Andrew Tate is basically Jeff Epstein but with 1) a social media presence and 2) a willingness to brag about his crimes. All the people demanding the Epstein Files be made public would have been feting Jeff as a martyr if he'd gone on a podcast and said "Feminism is cancer."
In addition to St. Edna, today is also the Solemn Feast of the Angelic Passing of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict! (for Benedictines, at least) Very excited to celebrate.
Attending as I do a St. Benedict's Church, I was delighted to learn that today is a solemnity for us as well. Enjoy your day off Lent! (Now excuse me while I return to eating the leftover Italian meat bread we made for St. Joseph's Day.)
Heading over to read the Milone piece next; that story is so bonkers.
My response to the Andrew Tate stuff: get all these young men (and women and all of us) offline. I’m a parent and it is hard and Lord knows we use too many screens (here I type online) but if we want “real men” and “real women” we have to live in the real world. People young and old can see actually real men and real women in the real world and then make judgements about whom to emulate. Ed’s point about this online masculinity and pornography as two sides of the same coin is so apt. It’s all fake. Even the lingo (“cuck”, “beta”etc) is meaningless away from the world of online personas and memes. Andrew Tate is no one except online and if you log off, thank goodness, you never have to encounter him in any way.
I had not heard of Tate before reading this column. I don’t feel that I missed out on anything. I often feel that the internet is an open sewer running through our culture.
The preemptive exclusion of evidence in Milone’s case represents a profound violation of judicial fairness and due process. Courts are meant to evaluate evidence, not suppress it before it is heard. The Vatican court’s justification—that revealing corruption could damage reputations and public interest—turns justice on its head, prioritizing institutional protection over truth. This decision undermines the credibility of the judiciary and raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and the fundamental right to a fair trial. If courts can silence evidence before it is presented, the entire foundation of justice is at risk.
This pattern of institutional self-preservation over accountability is not new within the Vatican. It is the same approach the Curia has long employed in clerical sex abuse cases, where protecting the reputation of the Church has often taken precedence over the rights of victims and the pursuit of justice. For decades, victims of abuse were ignored, dismissed, or silenced under the guise of maintaining the Church’s moral authority. Evidence of misconduct was concealed, investigations obstructed, and accused clergy shielded rather than held accountable. By suppressing the full presentation of evidence in Milone’s case, the Vatican court is reinforcing this same culture of secrecy, where institutional image is prioritized over truth and justice.
Just as in the abuse scandals, where exposing wrongdoing was deemed a greater threat than the misconduct itself, the Vatican court’s decision signals a refusal to engage in true legal transparency. If this logic is allowed to stand, it legitimizes the practice of silencing inconvenient truths rather than addressing them. The Milone case, like the Church’s handling of abuse allegations, demonstrates the dangers of a system where those in power control not only the legal process but also what evidence may even be considered. Until the Vatican abandons its longstanding habit of protecting itself at all costs, true accountability will remain elusive.
Well said. Now keep your eyes on these closer-to-home institutional self-preservers who seem to think the crime is less important than the institution.
As of March 2022, the following Supreme Court justices were Catholic:
• Samuel Alito: Born in April 1950, Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006
• Amy Coney Barrett: Appointed by President Donald Trump
• Brett Kavanaugh: Appointed by President Donald Trump
• John Roberts: Chief Justice of the United States
• Clarence Thomas: Born in June 1948, Thomas has served as an associate justice since 1991
• Neil Gorsuch, appointed in 2017, was raised Catholic but attends and is a member of an Episcopal church; it is unclear if he identifies as a Catholic as well as belonging to the Episcopal Church.
Male bovine feces (= a synonym for ‘liberal politics’).
Those you named uphold the rule of law, and our Constitution. And, of course, that’s exactly what they are supposed to do - Catholic or not.
The three you deliberately omitted naming are against both.
Just one example of egregious stupidity is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s execrably stupid statement that she couldn’t define ‘woman’ because she is “not a biologist”. Not a doctor either, but that doesn’t stop her from supporting the baby-butchering bigotry of the neo-nazi holocaust of abortion.
