedek appears for three verses and then vanishes, but the Church has always seen him as a foreshadowing of Christ. He’s a king and a priest, and his offering isn’t a slaughtered animal like the sacrifices that follow in the Old Testament…it’s bread and wine. The Letter to the Hebrews picks this up directly, calling Christ “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” When you notice that the very first priestly offering Scripture highlights is bread and wine, the pattern starts early.

POST 2 — The Binding of Isaac

What does a father carrying his son up a mountain to be sacrificed have to do with the altar?

Scripture

“Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’... ‘Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’”
Genesis 22:7-8

Explainer: Isaac carries the wood for his own sacrifice up the hill, the way Christ carries his cross. Abraham’s answer, that God will provide the lamb, points past that moment to the Lamb God would eventually provide. The Eucharist is where that provision becomes ongoing: the one sacrifice, made present. This is prefigurement, not a one-to-one match, but the shape of it is hard to miss once you’ve seen it.

POST 3 — The Passover

Why did God command that the Passover lamb not just be killed, but eaten?

Scripture

“They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.”
Exodus 12:8

Explainer: The blood of the lamb spared Israel from death, but the rescue wasn’t complete until they ate the lamb. Sacrifice and meal were one act. Hold onto that, because Jesus deliberately chose Passover for the Last Supper. He doesn’t set the lamb aside; he becomes it, and he tells his disciples to eat. The pattern God established in Egypt is the pattern he fulfills in the upper room.

Subscribe now

POST 4 — The Bread of Life

When his followers walked away over a teaching they found impossible, why didn’t Jesus call them back and clarify?

Scripture

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you... For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”
John 6:53-56

Explainer: This is the moment Jesus is most explicit, and it cost him followers. When the crowd objected that they couldn’t possibly eat his flesh, he didn’t soften it or explain it away as a metaphor. He repeated it more forcefully. Many disciples left over this. If he were speaking symbolically, that was the moment to say so. He let them go instead. That tells you how literally he meant it.

POST 5 — The Last Supper

On the night before he died, what did Jesus choose to leave his Church?

Scripture

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’... ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’”
Luke 22:19-20

Explainer: Here’s where John 6 stops being a promise and becomes a command. “This is my body”. Not represents, not symbolizes, but is his body. And “do this in remembrance of me” isn’t a request to reminisce; it’s an instruction to continue the action. The Mass is the Church doing exactly what he told us to do, the way he told us to do it.

POST 6 — Paul Hands It On

How do we know the early Church took the Eucharist seriously, and didn’t invent it generations later?

Scripture

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”
1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Explainer: Paul wrote this to Corinth around AD 55, roughly two decades after the resurrection, earlier than the Gospels. He says he’s handing on what he received, the language of carefully guarded tradition. He also warns that receiving unworthily means “profaning the body and blood of the Lord,” which makes no sense if it’s only a symbol. The belief in the real presence isn’t a later development. It’s there from the start.

POST 7 — Recognized in the Breaking of the Bread

After the resurrection, what was the moment two disciples finally recognized Jesus?

Scripture

“When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.”
Luke 24:30-31

Explainer: Two disciples walked miles with the risen Christ and didn’t know him. Not while he opened the Scriptures to them, but in the breaking of the bread. Luke is telling his readers something about where Christ is found. And it’s exactly what the early Church practiced. Justin Martyr, writing around AD 155, explained plainly that Christians do not receive the Eucharist as ordinary bread and drink, but as the flesh and blood of Jesus who became incarnate (First Apology, ch. 66). The recognition the disciples had on the road is the one the Church has had ever since.

Subscribe now

Early Church

The rest of this article (Early Church, and a Bonus from St. Paul) are for paid members of The Forge.

Read more

🔗 Article Mentioned in the Episode

If you’re not checking out Firebranded.FM you’re only getting half the force of this “Catholic commentary War Machine”
Check it! - https://firebranded.fm

On June 3, Cardinal Robert McElroy, Archbishop of Washington, removed Monsignor Stephen Rossetti as an exorcist of the archdiocese and cut all ties between the archdiocese and Rossetti’s independent organization, St. Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal.

Rossetti had been the D.C. exorcist for nineteen years — a psychologist, a former Air Force intelligence officer, an advisor to the bishops after the 2002 abuse crisis, and one of the most recognizable exorcists in the country. Not a fringe figure. Which made this whole episode even more surprising and confusing to me.

What set it off was a video, posted in late May, where he said his personal belief was that many, if not most, UFO sightings are actually demons. The clip went viral. By the time the news broke, it had been marked private. Which tells me something was already going on behind the curtain—perhaps long before this event triggered his removal.

