Among the most prominent influencers on the new right are some who claim to be Catholic and yet trade in their Catholic identity as currency to push ideas in conflict with the teachings of the Church. Notable among them are Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Pearl Davis, and now Carrie Prejean Boller.
While the Church isn’t capable of responding to every bad actor who speaks as a Catholic, these four have a prominence requiring a response.
It’s not just that they hold ugly or even crazy opinions. Owens, Fuentes, and Boller hold antisemitic views, which they seem to tie to their Catholicism. Fuentes openly hates other minorities and women. Davis repeatedly denigrates women and marriage. While free to engage in discourse, no matter how unseemly, an issue arises when these public figures act as though their own ideas are compatible with Catholicism or, in the case of Boller, are incorrectly presented as Church teaching.
This raises the issue of scandal, which is an action or teaching that leads another person to sin. In the Catholic Church, scandal is a grave matter and can lead to mortal sin.
It is important to make the case that these figures’ actions rise to the level of necessitating discipline. In a subsequent piece I will seek to explain why such discipline matters.
As stated, Owens, Fuentes, and Boller hold antisemitic views, which they use to generate clicks and influence on social media while claiming to be faithful adherents to the Catholic Church. Owens has repeatedly asserted that her platform is “a gift given to me,” claiming it is in the service of God. She has championed blood libel and accused Jews of being behind the slave trade, alleged in a rant against her Jewish former colleague Ben Shapiro. During the rant, Owens repeatedly said to him, “on your belly, worm.” The depiction of Jews as worms was common imagery deployed by the Nazis. In 2024, StopAntisemitism named Owens “Antisemite of the year,” and her former employer, Denis Prager, felt the need to make public a 15-page letter he sent in response to her attacks on Jews.
Owens also helped to popularize using the phrase, “Christ is King,” as a way to attack Jewish people on social media. This has been adopted by antisemites throughout social media, blasphemously using the name of Christ as a cudgel by which to attack Jews. When Owens first did this, it was in an exchange with Shapiro in which she cited the biblical verse “you cannot serve both God and money.” Fuentes loves use of the phrase; Boller used it repeatedly.
Fuentes has mocked the Holocaust. As seen in a video shared by StopAntisemitism, he joked about the “Cookie Monster” baking cookies in an oven to cast doubt about the number of Jewish people murdered in concentration camps. He also called Hitler “cool” and doubled down on the comment when he appeared on Piers Morgan’s Uncensored. In a leaked Daily Wire video, Fuentes can be seen holding up a Crucifix and praising the crowd for bringing their rosaries.
The problems with Fuentes and Owens don’t stop at Antisemitism. Fuentes has mocked many minorities. He has used slurs to discuss Second Lady Usha Vance and states “blacks need to be in prison for the most part, and we would live in paradise.” He also claimed “a lot of women want to be raped,” stated that all women should be put in “gulags,” and insisted that once that was done, “we will determine who the good ones are after the fact.”
Owens has accused French First Lady Brigitte Macron of secretly being a man. As ridiculous as the charge is, it is also a calumny (the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage a reputation), which the Catholic Church considers a grave sin. Owens has dedicated an eight-part series to this false claim, mocking and defaming the first lady of France for clicks. It is also a calumny when she implies that Turning Point USA and widowed Erika Kirk were involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk. She has done so for months. Owens never fully accuses but merely suggests, encouraging her followers to do the same. Recently, she implied that, if the roles were reversed, Erika Kirk would have been hauled into prison and questioned about the murder of her husband. Harassment of widows online is contrary to the corporal works of mercy.
Carrie Prejean Boller has also learned that veiled antisemitism is a way of gaining clicks and influence. The former Miss California was inexplicably seated as a member of the White House Religious Liberty Commission. Boller, who has been Catholic for less than a year, claimed to speak for all Catholics, despite the protests of the other Catholics on the panel, claimed that Catholics could not be Zionists and repeatedly used a hearing on antisemitism to defend Owens.