I mentioned 5 specifically because of the common thread to Vatican jurists who protect the institution and look the other way on crimes. Regarding your non-sequitur rant on liberal politics, I vote for neither major party (aka I don’t do cults). Good luck with that disordered definition of justice. I’m glad there is one divine judge to ultimately straighten out this mess of global hypocrisy. ☮️ 🙏
Not coincidentally, Notre Dame Church historian John T. McGreevy specifically mentions the same 6 justices I did in the conclusion of his book, “Catholicism: A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope Francis”, pp. 418-419.
Specifically, McGreevy says these six justices, “
“all appointed to the Court by Republican presidents, were by 2020, emphasizing free markets and free speech [LOL]. These libertarian impulses would have surprised their nineteenth-century ultramontane ancestors, who thought such ideas rested on misguided individualism.”
That misguided individualism is easy to see in someone like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. Besides free markets, They also emphasize free gifts from donors, like fellow misguided individualists like Harlan Crow, and neither has turned a free gift down for the length of their tenures.
I didn’t define justice in my comment - try avoiding ad hominems. Nor did I “rant” (projection much on your part?).
Accepting a gift (‘free gift’ is tautological) is neither a sin, nor a crime. They never took bribes.
The Justices you named aren’t guilty of anything. Referencing a jesuit (the fallacy of appeal to authority) proves nothing.
Attacking “individualism” …. ?? First, what do you mean when you use the term? And what did Europhilic royalty worshippers mean by it?
Your screed smacks of anger at authentic human freedom.
Having lived (for decades) under the tyrannical anti Constitutional judiciation of previous SCOTUS majorities, I thank God for these Justices you mentioned - precisely for the freedom they defend from the bench (as I and many of my comrades in arms did in combat).
This is some of the most tedious drivel I've read on the Supreme Court, and I've read a lot of tedious drivel. If this was written by an historian, it says more about historians' tendency to delve into fields they know little or nothing about.
It also betrays a serious lack of understanding of these jurists judicial philosophies, including the fact that they are not as identical as people who have no training in constitonal law think.
Hear, hear on your observations about Tate and his ilk’s negative influence on young men. As a high school educator, I’ve been dismayed by the affection shown towards him by male students over the years. However, it does give one the opportunity to evangelize over the true masculinity offered by men like Saint Joseph.
“A man couldn’t be “great” without being “good,” it used to be understood. Now, the two qualities are held to be contradictions. So much so that it is possible to see and hear Catholic men openly opine that constituent qualities of goodness — like self-sacrifice, humility, loving concern for the other — are weak, feminine, and fundamentally unsaleable as a pattern for manhood.” It’s commentary like this that keep me a Pillar subscriber—and a subscriber who raised her rate in support of your work. Thank you, Ed, for speaking truth.
I agree that pornography is part and parcel with the Tate phenomenon. I can't remember where, but I read that this is likely also a root of Tate's misogyny. It's hatred of self (for enjoying the debauchery of porn) that has been deflected onto women. I also know that Tate apparently converted to Islam. I can't say I'm surprised given his views.
A few years ago I asked students to tell me about their heroes. One boy answered with "Andrew Tate." The other students reacted strongly, and were divided along gender lines (boys in support of Tate, girls against). I told the boy I'd Google Tate when I got home. Well, the girls were right. I found his beliefs vile, dehumanizing, and extremely immature. He put forth such a fraudulent, shallow view of masculinity that I was honestly shocked that these boys could not see through it. It was like a bad joke. Sadly, I learned shortly after that the boy who answered that way grew up without a father.
I do think Ed is right that this affects older men as well. I think the Tate schtick meshes well with men who refer to their wives as the old "ball-and-chain," or speak negatively about their wives as a "joke." That, of course, is not limited to any age group.
It's very sad to hear married men talk this way for sure. I have been shocked several times in recent years to hear husbands suggest that any kind of affection or kindness towards a wife is unmanly. These have been in person, mixed conversations, though in all cases it was clear that these particular men were very, very online.
Between today’s and Tuesday’s Pillar Posts, I hope the bonus episode will be another Ed and J.D. discussion on how to be a gentleman. Similar to J.D.’s dating advice episode, I hope you guys will consider some practical etiquettes and other enriching suggestions to help us (by us, I mean young men) on how to live out a more authentic Josephite (or Josephine is that’s the proper adjective) masculinity.