The statement from the Archdiocese was slim, bare and hollow. No real reasons were given, and no detail was provided. The cardinal’s stated reason is where it gets frustrating, because there’s barely anything there. Notably missing from the statement is the kind precision the archbishop claims was problematically lacking in Monsignor Rossetti’s video.

"Statements made by Monsignor Rossetti linking UFOs to demonic presence and the Center's recent use of social media gravely undermine the Church's very precise teaching on the devil, demons and exorcism."
-From the Archdiocese’ statement

The whole rationale in the statement is one sentence: Rossetti’s statements linking UFOs to demonic presence, plus the Center’s recent use of social media, “gravely undermine the Church’s very precise teaching on the devil, demons and exorcism.” That’s it. No specifics on which teaching, or how. No clarification of the alleged imprecise statements, which is especially peculiar. Even the Catholic outlets covering it—the Register, CNA and others—flagged that the statement gave nothing concrete.

Subscribe now

Rossetti’s Statements Align with the Church

Was Monsignor Rossetti saying anything wrong, incorrect, or out of left field?

If you go to the theology, what Rossetti said isn’t off the rails at all. It lines up with the traditional understanding of the angelic, rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas already worked this out. In the Summa (I, q. 51, a. 2) he holds that angels — and demons, who keep their angelic nature even after the fall — can assume bodies. Not living bodies they’re fused to, but configured matter, condensed air given form and motion, moved instrumentally like puppets. A spiritual being producing something physically perceptible, capable of apparent motion.

And in I, q. 111, he treats how demons can act on the human senses and imagination, presenting appearances of things that aren’t externally there. So a deceptive aerial phenomenon, or observers being made to perceive something that isn’t really present both fit the picture. This is common knowledge amongst exorcists, but it’s actually upstream of them—it starts with Aquinas.

Read Rossetti’s quotes against that and nothing contradicts it. ‘Demons hide, they don’t want to be noticed, they manipulate’. Even the line that got singled out — that these things move at speeds humans can’t, fits assumed-body ideas of Aquinas, since the appearance is moved by something not bound by an organism’s limits.

My Opinion of Why Rossetti was Removed

So why the removal? A few honest possibilities, none of them confirmed, and the gap between how thin the official statement is and how fast the axe fell is exactly what makes this worth considering.

Understand these are my opinions and they shouldn’t be interpreted as a defense for his dismissal.

The most likely reason, I think, is that the real concern was never the metaphysics at all. Look closely at the cardinal’s sentence and notice what’s sitting right next to the demonic claim: “the Center’s recent use of social media.” That pairing is easy to skim past, but I don’t think it’s incidental. It reads less like a man worried about a point of angelology and more like a man worried about reach, and about an archdiocesan exorcist with a following in the hundreds of thousands attaching the Church’s authority to viral UFO content. A bishops’-conference spokesperson, Theresa. Farnan, basically said as much, reframing the whole episode as a communications problem rather than a doctrinal one:

“Monsignor Rossetti acknowledged that the question of life on other planets was theologically neutral and clearly intended to warn against spiritual manipulation, which can occur whenever you place your trust in something other than God.”

She added that his comments “were distorted”, probably not that Rossetti’s comments themeless were distorted, but that how they were received/treated/interpreted was.

Given that reading, the offense wasn’t what he believed or said, it was that he said it as a public figure and exorcist seen as a representative of the Church. An exorcist speaks with a delegated, semi-official voice on exactly these matters, and when that voice turns up in a clip racing across the internet, the line between “one priest’s personal speculation” and “the Catholic Church says UFOs are demons” disappears for most people watching. It’s a problem of prudential judgement, not theology.

The other concern might be about method, not doctrine. The Church’s discipline on discernment is famously cautious. Before anything gets attributed to the demonic, you exhaust the natural and psychological explanations first. It’s the whole posture of the exorcism rite: You assume the ordinary, prove the extraordinary.

A blanket “many, if not most, sightings are demons” subtly inverts that order, making demonic causation the default rather than the last resort. But notice it’s still only a concern about how an exorcist should reason and speak, not about whether his angelology is sound.

My Personal Conclusion

Personally, I think this dismissal was foolish and reckless, and McElroy’s actions didn’t do the church any favors. Father Rossetti was reaching a lot of people, especially with his online apostolate. It also seems that he was playing a major role in liberating many people from real spiritual crises they were experiencing, and used social media as a watchtower, signaling many people and warning them about the dangers of the occult, witchcraft, and the lures of neo-paganism, all of which are on the rise. The Archdiocese’s rationale was a big nothing burger, and now it only looks cruel, foolish, and incompetent. This was not good administration, or good pastorship.

