In a previous article, I argued that the Catholic Church has an ongoing problem with prominent influencers claiming to be Catholic while advocating beliefs antithetical to Catholic teaching. For this reason, they should be disciplined. The article focused on Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Carrie Prejean Boller, and Pearl Davis.
Church discipline is not to be called for lightly or used against those with whom we merely disagree. It is a serious but essential function of the church in order to shepherd congregants. It is then, for the sake of the souls of those people discussed and the souls of those who listen to them, that they receive discipline.
First, church discipline is essential to catechesis. There has been an open question as to whether there is an influx of young adults entering the Catholic Church and, if there is, to what extent. Proper catechesis of new converts is essential; both Owens and Boller are prime examples of a failure to do so. New and cradle Catholics must be given proper understanding of Church teachings, and it is an issue when influencers with large platforms circumvent the proper Church teaching to push their own narratives. As discussed in the previous article, Boller does not speak for the Catholic Church and holds no authority to do so. And yet, she claims to put forward official Catholic teaching, calling those who disagree with her “heretics.” She continually conflates dispensationalism with all Zionism, calling it a heresy. This despite the fact that it was pointed out to her by fellow Catholics, including Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan T. Anderson, at the Religious Liberty Commission, that Catholics can be Zionists if they recognize the right of Jewish people to live in self-autonomy in the state of Israel. Her comments were denounced by the Catholic League, but she is receiving an award from the nationalist group Catholics for Catholics, so it would be helpful to receive clarity from the Church.
It’s not just an issue of whether Catholics can be Zionists. As pointed out in the previous article, Owens, Fuentes, and Boller have made repeated antisemitic statements. What does it teach fellow Catholics if this goes without response? Also pointed out in the previous article was Owen’s use of her platform to attack Erika Kirk and to make false accusations about her publicly (calumny). What does it teach the faithful when someone can publicly engage in it for months, against a widow, with no response? She also claimed she can do astral-projection. This is also true of Fuentes’ bigotry. Davis stated last week that “Mothers do more harm than good to their kids.” She tweeted that in response to a pro-IVF tweet. If the bishops won’t catechize their faithful, then the influencers will, and this is a terrifying prospect.
Second, their behavior harms relations between both Catholics and Jews and Catholics and Protestants. It’s frustrating to have Protestants ask me if there is something inherently antisemitic about Catholicism, but they ask because they hear Owens, Fuentes, and Boller and are appalled. Boller has repeatedly called many Protestants heretics; she labeled U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) a “Christianity-hijacker.” She claims that “Catholics need to take back Christianity.” As Jeremy Boering, the former CEO of The Daily Wire, Owen’s former employer, pointed out, for political reasons, there seems to be a push among these influencers to separate Catholics and Evangelicals on the issue of Israel. In doing so, they not only cause political separation but also harm dialogue generally. Christ prayed for His Church to “be one”; intentionally sowing division within an already divided body of Christ is not in keeping with His teachings.
It is even more detrimental for Catholic relations with the Jewish people. This week, Owens accused Israel of being behind 9/11. Boller repeatedly labeled Israel an “atheist” nation. Owens and Fuentes have, as described in the previous article, downplayed the Holocaust. It’s cruel to downplay the past and continual suffering of Jews. It does nothing to build goodwill. It encourages hatred of Jews.
This week, Boller called criticism by Babylon Bee satirist Seth Dillon of her antisemitic because “Catholics are the spiritual Semites.” She is misappropriating a statement by Pope Pious XI in which he calls antisemitism “inadmissible.” How can a sincere Catholic in good faith blatantly misrepresent the words of a Pope? Her comments make a mockery of actual antisemitism faced by countless Jews. It also makes light of the actual persecution faced by Catholics and Protestants for sharing the gospel. If Boller really cares about Catholic persecution, perhaps she could focus her large platform on the Catholic school students abducted in Nigeria, or imprisoned Catholic Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. Someone who was Catholic longer than a year would perhaps look back on the history of martyrdom going back to the early church and conclude that correction on Twitter/X does not meet the definition. They would also recognize that some of the very same prejudices held against Jews, dual loyalty, and even accusations of cannibalism, have also been used against Catholics. The injustice of those prejudices should help them relate to Jews.
Boller has also taunted Jews on Twitter/X, calling on them to “repent.” We should want all people to repent of sin and accept Christ. But calls for repentance should never be a taunt. It should be a serious call to a relationship with the one true God, whose sacrifice offers salvation. Every Christian should be humbled to participate in God’s plan of salvation through evangelism. We should be ashamed when we make ourselves a stumbling block.
Davis and Fuentes also hurt our witness to women and other minorities. If they hear prominent Catholic influencers say hateful things about them with impunity, why would they turn to the Church?
