Offended by Satire, Silent About Subversion

Three Catholic influencers melt down over a satirical image, yet refuse to speak a word against Leo XIV or the revolution he inherited and enforces

There’s a strange new law in Trad Inc.: thou shalt not criticize Leo XIV. You can rage against Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia, denounce rainbow stoles and synodal confusion, but heaven forbid you mention the man who upholds, enforces, and evangelizes all of it. And if someone dares to do so through satire? Prepare the torches. That’s exactly what happened when I published a satirical image meant to expose how the Conciliar Church will weaponize a misunderstood Newman to sanctify its revolution. What followed was not outrage at Leo, Francis, or the liturgical clownery happening in broad daylight, but a cascade of rage posts from Catholic influencers who took offense at the image while leaving untouched the very heresies it mocked.

A Disney Editor and a Daemon-Inspired PhD

Murray Rundus, a former Disney actor and current production manager and editor for Catholic Family News (CFN), recently released an 18-minute YouTube video wherein he interviewed a guest who openly claimed that his doctoral thesis was inspired by the “daemon” of the author of Meditations on the Tarot. This startling revelation begs the question: is this Rundus’ vision of Catholicism? Apparently so.

The interview is explored further here:

The Roman Forum: From von Hildebrand to Hermeticism

Rundus: Outrage Without Reading

Given this troubling context, it becomes profoundly concerning that Rundus occupies an editorial position at CFN. A Catholic editor should ideally possess a modicum of discernment, yet Rundus repeatedly demonstrates an alarming inability to grasp even basic reading comprehension and a worrisome lapse in editorial judgment.

In his latest eruption on social media, Rundus flew into a pearl-clutching panic over the mere sight of Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and a rainbow stole. Yet, interestingly enough, these very items have received no meaningful critique from Rundus concerning Leo XIV, who endorses Francis wholeheartedly and allows diocesan priests and bishops to celebrate openly LGBTQ-affirming masses, rainbow stole and all. One would think these developments would concern Rundus deeply, yet silence reigns supreme.

Moreover, Rundus appears embarrassingly uninformed about the piece he attacks. Had he actually read it, assuming, of course, basic reading comprehension skills, he would have noticed that I explicitly cited Bishop O’Dwyer’s defense of Cardinal Newman, rendering his accusations not merely baseless but embarrassingly off the mark.

Fr. Schneider’s Public Calumny

Though not a traditionalist, Fr. Matthew Schneider, a Novus Ordo, Legionaries of Christ, priest who once argued that COVID vaccines developed and produced using cell lines from aborted babies were not only morally licit but morally obligatory for Catholics, nonetheless leapt into the fray with the same knee-jerk fury. He compounds the situation by committing a textbook example of public calumny. Schneider falsely asserts that, by mere virtue of the article’s image, I accused both Newman and Leo XIV of being homosexuals. No intellectually honest person could possibly draw such an absurd conclusion from a satirical image. Such a misrepresentation can only stem from malice or astonishing ignorance.

In a tragically comedic twist, Schneider promptly shoots himself in the foot within the same breath, publicly speculating that Newman may indeed have had homosexual desires. Thus, Schneider unwittingly engages in precisely the slander he falsely attributes to me. The irony, it seems, is entirely lost upon him.

Eric Sammons: From Resistance to Retraction

Finally, there is Eric Sammons, editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine, the most disheartening figure of all. In 2016, Sammons boldly criticized the culture of papal positivism, warning that otherwise sensible Catholics were engaging in “mental and grammatical gymnastics” to defend Francis and silencing even “the softest criticism” of the pope. He openly called Francis a “mediocre” and even a “bad” pope, lamenting the cult of personality that had overtaken doctrinal clarity.

But today, Sammons has reversed course entirely. In October 2024, he publicly declared, “I’ve decided that I will no longer criticize Pope Francis for the remainder of his pontificate.”

By February 2025, he went further, claiming that this new strategy had “done wonders for [his] spiritual life.” The once-principled critic has now become a quietist, retreating from battle while pretending it’s a form of asceticism.

This same Sammons now embarrassingly misconstrues the satirical image accompanying the article, an error so glaring that his own readers had to painstakingly explain it to him.

The Point of the Image—Missed Entirely

Yet the satirical image, condemned with dramatic fervor by Rundus, Schneider, and Sammons as “filthy,” “Satanic,” “sacrilegious,” “blasphemous,” and “slanderous,” effectively illustrates exactly what Pope Leo XIV and the Conciliar Church intend to use Newman’s legacy to defend. This distortion is precisely the point. It was intended to shock and provoke outrage; outrage that should be directed not toward the messenger, but toward those who twist Catholic tradition.

Instead, these three figures, two Trad Inc. voices and one Novus Ordo priest, prefer shooting the messenger while protecting and tacitly endorsing the revolution itself. Their performative outrage is hollow, their silence in the face of real threats deafening. They would rather scold those who reveal the rot than confront the source of the decay.

The Great Mystery: Why Protect the Revolution?

This phenomenon presents the great and tragic mystery of contemporary Catholic traditionalism: Why does Trad Inc. insist on attacking those who sound the alarm while remaining silent, or even complicit, about the threats that occasion the alarm in the first place?

Keep the faith and stay vigilant. Our critics have unwittingly confirmed that we are indeed “over the target.”

Read and judge for yourself the piece they want silenced:

The Consolidator: Leo XIV and the Synthesis of Subversion