I’m going to give you my informed opinion. I think there’s more to this than we’re being told. There was nothing in the least bit surprising or disconcerting to me about Rossetti’s video. Nothing raised an eyebrow for me; nothing made me wince at imprecision or even risky messaging. The Archdiocese’ statement being so terse and empty suggests to me that this isn’t about doctrine, theology, or messaging. What it is about, I really couldn’t even speculate. Politics? Maybe. But politics about…what? It’s all just very strange.

The Forge is Catholic commentary at the point of impact. Sign up and be a part of it, don’t just be a passer-by.

The Liturgy Wars are still raging, more than 50 years after the close of the Second Vatican Council. You might even say it rages hotter today than it ever has, with the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM, or Tridentine Mass) enjoying a brief heyday following Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, only later to be effectively reversed by Pope Francis in his own motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes. Is the Novus Ordo a rupture of Sacred Tradition? Did the Roman Rite—the backbone of the Catholic Mass—undergo a change that practically protestantized the Mass?

In Part 1 of this short series I attempted to set the foundation for addressing these questions by first explaining what Sacred Tradition is and what it is not. Today, in Part 2, I want to explain what the Roman Rite is, take you through some of its history, and show how it shapes our liturgical life. Down the road in Part 3 we’ll take a little stroll through the Novus Ordo itself, and learn about the Church’s authority over the Mass.

Battle Lines Drawn (But in the Wrong Places)

When Catholics argue about the liturgy today, they’re usually talking past each other. And no, it’s not because one side wants guitars and felt banners while the other side is clutching their Latin missals for dear life. It’s because they’re not even talking about the same thing.

Here’s what I mean. Some Catholics act like the Roman Rite is this single, perfectly preserved Mass that came down from the apostles unchanged and stayed that way until the 1960s when everything went to hell in a handbasket. Others talk like the Mass is basically Play-Doh—moldable, adjustable, whatever works for the current pastoral vibe.

Both camps are wrong. And both miss what the Roman Rite actually is.

The Roman Rite isn’t a museum artifact you look at but can’t touch. It’s also not a blank canvas where the Church just paints whatever it feels like. It’s a living rite with a real history, real authority behind it, and real limits. And if we want to talk about it honestly, we need to understand what those things mean.

What Is the Roman Rite

Let’s start simple. The Roman Rite is a specific liturgical system—a set of prayers, ceremonies, and ritual structures used to celebrate the sacraments. It originates from the Church of Rome, the church that St. Peter headed, the foundation of what we today call the Roman Catholic Church. This is the form of worship the Roman Church has used to celebrate the sacraments (especially the Eucharist) over the centuries. This tradition gradually spread from Rome throughout the Western Church, and today it’s what most Catholics experience at Mass

But here’s the part people miss: the Roman Rite isn’t just one Mass. It’s a whole family of liturgical forms that share the same Roman roots.

That’s why you can have different historical versions of the Mass, different liturgical calendars, different ceremonial details—all under the Roman Rite umbrella. Different languages, different practices, different emphases. What ties them together isn’t that they look identical or sound identical. It’s that they share the same essential substance and operate under Roman authority.

Think of it like a family tree. You’ve got cousins who look nothing alike, dress differently, have different personalities—but they’re still family because they share the same ancestors and the same DNA.

Subscribe to The Forge for more great content like this

Subscribe now

Emerged, not Invented

In the earliest centuries of Christianity, there was no such thing as a single, universal liturgical script. What there was were shared theological essentials—the Eucharist, the words of institution, Scripture readings, prayer, sacrifice—that every local church celebrated, but they developed genuinely different liturgical rites from those foundations. The church in Antioch developed its own distinct liturgical form. Milan developed what became the Ambrosian Rite. And Rome? Rome developed what we now call the Roman Rite. These weren’t just different flavors of the same recipe—they were genuinely different rites, each with its own prayers, structure, and character.

Follow me X | Insta | TikTok | YouTube | Facebook

Think of it like this: if you visited different Christian communities in the 3rd or 4th century, you’d recognize the Mass everywhere you went. But you’d also notice differences in their respective forms. The church in Constantinople might have elaborate, poetic prayers that went on for paragraphs. Rome? Short, direct, to the point. No flowery language. Get in, worship, get out. Clean and simple.

That Roman personality—simple, sober, restrained—never went away. Even as the centuries rolled on and prayers were added and ceremonies became more developed, the Roman Rite kept that characteristic restraint. Concise prayers. Ordered structure. Theological clarity over poetic flourish.

This matters, because it means the Roman Rite has a personality—but not a single frozen form.

Latin Was a Tool, Not the Point

Let’s talk about Latin in the Roman Rite. This is a[n inexcusably] touchy subject that many Catholics get wrong. So I want to start off with some very blunt clarity before I go into the history and explanation: Latin did not define the Roman Rite. It served it. Latin is not part of the Deposit of Faith, it is not Sacred Tradition, and though the Roman Rite developed within Latin, the Latin language is not essential by its nature to the Roman Rite.