Finally, it is essential to carry out church discipline for the sake of those needing the discipline. My hope for Owens, Fuentes, Boller, and Davis is for genuine repentance. Discipline is ultimately an act of love by the church; it dignifies the individual by treating them as a moral agent with the capacity to repent and, with His aid, to follow Christ. Scripture is clear that God “disciplines the one He loves.” Right now, nothing would be more loving than to excommunicate these influencers for their own sake and for the sake of those who would jeopardize their souls to follow them down the path of platform aggrandizement. I pray the Church acts accordingly.
More from IRD:
Catholic Influencers’ Antisemitism Problem, Part I
Candace Owens must be excommunicated — for the sake of her soul
Upcoming Event:
Shoulder to Shoulder: Strengthening Jewish-Catholic Friendship at a Moment of Crisis
Comment by Wilson R. on March 6, 2026 at 2:47 pm
Like Part I in this series, this piece seems to suffer from tunnel vision. I don’t think of Nick Fuentes as a Catholic influencer, since he is openly Nazi, and you cannot be a Nazi and a Catholic at the same time. Likewise, I think of Candace Owens as a political influencer who happens to be Catholic, rather than as someone whose Catholicism actually drives her viewpoint. Nevertheless, I accept the author’s statement of her experience with people who ask disturbing questions about the Catholic faith based on reading and hearing Owens and Fuentes.
Even so, it seems like there is a huge omission here, and one cannot help but wonder if it is deliberate. It would be hard to argue that any of these people mentioned in the story are more influential than JD Vance, and, unlike them, he makes a big deal of his Catholicism.
If you criteria for disciplinary action involve promoting doctrines that are contrary to Catholic tradition and teaching, then Vance belongs right up there with Fuentes and Owen. Vance’s widely publicized position on “orders of love” was so contrary to the Gospel that two popes saw fit to correct him and call him out by name. The false witness against Haitian immigrants—lies that Vance actually acknowledged but then defended on the grounds that they were necessary to draw media attention to the evils of immigration—was itself a great evil along with the antisemitism of the others.
Why does he get a pass?
Comment by John on March 6, 2026 at 3:54 pm
Wilson R.,
I don’t think any of these persons are particularly devout or sincere in their Catholicism. Many of them would probably welcome excommunication or some other form of discipline from the Church because it would feed into their whole “us against the world” mentality and all their conspiracy theories. I’m sure Candace Owens is already preparing to “announce” that the Pope is secretly Jewish and gay and a member of the Illuminati and shot JFK and framed Roger Rabbit, etc.
The real reason why many of them identify as Catholic is because they believe Catholics are an easier target for their rhetoric than evangelical Protestants. This is because there is already a small, but very vocal group of traditionalist Catholics who have already attached themselves to Neo-Nazism and Holocaust Denial. Many of them also don’t bat an eye when the Papacy threatens or even follows through with excommunication either (just ask the Society of Saint Pius X). Beyond the open and unapologetic anti-Semites though there is a much larger array of Catholic priests and laypersons in some of the more remote dioceses and parishes of Europe for whom the new teachings around Judaism and interreligious dialogue coming out of Vatican II have never penetrated. There are still churches and even pilgrimage sites connected to the blood libel myths of the Middle Ages. Disciplining the chief offenders won’t remove the true source of the pestilence of antisemitism. The Catholic Church is going to have go a lot further and deeper to root these things out entirely.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on March 7, 2026 at 4:31 am
First, a suggestion for the author of this article: Write another article about Catholics and Steven Bannon, a man who publicly identifies as Catholic, and who is much more prominent and influential than the influencers named in this article, and who also says and does things which are blatantly contrary to church teaching. How does she think the Catholic Church should respond to him?
Secondly, in response to Wilson R.:
I don’t know how appealing the influences named in this article are to Catholics, but, based upon some personal observation of mine, I do think that, in general, some conservative Catholics are more open to listening to and are more receptive toward conservative commentators who are Catholic than to conservative commentators who are not Catholic.
It does seem hard to believe that any devout Catholic would like Nick Fuentes, but not so, in varying degrees, with Candace Owens, Carrie Prejean Boller, and Pearl Davis.
Note that the most popular Catholic commentator in America during the Twentieth Century was Fr. Charles Coughlin. If you don’t know about him and his astonishing influence, I suggest you refer to the Wikipedia article about him.
On a somewhat related subject: You may be interested in a report which the British newspaper *The Guardian* published last April which is entitled “‘Maga Catholics’ are gaining ground in the US. Now their sight is set on the Vatican”.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 7, 2026 at 1:44 pm
Sarah: Thank you for your keen scholarship, devotion to mission, and perseverance in undaunted reporting. You inform, enlighten, and provoke! You know you are winning when the limpets of the comment club keep whining. LOL.