Boller told The Babylon Bee satirist Seth Dillon that she watches Owens every day and has never heard her say anything antisemitic. She demanded of a victim of antisemitism at Harvard University to condemn the war in Gaza. Boller has since claimed that her subsequent removal from the commission is anti-Catholic bigotry, despite the committee having multiple seated Catholic members. She has also accused those who disagree with her of “worshiping a foreign nation,” repeatedly called “Zionists” “Israel First,” and said that she would rather “die than bow to a foreign government committing genocide.”
Someone who had been a Catholic longer than five minutes would perhaps grasp the irony of claiming a minority group had dual loyalty.
Political commentator and self-described anti-feminist Pearl Davis spews hate for other women. She routinely states that today’s women “don’t deserve to be wives,” recommending that men cohabitate with women instead of marrying them. Davis claims that “marriage is a bad deal for men,” and so the sacrament should just be avoided in favor of living with one’s partner. Of course, the Catholic Church considers cohabitation a grave sin. She has also justified the use of pornography by men; also a grave sin. Davis states that, while she continues to attend Mass, she is reconsidering her Catholicism because she feels that the church’s veneration of Mary is another example of how, throughout history, women have been over-emphasized.
It is clear that the Catholic Church does have an issue with some of today’s most prominent influencers claiming to be adherents of the faith. What to do about this and why will be covered in a subsequent article.
More from IRD:
Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism
Post-Liberal Catholicism & Anti-‘Zionism’
Christian Zionism, Antisemitism & Christian Realism
Catholics and Antisemitism—Is It Still a Problem?
Comment by Wilson R. on February 19, 2026 at 10:29 am
Given the opening sentence of this piece—”Among the most prominent influencers on the new right are some who claim to be Catholic and yet trade in their Catholic identity as currency to push ideas in conflict with the teachings of the Church”—it’s a mite strange that there is no mention of J.D. Vance, whose ideas so clearly conflict with the Church that he has been publicly rebuked by two popes.
Of course, I don’t expect intellectual consistency from this site.
Comment by John on February 19, 2026 at 1:39 pm
Speaking on behalf of liberals, when Owens had her “Come to Trump” moment years ago, we did try to warn y’all that she was crazy and not make her your poster child for Black conservatism. If only y’all had listened. Now you got both her and Kanye (oh sorry, Ye – seriously, how did you miss that one?) to deal with.
Comment by Different Steve on February 20, 2026 at 7:23 pm
Based on the article and the comment, here is an analysis of R. Wilson’s comment and its fairness.
Summary of R. Wilson’s Comment
Wilson argues that the article is hypocritical or inconsistent. The article begins by criticizing “influencers on the new right” who “trade in their Catholic identity as currency to push ideas in conflict with the teachings of the Church.” Wilson points out that the article fails to mention J.D. Vance, a prominent figure on the new right and a convert to Catholicism, whose policies and ideas, Wilson claims, “so clearly conflict with the Church that he has been publicly rebuked by two popes.” Wilson concludes by stating that they don’t expect “intellectual consistency from this site.”
Analysis of the Comment’s Fairness
Wilson’s comment raises a point about consistency and scope. To evaluate its fairness, we need to consider a few things:
1. The Article’s Specific Focus: The article by Sarah Stewart has a very specific focus: antisemitism and, to a lesser extent, the public denigration of women and marriage by self-identified Catholic influencers. It names Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Carrie Prejean Boller, and Pearl Davis. The central charge against Owens, Fuentes, and Boller is that they hold and promote antisemitic views.
2. The J.D. Vance Comparison: Wilson’s comment argues that J.D. Vance promotes ideas that conflict with Church teaching. While the article mentions figures who have been accused of antisemitism or misogyny, a critique of J.D. Vance would likely center on different issues, such as his economic policies, his stance on social welfare, or his rhetoric on immigration and the family. Pope Francis has, on various occasions, spoken about caring for migrants, economic justice, and the dangers of nationalism, which some have interpreted as implicit critiques of policies championed by Vance.