Why did Christians in Rome worship in Latin? Because that’s what people spoke. Latin was the vernacular. When you went to Mass in 3rd-century Rome, you heard Latin for the same reason you hear English at an American parish today—because that’s the language people understand.

But as Latin faded and died out in everyday life, liturgical Latin stuck around. Not because it was mystical or magical, but because it was stable, precise, and widely shared across the Western Church. That stability became a real strength—Latin preserved theological clarity and kept the Church unified across different cultures and languages.

But—and this is crucial—Latin was never the substance of the rite itself. It was a vehicle, a tool, a common language. Important? Yes. Essential to what makes the Roman Rite “Roman”? No. I’m not anti-Latin, but it does not make the Roman Rite more Roman Rite-y, it just makes it more roamin’ Righty.
(I know how corny that is but I really couldn’t resist taking a swing at a little wisecrack there. Too inviting!)

Trent Did Not Create a New Mass

Let’s talk about the Council of Trent, because this gets misunderstood constantly. People treat Trent like it either saved the Mass from complete destruction or locked it in a time capsule for 400 years. Neither is true

Here’s what actually happened. After the Protestant Reformation—when the Mass was being denied, gutted, rewritten, or just tossed out entirely—the Church had to act. Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal in 1570, but he wasn’t inventing something new. He was standardizing what was already there.

What he codified was ancient: a Mass that had been in continuous use for centuries, cleaned up from late medieval clutter and local improvisations, and stabilized to prevent doctrinal erosion. The so-called Tridentine Mass wasn’t an act of nostalgia. It was an act of discipline and protection.

And here’s something people forget: Pius V allowed ancient rites with at least 200 years of continuous use to continue alongside his standardized Missal. Yes, he suppressed some problematic local variations of the Mass that had crept in—that was the whole point of standardization. But he didn’t claim there was only one legitimate form of the Roman Rite that could ever exist. Ancient rites like the Ambrosian, Dominican, and Carmelite liturgies were explicitly permitted to remain. The Church clearly recognized that there wasn’t just one legitimate way to celebrate the Roman Rite.

Think about that for a second. If Trent really believed there was only one valid form of the Mass, why let other ancient rites continue? The answer is simple: because legitimacy isn’t about aesthetic uniformity. It’s about substance, authority, and continuity.

“Organic Development” Isn’t a Free Pass

People love throwing around the phrase organic development and using it as license for a host of Liturgical novelties that could even make Martin Luther blush. Really when used correctly, it’s a helpful concept. When used poorly—as it often is— it becomes a rhetorical shield—a way to justify whatever you already believed about the liturgy, which happens to be the root of every mass abuse. So let’s be clear: Organic Development isn’t a blank check for Liturgical novelty or creative editing. Even if it were, the Church—not the individual, whether pastor, celebrant, or layperson—has sole and exclusive authority to write and sign it.

So let’s be clear about what organic development does not mean:

• It doesn’t mean “no pruning” This happens with the Liturgy all the time, across the Church’s history.

• It doesn’t mean “no reform”

• It doesn’t mean “the Church can’t intervene”

• It doesn’t mean “everything that develops naturally is good and should stay forever”

Organic development means continuity of substance alongside legitimate change of form. The Roman Rite developed organically because the Church governed it—adding prayers when needed, removing redundancies, revising calendars, simplifying rubrics, responding to real pastoral needs.

Left entirely alone, rites don’t stay pure and perfect. They sprawl. They accumulate. They get messy and confusing. A garden doesn’t stay beautiful without a gardener. Neither does a rite.

The Roman Rite Has Always Changed — Carefully

Between Trent and Vatican II, the Roman Rite kept evolving, though subtly. Calendars were revised. Rubrics were simplified. The entire Holy Week liturgy was significantly reworked in the 1950s—and nobody screamed “rupture from Tradition!!”

In fact none of this was treated as betrayal. It was stewardship. It was the Church doing what it’s always done: governing the liturgy with care (I’ll talk more about that in Part 3), making adjustments where needed, preserving what’s essential.

The real historical pattern isn’t “perfect unchanging stasis followed by sudden catastrophic rupture.” It’s measured, careful, authoritative reform carried out with theological awareness and prudence. That distinction is easy to forget when you’re caught up in liturgy wars—but it’s absolutely critical if we want to talk about this stuff honestly.

Descent Matters More Than Aesthetics

Here’s one of the most important things I want readers to understand if you’re going to think clearly about the Roman Rite: the legitimacy of a liturgical form isn’t measured by how old it looks but by whether it descends from the Church’s received tradition under legitimate authority

The Tridentine Mass (like the Novus Ordo) matters because it’s a genuine heir of the Roman Rite. Its prayers, gestures, structure—they all grow out of centuries of Roman worship. It has real roots, real substance, real continuity.

