Superman II, General Zod, and the Immigration Debate: A Comprehensive Commentary on Immigrant Identities and Societal Impact

Superman II, General Zod, and the Immigration Debate: A Comprehensive Commentary on Immigrant Identities and Societal Impact

Superman II (1980), directed by Richard Lester, is more than a superhero blockbuster; it is a narrative rich with allegorical potential for examining one of the most contentious issues of our time: immigration. The film juxtaposes Superman, an extraterrestrial immigrant who embodies the virtues of lawful assimilation, with General Zod and his Kryptonian cohorts, who represent chaos and disregard for their host society. This dichotomy mirrors real-world debates about good and bad immigrants, reflecting tensions between those who enter legally, respect societal norms, and contribute positively, and those who arrive unlawfully, engaging in behaviors that disrupt communities. By exploring Superman II through the lens of immigration, this essay argues that immigrants cannot be grouped monolithically. It draws parallels between Superman’s journey from Krypton to Kansas and the aspirations of legal immigrants, critiques the oversimplification of immigrant identities in political rhetoric, and addresses real-world issues such as crime rates and quality-of-life concerns in urban centers like New York City. Ultimately, the film serves as a call for nuanced immigration policies that foster integration while addressing legitimate concerns about crime and cultural cohesion. Superman: The Archetype of the Good Immigrant Superman, born Kal-El on the planet Krypton, is the quintessential immigrant success story. Sent to Earth as an infant to escape Krypton’s destruction, he is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, a farming couple in Smallville, Kansas. Raised with American values of kindness, morality, and respect for the law, Kal-El becomes Clark Kent by day and Superman by necessity, using his extraordinary powers to protect humanity. His journey reflects the idealized narrative of the good immigrant: one who enters a society through accepted channels, embraces its culture, and contributes to its betterment. As X user HansHorlacher observes, “Superman was adopted as a child and naturalized as a citizen through the legal system, that he grew up to risk his life to protect”. This underscores Superman’s role as a model of assimilation, not by erasing his Kryptonian heritage but by harmonizing it with American ideals. Superman’s legal status, symbolized through his adoption, aligns with the pathways of legal immigration. His upbringing in Kansas, a heartland emblem of American virtue, mirrors the historical assimilation of immigrants during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when millions arrived at Ellis Island, underwent vetting, and integrated into American society. For instance, Italian and Irish immigrants of that era, often arriving legally, faced initial prejudice but gradually became pillars of American culture through hard work and civic engagement. Superman’s story echoes this trajectory, suggesting that legal immigrants who adopt their host country’s values can become integral to its fabric. The historical context of immigration in the United States provides further insight into Superman’s narrative. Between 1880 and 1920, over 20 million immigrants arrived, primarily from Europe, contributing to the nation’s industrial growth. While they faced nativist backlash, their eventual assimilation strengthened the American melting pot. Superman’s journey parallels this process: he arrives as an outsider but becomes a cultural icon, embodying the American Dream. His commitment to justice and self-sacrifice reflects the contributions of legal immigrants who, through education, entrepreneurship, and community involvement, enhance their adopted societies. Moreover, Superman’s dual identity as Clark Kent and Superman reflects the immigrant experience of balancing cultural heritage with integration. He retains his Kryptonian essence—his powers and memories of his parents, Jor-El and Lara—but chooses to serve Earth, embodying the principle of e pluribus unum (out of many, one). This balance is crucial in modern immigration debates, where the expectation of assimilation is often misconstrued as cultural erasure. Superman demonstrates that immigrants can honor their origins while contributing to their new home, a model for legal immigrants seeking to emulate his example. His ability to navigate both identities—Kryptonian and American—offers a blueprint for immigrants who strive to maintain their cultural roots while embracing their host country’s values. General Zod and the Specter of Bad Immigration In stark contrast, General Zod, Ursa, and Non, exiled from Krypton for their crimes, represent a destructive form of immigration. Banished to the Phantom Zone, they are inadvertently freed and arrive on Earth, not to integrate but to conquer. Their superhuman powers, unchecked by any regard for human laws or norms, make them a formidable threat. Zod’s declaration, “Kneel before Zod,” and their destruction of landmarks like the White House symbolize a rejection of their host