3. Is the Comment Fair?
· Partially Fair (on the point of omission): Wilson’s comment is a fair observation about the article’s scope. The article’s broad opening sentence (“Among the most prominent influencers on the new right are some who claim to be Catholic and yet trade in their Catholic identity as currency to push ideas in conflict with the teachings of the Church”) sets a wide net. Given that sweeping introduction, one could reasonably argue that omitting a figure as prominent as the Vice President of the United States, who is a very public convert to Catholicism, makes the piece seem selective. The opening line promises a critique of “prominent influencers on the new right” pushing anti-Catholic ideas, and J.D. Vance is arguably the most prominent political figure in that category.
· Potentially Unfair (on the nature of the critique): The comment is less fair if it demands that every article about Catholic influencers must include J.D. Vance. The article has a clear and specific thesis about antisemitism and scandalous behavior online. Stewart is writing about a particular kind of influencer—online personalities who generate clicks through hateful and conspiratorial content. A critique of a sitting Vice President would be a different kind of political and theological analysis, possibly beyond the scope of this particular piece. The author is focusing on a specific problem (online antisemitism among Catholic influencers), not writing a comprehensive survey of every right-wing Catholic whose views are questioned.
· Questionable Assertion: The fairness of the comment also hinges on Wilson’s claim that Vance has been “publicly rebuked by two popes.” This is a strong and debatable characterization. While Pope Francis has made statements that contrast with some of Vance’s political positions, a direct, personal “public rebuke” of an individual by name is not something that has occurred. This hyperbolic language weakens the comment’s credibility, making it sound more like a partisan attack than a call for intellectual consistency.
Conclusion
R. Wilson’s comment is a pointed critique of the article’s framing. It is a fair observation that the article’s broad introductory statement creates an expectation it does not meet, given its very narrow focus on a specific type of antisemitic online influencer. However, the comment is less fair if it ignores the article’s clear central thesis and demands it cover a different, more conventional political figure. The hyperbolic claim about Vance being “rebuked by two popes” also detracts from the overall fairness of the critique, tipping it more toward a political jab than a good-faith call for consistency.
Comment by Mark on February 21, 2026 at 1:45 pm
Different Steve,
Stop using ChatGPT to do your homework.
Comment by Different Steve on February 22, 2026 at 12:07 pm
When you can’t refute the substance attack the source.
And, is isn’t homework, its fact checking by an impartial source.
Comment by Mark on February 23, 2026 at 10:46 am
Different Steve,
It’s adorable that you think ChatGPT is impartial.
Comment by Thomas on February 23, 2026 at 9:55 pm
J. D. Vance isn`t an heretic or promotes anti-semitism. If he has questionable political stances that are in conflict with some of the Church`s hierarchy, I don`t think thats an heresy.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 24, 2026 at 2:52 pm
I didn’t say Vance is a heretic or that he promotes anti-semitism. I said he promotes ideas that are “in conflict with the teachings of the Church”—most specifically, on his (mis)understanding of “the order of love.” Both Francis and Leo called him out on that point. And when you publicly call someone out to tell them they’re wrong, it’s fair to call that a rebuke.
Though the popes didn’t call him out on this, to my knowledge, it’s also worth noting that Vance flagrantly violated the Church’s teaching on false witness (and the Ninth Commandment) with his claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH, were eating people’s pets. When confronted with the truth, Vance admitted that he had spread a lie but then argued it was necessary to attract attention to the harm of having immigrants in the community.
Comment by Thomas on February 24, 2026 at 9:28 pm
In many countries of the world what Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes say could be considered hate speech and they could face justice because of that. Holocaust denial is a serious crime in many crimes. I would like to see Fuentes facing justice for that.