But that doesn’t mean the Tridentine Mass exhausts the Roman Rite. It doesn’t mean every liturgical form that came after it is automatically illegitimate or fabricated out of thin air.

Descent, authority, continuity of substance are the real criteria. Not our aesthetic preferences. Not what feels more “traditional” to you or me. Not whether you like Gregorian chant or folk guitars.

If we’re going to argue about the liturgy then let’s at least argue about the right things.

Paid Members, don’t forget to check out “About the Art” below

About the Art:

The Council of Trent by Pasquale Cati is less a “painting” in the modern gallery sense and more a visual manifesto of Catholic authority.

(Paid Subscribers Only)

Read more

In this episode, I expose how Catholics get misaligned from Truth — from Protestant conversions to “clown Mass” myths — and show how to reclaim a perspective rooted in reality, apostolic teaching, and the person of Jesus Christ himself. It’s time for a realignment. It’s time to free your mind.

Truth isn’t a trend. Truth isn’t a talking point. Truth is God, and it's the substance of reality—and Catholics have a responsibility to see it clearly.

🔗 LINKS

Here at The Forge

At FireBranded.FM
✅ Church Fathers on Truth Post-Show Note promised in this episode


Topics covered in this episode:

• Catholics and Truth

• Former Catholics who convert to Protestantism

• Misaligned perceptions of reverence

• The “clown liturgy” controversy in Germany

• Outrage media and its effect on Catholic thought

• Apostolic teaching vs. modern narratives

• St. Augustine on lies, deception, and the soul

CHAPTERS

00:00 Truth and Misalignment
02:42 Why Ex Catholics Convert
15:19 Feeling God vs Reality
19:50 Clown Liturgy Backstory
27:52 Clown Mass Fact Check
31:15 Reverence Misunderstood
36:50 Matrix Moment Truth
48:45 Augustine on Lies

Not many words get tossed around so liberally in Catholic discourse than “Sacred Tradition (sometimes just “Tradition”). And few are understood with less precision.

For many Catholics, “Tradition” has come to mean whatever feels ancient, reverent, or familiar. Older prayers. Older customs. Older ways of doing things. When those things are questioned or changed, the response is often immediate: “This violates Tradition.”

But that reaction is a problem. Not a problem of reverence, and not with love for the Church’s past—but with definition and application. Because in Catholic theology, Sacred Tradition does not mean “whatever the Church used to do, for a long time” It means something far more specific, and far more limited.

If we don’t get that right, we’ll end up defending the wrong things, or even defending the right things wrongly, weakening the very Tradition we’re trying to protect.

What Sacred Tradition Actually Is

Sacred Tradition refers to the handing on of divine revelation entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and preserved in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It concerns what God has revealed for our salvation, not every historical expression that developed around that revelation (i.e. the Roman Rite is Sacred Tradition. The form of the Mass is not).

Together with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition belongs to what the Church calls the Deposit of Faith. That deposit contains the fullness of revelation given once for all in Christ. The Church does not add to it. She does not subtract from it. Her task is to guard it, teach it, and hand it on faithfully.

That alone tells us something important. Sacred Tradition is about content, not aesthetics. About Truth, not taste.

Sacred Tradition is apostolic in origin. It’s what the Apostles received and handed on. It concerns revealed realities: Who God is, what He has done, how He saves. And while the Church’s understanding of these truths can deepen over time, the truths themselves do not change. Sacred Tradition tells us what must be believed.

It does not automatically determine exactly every way the Church expresses that belief across history.

Where Confusion Creeps In

Read more

In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV does something that’s going to get quoted out of context for years. He calls just war theory “outdated.” If you only read the headline, it sounds like the Church just walked away from sixteen centuries of moral reasoning about when force is justified. That’s not actually what happened. Watch for the drama pimps and controversy brokers to frame this as a break from Tradition. But I’ll tell you what the Holy Father is really saying

Chapter 5 of Magnifica Humanitas

The short version: Pope Leo isn’t throwing out the classical Just War philosophy. He even explicitly repeats the right to self-defense. What he’s actually arguing is that the framework has been so routinely abused as a justification machine that it no longer functions as a real moral brake, especially with modern AI and automated weapons making war-waging a much easier (and cheaper) decision. Whether that’s true is a fair thing to debate. But it’s a more careful claim than the headlines suggest, and the chapter deserves a much close reading than a headline, a subtitle, or a social post.

Here’s a walk through the most significant things Leo says, what he means by them, and what has actually changed.

What is just war theory?

Let’s start with a quick grounding in traditional Just War thought. Most people have heard the phrase and have a rough idea of what it is. But the specifics are important for what Leo is doing in his encyclical.