@Rothslucas, that's a truly inspired suggestion! PLEEEEEase, Oh Please Ed and J.D., do that ... I LOVED the dating one and (maybe 'because') I'm a gal!
Your analysis here of the level of papal authority involved in Milone's forced resignation shows your excellence in the field of canon law. I deeply appreciate these kinds of explanations/analysis. Thank you so much and please keep on this case because the Church will only be cleaned up if a bright light is shone on the injustices involved in the Vatican's justice system.
Powerful work today, Ed. And I think your theory that people our age are just as much if not more drawn to Tate types is well spoken.
The power at offer is sinful, in both its source and its content. And it is and always will be tempting. I think there is an analogy between the offer of Alpha and Satan's offer to Jesus to give him the world at his feet.
Pray that we who call ourselves Catholic can resist. Because I fear that we are losing the battle and worse, the Church isn't doing enough to stop it.
With regards to Tate: certainly his appeal is connected to the appeal of digital pornography, and the easy access to the encouragement of appetites that not only pornography but also social media and the whole structure of the Internet available from the smartphone provide. Connected with that is also the isolation that our modern world encourages. The lack of physical community ends up driving people to digital stimulation, which in turn weakens physical community in a self-reinforcing cycle. With fewer people getting married, and marriage itself increasingly seen as a joke, the ensuing separation between men and women provides fertile ground for mutual resentment. This is how you end up with the dysfunctional mode of gender relations of which South Korea is the starkest example, but which can be seen in many places. The call of the Church must be to leave behind self-defeating resentment and to commit to God's call to holiness.
(And maybe some of the early Church's approach to sex, often maligned, is actually worth recovering.)
Andrew Tate is basically Jeff Epstein but with 1) a social media presence and 2) a willingness to brag about his crimes. All the people demanding the Epstein Files be made public would have been feting Jeff as a martyr if he'd gone on a podcast and said "Feminism is cancer."
Success in our Catholic Church : Love God and Love Your Neighbor
Success in our world today: Love your money and love yourself. [aka MARKETING]
We pray that God forgives us for our sins.
Rejoice and be Glad
Jesus said we can either love Him or money not both. We must choose wisely.
I mean, we can't be loving anything above God.
In addition to St. Edna, today is also the Solemn Feast of the Angelic Passing of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict! (for Benedictines, at least) Very excited to celebrate.
Attending as I do a St. Benedict's Church, I was delighted to learn that today is a solemnity for us as well. Enjoy your day off Lent! (Now excuse me while I return to eating the leftover Italian meat bread we made for St. Joseph's Day.)
And in the old Calendar, as well!
Heading over to read the Milone piece next; that story is so bonkers.
My response to the Andrew Tate stuff: get all these young men (and women and all of us) offline. I’m a parent and it is hard and Lord knows we use too many screens (here I type online) but if we want “real men” and “real women” we have to live in the real world. People young and old can see actually real men and real women in the real world and then make judgements about whom to emulate. Ed’s point about this online masculinity and pornography as two sides of the same coin is so apt. It’s all fake. Even the lingo (“cuck”, “beta”etc) is meaningless away from the world of online personas and memes. Andrew Tate is no one except online and if you log off, thank goodness, you never have to encounter him in any way.
Excellent, particularly the part on Tate. Thank you
Does a placet become a fiat if memorialized in writing signed by an auto-pen?
I had not heard of Tate before reading this column. I don’t feel that I missed out on anything. I often feel that the internet is an open sewer running through our culture.
Ed’s “A Few Good Men” and his continuing insights on the Vatican financial scandal are prime examples of why I support The Pillar. Thanks.
The preemptive exclusion of evidence in Milone’s case represents a profound violation of judicial fairness and due process. Courts are meant to evaluate evidence, not suppress it before it is heard. The Vatican court’s justification—that revealing corruption could damage reputations and public interest—turns justice on its head, prioritizing institutional protection over truth. This decision undermines the credibility of the judiciary and raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and the fundamental right to a fair trial. If courts can silence evidence before it is presented, the entire foundation of justice is at risk.