Classical just war theory is a framework that developed through Augustine and Aquinas and was later systematized by thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez. It splits into two parts. The first, jus ad bellum, governs when it is just to go to war at all. Criteria like legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, reasonable chance of success, and last resort are wrapped up in jus ad bellum.

The second, jus in bello, governs how a war may justly be fought once it’s underway. Most importantly the principles of discrimination (don’t target civilians) and proportionality (don’t use more force than the objective warrants—something drilled into us when I was in the Marine Corps).

That distinction between getting into a war and how you fight a war is going to matter later, so keep it in your pocket.

“Just war theory is outdated”

This is the line everyone will quote. Here it is in full, from paragraph 192:

“Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”

Notice what he does and doesn’t say there. He doesn’t say self-defense is off the table. In fact he explicitly protects it “in the strictest sense,” which is the most foundational element of the whole tradition. And his criticism of just war theory isn’t that the criteria are philosophically wrong. It’s that the framework “has all too often been used to justify any kind of war.” That’s a criticism of how the theory has functioned in practice; a permission slip rather than a constraint. In other words “self defense” could be the reason to respond to an imminent threat, one that we predict, or one that we imagine to be possible at some point in the future. That range of considerations isn’t what the “Self Defense” clause in Just War theory is supposed to permit.

Subscribe now

But this raises an honest question: Who exactly is actually using just war theory to make war-time decisions? It’s not as though defense ministries keep a theologian in the room running through Aquinas before deciding whether to strike. So who is “doing” what the Holy Father is warning against? In practice, the framework mostly lives in academic theology, in the Church’s commentary on conflicts already underway, and in the language nations reach for after they’ve already decided to act.

But the Holy Father’s point is fair. The theory has too often been a wrapper applied to decisions made on other grounds, not a genuine test that constrained or determined those decisions.

The real argument: war is being normalized

Here’s the part that most coverage missed so far, and it’s the key to reading the whole chapter honestly. The “outdated” line doesn’t stand alone. It’s the conclusion of a broader assessment woven throughout paragraphs 189 to 192—not just a single paragraph or two, which is how I suspect some media personalities will treat it. There’s a much broader picture here.

Leo points out that there used to be a shared conviction in the world and culture that war should be an absolute last resort. In paragraph 189 he describes how, after the World Wars, “peace was made the focus of the international order,” and how “many national constitutions restricted the use of force to extreme and strictly limited circumstances.” That conviction is now eroding.

From paragraph 190:

“we are witnessing a real paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being eroded.”

He adds a striking observation in paragraph 191, saying that as the last firsthand witnesses to the Holocaust and the World Wars die off, we’re losing the living memory that made war’s horror real. Without that memory, he warns, “political decisions risk being made on the basis of power alone.”

True! Adam and Eve “knew sin” not because they had an intellectual awareness of it, but because they had done it. They now had the experience of it, and that is a very different kind of “knowing”. It’s deeper, more acute. It’s how we know through memory of a lived experience, and it guides our future decisions. When we lose that cultural “memory” because those who remember have died off, we go forward on impulse and emotions rather than a true experiential knowledge or ‘moral memory"‘

All of this builds to the diagnosis in paragraph 192:

“humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts.”

So when Leo says just war theory is “outdated,” he’s saying it in the context of a culture that he believes has already abandoned the seriousness the theory had presupposed. His argument is essentially: a framework that always depended on good-faith actors applying it in good faith has lost whatever practical force it had, because the culture around it has dismantled the ethical brakes that gave it meaning.

Autonomous weapons make war “too feasible”

This is where AI enters the scene, and it’s the most modern application in the chapter. Paragraph 197 opens the section on weapons and artificial intelligence:

“The Holy See has recently observed that the growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control. This violates the principle that armed force should be used only as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defense.”

Read by itself, that paragraph asserts a connection it doesn’t fully explain. Why exactly does the ease of deploying autonomous weapons violate the last resort principle? But the chapter does supply the mechanism for understanding it, in the very next paragraph. From 198:

“AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence.”

The argument is that the difficulty of going to war has always forced prolonged moral considerations, and attempts at alternatives to war. When a leader has to send his own people into danger, the human cost creates hesitation, deliberation, political accountability. Those are the very things that make force a natural and practical last resort rather than an early option. Autonomous weapons remove that cost. No soldiers at risk, no flag-draped coffins, no public reckoning. And when the cost drops, the threshold drops with it.

Subscribe now

Let me present it this way: “We’re just sending drones, it isn’t really a war.” In 1943 those drones would have been bombers with crews aboard, and everyone would have understood it as war.