This pattern of institutional self-preservation over accountability is not new within the Vatican. It is the same approach the Curia has long employed in clerical sex abuse cases, where protecting the reputation of the Church has often taken precedence over the rights of victims and the pursuit of justice. For decades, victims of abuse were ignored, dismissed, or silenced under the guise of maintaining the Church’s moral authority. Evidence of misconduct was concealed, investigations obstructed, and accused clergy shielded rather than held accountable. By suppressing the full presentation of evidence in Milone’s case, the Vatican court is reinforcing this same culture of secrecy, where institutional image is prioritized over truth and justice.
Just as in the abuse scandals, where exposing wrongdoing was deemed a greater threat than the misconduct itself, the Vatican court’s decision signals a refusal to engage in true legal transparency. If this logic is allowed to stand, it legitimizes the practice of silencing inconvenient truths rather than addressing them. The Milone case, like the Church’s handling of abuse allegations, demonstrates the dangers of a system where those in power control not only the legal process but also what evidence may even be considered. Until the Vatican abandons its longstanding habit of protecting itself at all costs, true accountability will remain elusive.
Well said. Now keep your eyes on these closer-to-home institutional self-preservers who seem to think the crime is less important than the institution.
As of March 2022, the following Supreme Court justices were Catholic:
• Samuel Alito: Born in April 1950, Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006
• Amy Coney Barrett: Appointed by President Donald Trump
• Brett Kavanaugh: Appointed by President Donald Trump
• John Roberts: Chief Justice of the United States
• Clarence Thomas: Born in June 1948, Thomas has served as an associate justice since 1991
• Neil Gorsuch, appointed in 2017, was raised Catholic but attends and is a member of an Episcopal church; it is unclear if he identifies as a Catholic as well as belonging to the Episcopal Church.
Male bovine feces (= a synonym for ‘liberal politics’).
Those you named uphold the rule of law, and our Constitution. And, of course, that’s exactly what they are supposed to do - Catholic or not.
The three you deliberately omitted naming are against both.
Just one example of egregious stupidity is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s execrably stupid statement that she couldn’t define ‘woman’ because she is “not a biologist”. Not a doctor either, but that doesn’t stop her from supporting the baby-butchering bigotry of the neo-nazi holocaust of abortion.
I mentioned 5 specifically because of the common thread to Vatican jurists who protect the institution and look the other way on crimes. Regarding your non-sequitur rant on liberal politics, I vote for neither major party (aka I don’t do cults). Good luck with that disordered definition of justice. I’m glad there is one divine judge to ultimately straighten out this mess of global hypocrisy. ☮️ 🙏
Not coincidentally, Notre Dame Church historian John T. McGreevy specifically mentions the same 6 justices I did in the conclusion of his book, “Catholicism: A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope Francis”, pp. 418-419.
Specifically, McGreevy says these six justices, “
“all appointed to the Court by Republican presidents, were by 2020, emphasizing free markets and free speech [LOL]. These libertarian impulses would have surprised their nineteenth-century ultramontane ancestors, who thought such ideas rested on misguided individualism.”
That misguided individualism is easy to see in someone like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. Besides free markets, They also emphasize free gifts from donors, like fellow misguided individualists like Harlan Crow, and neither has turned a free gift down for the length of their tenures.
Tedious, tedious.
I didn’t define justice in my comment - try avoiding ad hominems. Nor did I “rant” (projection much on your part?).
Accepting a gift (‘free gift’ is tautological) is neither a sin, nor a crime. They never took bribes.
The Justices you named aren’t guilty of anything. Referencing a jesuit (the fallacy of appeal to authority) proves nothing.
Attacking “individualism” …. ?? First, what do you mean when you use the term? And what did Europhilic royalty worshippers mean by it?
Your screed smacks of anger at authentic human freedom.
Having lived (for decades) under the tyrannical anti Constitutional judiciation of previous SCOTUS majorities, I thank God for these Justices you mentioned - precisely for the freedom they defend from the bench (as I and many of my comrades in arms did in combat).
Great response 🫡I see a lover of logic here!
Thanks!
Yeah - solid Thomist, well trained, tried, and true.
This is some of the most tedious drivel I've read on the Supreme Court, and I've read a lot of tedious drivel. If this was written by an historian, it says more about historians' tendency to delve into fields they know little or nothing about.
It also betrays a serious lack of understanding of these jurists judicial philosophies, including the fact that they are not as identical as people who have no training in constitonal law think.
Hear, hear on your observations about Tate and his ilk’s negative influence on young men. As a high school educator, I’ve been dismayed by the affection shown towards him by male students over the years. However, it does give one the opportunity to evangelize over the true masculinity offered by men like Saint Joseph.
“A man couldn’t be “great” without being “good,” it used to be understood. Now, the two qualities are held to be contradictions. So much so that it is possible to see and hear Catholic men openly opine that constituent qualities of goodness — like self-sacrifice, humility, loving concern for the other — are weak, feminine, and fundamentally unsaleable as a pattern for manhood.” It’s commentary like this that keep me a Pillar subscriber—and a subscriber who raised her rate in support of your work. Thank you, Ed, for speaking truth.
I agree that pornography is part and parcel with the Tate phenomenon. I can't remember where, but I read that this is likely also a root of Tate's misogyny. It's hatred of self (for enjoying the debauchery of porn) that has been deflected onto women. I also know that Tate apparently converted to Islam. I can't say I'm surprised given his views.
A few years ago I asked students to tell me about their heroes. One boy answered with "Andrew Tate." The other students reacted strongly, and were divided along gender lines (boys in support of Tate, girls against). I told the boy I'd Google Tate when I got home. Well, the girls were right. I found his beliefs vile, dehumanizing, and extremely immature. He put forth such a fraudulent, shallow view of masculinity that I was honestly shocked that these boys could not see through it. It was like a bad joke. Sadly, I learned shortly after that the boy who answered that way grew up without a father.
I do think Ed is right that this affects older men as well. I think the Tate schtick meshes well with men who refer to their wives as the old "ball-and-chain," or speak negatively about their wives as a "joke." That, of course, is not limited to any age group.
It's very sad to hear married men talk this way for sure. I have been shocked several times in recent years to hear husbands suggest that any kind of affection or kindness towards a wife is unmanly. These have been in person, mixed conversations, though in all cases it was clear that these particular men were very, very online.
Between today’s and Tuesday’s Pillar Posts, I hope the bonus episode will be another Ed and J.D. discussion on how to be a gentleman. Similar to J.D.’s dating advice episode, I hope you guys will consider some practical etiquettes and other enriching suggestions to help us (by us, I mean young men) on how to live out a more authentic Josephite (or Josephine is that’s the proper adjective) masculinity.
I would watch that with great interest! (Even though I've been married to a truly great man for 30 years!)
@Rothslucas, that's a truly inspired suggestion! PLEEEEEase, Oh Please Ed and J.D., do that ... I LOVED the dating one and (maybe 'because') I'm a gal!
Your analysis here of the level of papal authority involved in Milone's forced resignation shows your excellence in the field of canon law. I deeply appreciate these kinds of explanations/analysis. Thank you so much and please keep on this case because the Church will only be cleaned up if a bright light is shone on the injustices involved in the Vatican's justice system.
Powerful work today, Ed. And I think your theory that people our age are just as much if not more drawn to Tate types is well spoken.
The power at offer is sinful, in both its source and its content. And it is and always will be tempting. I think there is an analogy between the offer of Alpha and Satan's offer to Jesus to give him the world at his feet.
Pray that we who call ourselves Catholic can resist. Because I fear that we are losing the battle and worse, the Church isn't doing enough to stop it.
With regards to Tate: certainly his appeal is connected to the appeal of digital pornography, and the easy access to the encouragement of appetites that not only pornography but also social media and the whole structure of the Internet available from the smartphone provide. Connected with that is also the isolation that our modern world encourages. The lack of physical community ends up driving people to digital stimulation, which in turn weakens physical community in a self-reinforcing cycle. With fewer people getting married, and marriage itself increasingly seen as a joke, the ensuing separation between men and women provides fertile ground for mutual resentment. This is how you end up with the dysfunctional mode of gender relations of which South Korea is the starkest example, but which can be seen in many places. The call of the Church must be to leave behind self-defeating resentment and to commit to God's call to holiness.
(And maybe some of the early Church's approach to sex, often maligned, is actually worth recovering.)