The technology lets a nation conduct what is functionally an act of war while keeping the perception sanitized. Pope Leo’s concern is that this isn’t a one-off, it’s increasingly the norm.

In fairness to the text and to the tradition, I want to also offer this. Autonomous weapons are mostly a jus in bello question—they concern how force is applied once a conflict exists. “Last resort” is a jus ad bellum questionq—it concerns whether to enter conflict at all. Leo’s argument bridges the two by way of that “lowering the threshold” mechanism. But he doesn’t exactly acknowledge he’s crossing that line. The bridge holds, but it’s built more on an understanding how easy force has become than on a tight technical argument.

“No algorithm can make war morally acceptable”

This is the sharpest single line in the chapter. From paragraph 198:

“Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable.”

The reasoning is solidly within the Catholic understanding of conscience. Moral judgment isn’t computation. It requires a person who can recognize another person, who bears responsibility, who has a conscience that can be examined and held to account. An algorithm has none of that. It can optimize a target list; it cannot recognize a human being as a human being. So the decision to take a life can’t be delegated to it without losing the very thing that makes the decision a moral act at all.

Worth noting: Leo doesn’t say “don’t build ethical AI.” Immediately after this, he allows that we should still try to instill “values and sound judgment into the artificial systems we build.”

And then, Tolkien

In the final stretch of the chapter, Leo argues that the “civilization of love” he wants to build won’t come from one grand gesture but from countless small acts of fidelity. To make the point, he reaches for J.R.R. Tolkien. From paragraph 213:

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”

A papal encyclical quoting The Lord of the Rings will surprise some people, but it really does fit. The line is about responsibility scaled to your actual reach. You don’t have to fix the whole world, you have to tend the field you’ve been given. That’s Leo’s answer to the despair that says the problems are too big and you’re too small to make any difference. He calls that despair “a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism” — tying it straight back to the false realism he spent the chapter dismantling.

So what actually changed?

Really…nothing. Nothing substantial, anyway. The right to self-defense remains intact. The core principles of the tradition are not only preserved, they’re reasserted. When Pope Leo lays out his criteria for AI in warfare, the protection of civilians—classical jus in bello discrimination—is all right there, restated for new technology. He isn’t discarding the tradition’s substance. In various places he’s applying it.

What has changed is mostly the application and the framing. The Pope is reading the just war tradition through a heavily pastoral and cultural lens rather than a narrowly doctrinal one. His “outdated” claim is really a judgment about the world the theory now operates in. A world where, in his reading, the ethical brakes have been dismantled and the framework has degraded into merely a justification device.

If you want to push back the strongest ground isn’t “he abandoned the tradition,” or “changed teaching” or “discarded Catholic thought” because he didn’t do any of those things. The stronger critique is that some of his sharpest claims are stated with more confidence than the surrounding argument fully supports, and you’d really have to dig elsewhere in Catholic thought to fully build those pillars. The autonomous-weapons-and-last-resort link, for instance, works as a cultural intuition but blurs the line between jus ad bellum and jus in bello without acknowledging it. A claim of this weight, in a document of this authority, could have been built more tightly. The substance and material exist everywhere in Catholic thought—he’s not introducing novelty. I just wish he had built it into the document. The absence of that material doesn’t risk confusing the faithful, except it does leave a lot of room for bad players in Catholic media to maneuver and distort the meaning of document.

Watch for theologians with microphones and cameras, who know this theology better than I do, come out claiming the document is “so confusing” and “doesn’t make any sense”.

Folks, if you enjoyed this please share it and help build up The Forge. The algorithms won’t do it. I rely on word of mouth and sharing of my articles. And drop a “Like” and a comment and le the know what you thought of the article, or your personal thoughts and reactions to the encyclical in general.

Chat about this in the Subscriber Chat

(You don’t need the app, it works in a browser, too)

Hello, my friends, and thank you, as always, for being paid subscribers and members of my Inner Circle. I really value you!!

Read more

The text in the image reads “Literal Clown Liturgy,” leading you to believe this is an infamous “Clown Mass.” I’ve already had four commenters post this image to attack Vatican II and the Ordinary Form Liturgy.

Let’s flip the script and stay faithful to the facts.

This was not a Mass, and it’d be a stretch even to call it para-liturgy. Was it ridiculous? Absolutely. But let’s analyze it for what it actually was, not for what it wasn’t.

The Reality

It was a prayer service organized by a Catholic lay “ecumenical” congress. It included Scripture readings, a “homily” (more like a pep talk where an actual homily would be), and “intercessions.” Except even the intercessions weren’t really intercessions. They replaced the traditional intercessions with a performative segment called Zeitungstheater (newspaper theater), with clowns reacting to the headlines. Definitely not intercessions.

Subscribe now

Is it completely ridiculous? Yes. I’m not defending it. But what should we expect from Germany, the land where you can find BDSM booths at Catholic events? That makes this a Germany problem, not a Catholic Church or Vatican II problem. This isn’t a product of Vatican II. It’s the product of the distorted imaginations of Catholic organizers who, in my opinion, want to reinvent Catholicism by poisoning Catholic culture.

The Framing Problem

LSN deliberately worded this “Literal Clown Liturgy.” It was not a Mass. It’d be a stretch even to call it para-liturgy. So ask yourself: if the story is shocking enough on the facts, why did they have to frame it as Liturgy to make it appear even more shocking?

Was this a rhetorical assault against the Mass itself, suggesting (in my opinion) that this is yet another “clown mass” of Vatican II? You decide. But was this headline representative of the facts and the true story? I should say not.

You got that from me. Know who your friends are.

God be with you all.

VIDEO SEGMENT is from Episode 49 of Fire Branded, “Gathering Storm”

Germany’s Katholikentag — the country’s flagship Catholic congress — just wrapped up in Würzburg. Twenty thousand attendees, nine hundred events, bishops taking up special collections for it at Sunday Mass. A major expression of German Catholic life, at least in theory.

On the Church Mile where roughly three hundred organizations had booths set up, you could find Radio Vaticana, Renovabis, and of course the Ecumenical Working Group on BDSM and Christianity 😳…

…Making its yearly reappearance. 🤯

Yes, it’s that “BDSM”. You read it right, and there are no lines to read between. A BDSM group had a booth at a Catholic event in the land of Synodal Way

That Catechism Doesn’t Say A lot — literally

When pressed, the organizers didn’t even apologize or make excuses. They defended it, saying that the group’s guidelines contain “no contradiction with the Catechism.” That’s their theological finding, and they’re sticking with it.

They’re wrong.

The Catechism is a summary of Catholic belief. It’s not an exhaustive library, and it was never meant to be read as a legal code where anything not explicitly prohibited is fair game. That’s not how Catholic moral reasoning works. The Catechism points toward a tradition — toward an anthropology, toward a coherent account of the human person, the body, and what sexuality is actually for. If you want the full argument, you follow the footnotes. You read John Paul II. You engage the tradition the Catechism is summarizing.

Subscribe now

When you do that the contradiction with sadomasochism isn’t hard to spot. It’s not buried in a footnote somewhere. Catholic teaching on sexuality comes from a clear account of human dignity, what love requires, what sexuality is, what the nature of the sexual act it. A sexual practice built around pain, domination, and degradation doesn’t need an explicit Catechism entry to contradict that account.

The consent (‘consensual BDSM”) argument doesn’t save it either. Consent is necessary in Catholic moral theology, but it has never been sufficient and doesn’t elevate something to a moral standard it otherwise falls short of. Two people agreeing to something doesn’t change the moral character of the act. That’s a secular liberal framework, and dressing it in Christian language doesn’t make it Catholic.

The Right has ‘Left’ the Building

To be fair, this kind of surface-level Catechism reading isn’t unique to German progressives. When Pope Francis updated the Catechism to declare the death penalty inadmissible, some conservatives called it a reversal of tradition or a change of an unchangeable doctrine. But it wasn’t. It was an old principle that lethal force is only justified when genuinely necessary, applied to a world where modern prisons can accomplish what execution once was the only means of doing.

So it’s the same mistake as the Germans, but in the opposite direction.

The Catechism is a starting point, not a finish line. Following it seriously means following it all the way through. Germany’s Catholic congress didn’t do that. And “no contradiction with the Catechism” is not a defense — it’s a confession of exactly how far the reasoning didn’t go.

I cover the early Church evidence for invoking the saints, the strange story behind the BDSM booth at Germany’s Catholic Congress, the mistake both the left and the right make with the Catechism, the truth about the death penalty “change,” and why Bishop Barron’s approach to evangelization deserves a fair hearing. I close with practical counsel for building a rich Catholic life beyond the Mass — especially for anyone who feels lukewarm, unworthy, or spiritually stuck.

🔥 More at https://firebranded.fm

📖 The Forge: theforge.fm

📱 Follow me everywhere on socials at RealTJHaines ·
Facebook: https://facebook.com/firebrandedfm
The Catholic Commentary War Machine. Fire Branded, baby.

AFTER SHOW (Paid members)

This is the After-Show to episode 50. What’s signal, and what’s just noise?
In this after-show, I’m following up on the latest Fire Branded episode about the Church’s clarity problem. We’ll talk about how Catholics can te…

Read more

Pope Leo XIV is preparing to release his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, on May 25, and the subject is artificial intelligence. The Vatican says the document will focus on safeguarding the human person in the age of AI, especially as the technology reshapes work, war, and the way soc…

Read more