society’s values, evoking fears associated with illegal immigration and criminality. As X user BobiusPrime notes, “Superman was an immigrant... an immigrant that assimilated into the US culture and traditions. On the other hand, General Zod, Ursa, and Non were also immigrants, did bad things, and were deported”. This comparison highlights the film’s narrative dichotomy: while Superman uplifts Earth, Zod seeks to subjugate it. Zod’s arrival parallels public anxieties about undocumented immigrants who bypass legal pathways and engage in behaviors perceived as disruptive. In contemporary discourse, illegal immigration is often linked to crime and societal disorder, a narrative amplified by high-profile incidents. For example, a 2024 City Journal article details violent crimes in New York City, such as shootings outside migrant shelters, attributed to undocumented immigrants. These incidents fuel perceptions of a migrant crime wave, even if they do not reflect broader trends. Zod’s actions—disrupting global order, disrespecting authority, and causing chaos—mirror these fears, positioning him as the archetype of the bad immigrant who threatens the social fabric. The film’s depiction of Zod’s exile to the Phantom Zone also resonates with historical and modern deportation practices. On Krypton, Zod and his companions were banished for attempting to overthrow the government, a punishment akin to modern deportation orders for criminal immigrants. In the U.S., Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported over 271,484 immigrants in 2024, many for criminal convictions, according to ICE data. While these deportations target individuals who violate laws, they also spark debates about fairness and due process, particularly when entire communities are stigmatized. Zod’s eventual defeat by Superman suggests that addressing criminal elements requires precision, not blanket condemnation, a lesson applicable to immigration policy. However, Superman II also serves as a cautionary tale against overgeneralization. Just as Superman’s heroism does not mean all Kryptonians are benevolent, Zod’s villainy does not indict all immigrants. The film implicitly challenges viewers to judge individuals by their actions, not their origins. This nuance is critical in real-world debates, where the actions of a few are often used to stereotype entire communities. By presenting both Superman and Zod as Kryptonian immigrants with divergent paths, the film underscores the importance of distinguishing between those who contribute and those who harm, a distinction often lost in polarized rhetoric. The Danger of Overgeneralization in Immigration Discourse The immigration debate is often polarized, with some right-wing commentators painting all immigrants as threats to societal stability. This perspective, reflected in posts on X, draws parallels between Zod’s destructive behavior and fears of unchecked immigration. For instance, JamesT_AL writes, “Zod is the post Hart-Cellar immigrant. Forced on us, hateful towards the culture, and wishes to make everything like the shithole he came from”. This rhetoric echoes the broader tendency to vilify immigrants, particularly those who are undocumented, as inherently criminal or disruptive. Such generalizations, while emotionally resonant, distort the complexity of immigrant experiences and contributions. Historical context reveals the dangers of such overgeneralizations. During the late 19th century, nativist movements like the Know-Nothings targeted Irish and German immigrants, labeling them as criminals and cultural threats. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese immigration based on unfounded fears of economic and social harm, setting a precedent for discriminatory policies. Today, these patterns persist in rhetoric that conflates all immigrants with crime or disorder. For example, post-1965 immigration, enabled by the Hart-Celler Act, diversified the U.S. population but sparked fears of cultural erosion, as seen in JamesT_AL’s post. Yet, data consistently challenges this narrative. A 2024 report by the American Immigration Council found that as the immigrant share of the U.S. population grew from 6.2% in 1980 to 13.9% in 2022, the total crime rate dropped by 60.4%, with violent crime falling by 34.5% and property crime by 63.3%. A 2020 study in Texas, which tracks immigration status in arrests, found that undocumented immigrants had lower felony arrest rates than native-born citizens, particularly for violent crimes. These statistics suggest that immigrants, like Superman, often contribute to safer and more prosperous communities. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens, with a 2018 Cato Institute study finding that undocumented immigrants in Texas had an incarceration rate of 0.71% compared to 1.6% for native-born citizens. However, the perception of a migrant crime wave persists, driven by anecdotal evidence and media amplification. The City Journal highlights cases like the murder of Laken Riley in Georgia, allegedly committed by an undocumented immigrant, as evidence of a broader threat. While such incidents are tragic, they are not representative of the immigrant population as a whole. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that in New York City precincts with large migrant shelters, crime trends vary, with some areas seeing decreases and others increases, indicating no clear causal link to immigration. This complexity mirrors Superman II’s narrative, where the actions of Zod and Superman cannot be used to judge all Kryptonians. The overgeneralization of immigrants as criminals often stems from confirmation bias, where high-profile incidents overshadow broader trends. For example, media coverage of crimes by undocumented immigrants, such as those highlighted in a 2024 Fox News report, amplifies public fear, even when overall crime rates decline. In Superman II, the media within the film—newspapers and television—report on Zod’s rampage, heightening public fear, much like modern media amplifies migrant-related incidents. This dynamic underscores the need for data-driven discourse that distinguishes between individual actions and systemic patterns, a lesson the film subtly imparts. Crime, Immigration, and Localized Challenges While broad crime statistics refute the notion of an immigrant-driven crime surge, localized issues cannot be ignored. In New York City, the arrival of approximately 190,000 migrants since 2022 has strained resources and sparked concerns about public safety. The City Journal reports a 50% spike in robberies in Queens’ 115th Precinct, particularly around Roosevelt Avenue, where migrant shelters are concentrated. Specific gangs, such as Tren de Aragua from Venezuela, have been linked to crimes like extortion, human trafficking, and violent assaults, amplifying fears of disorder. These cases, while outliers, contribute to the perception that illegal immigration fuels crime, much like Zod’s actions fuel distrust in Superman II. However, overall crime in New York City fell nearly 3% in 2024, with 3,662 fewer incidents, including reductions in murder (down 12%), robbery (down 6%), and burglary (down 13%), according to NYPD data. This decline occurred despite the migrant influx, suggesting that immigration does not inherently drive crime. Police data also indicates that American-born perpetrators often target migrants, complicating the narrative of migrant criminality. For instance, a 2024 NYPD report notes that many robberies in migrant-heavy areas involve local gangs exploiting vulnerable newcomers, not migrants committing crimes themselves. This dynamic mirrors Superman II, where Zod’s actions are not representative of all Kryptonians but create fear that impacts perceptions of Superman. Addressing these challenges requires targeted policies, not blanket condemnation. In Superman II, Superman defeats Zod through strategic intervention, not by rejecting all Kryptonians. Similarly, immigration policies should focus on vetting, deporting criminal elements, and supporting legal pathways for those who seek to contribute. Programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which provide legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, exemplify this approach, enabling individuals to emulate Superman’s model of integration and contribution. In 2024, over 800,000 DACA recipients contributed to the U.S. economy, with many working in essential industries like healthcare and education, per the Center for American Progress. The rise of specific gangs like Tren de Aragua highlights the need for precise enforcement. ICE’s 2024 operations targeting transnational criminal organizations resulted in over 20,000 arrests of gang-affiliated immigrants, a small fraction of the total immigrant population. These efforts demonstrate that addressing criminality without stigmatizing entire communities is possible, much like Superman’s targeted defeat of Zod preserves Earth’s trust in him. Policies that combine enforcement with integration—such as language classes, job training, and community policing—can mitigate localized crime while fostering cohesion. Quality of Life and Cultural Tensions in New York City Beyond crime, immigration debates often center on quality-of-life issues, particularly in urban centers like New York City. Residents have reported disruptions linked to immigrant communities, particularly Dominican immigrants in neighborhoods like Washington Heights and Inwood. Complaints include public drinking, riding motorcycles on sidewalks, blasting loud music from apartments and car stereos, smoking in public spaces, littering, and setting up beach chairs on sidewalks, leaving behind liquor bottles and debris. These behaviors, documented in community forums and local news, contribute to a perceived decline in urban livability. A 2007 NBC News article from Waukegan, Illinois, describes similar frustrations, where loud music and parties linked to smuggling operations alienated residents, highlighting how cultural differences can strain community relations.

Dominican immigrants in the Bronx publicly drinking and litttering

Dominican immigrant youth setting up a camp with a table with marijuana on the sidewalk in the Bronx

In New York, Roosevelt Avenue in Queens has become a focal point for such concerns. A 2024 City Journal article describes the area as a third-world bazaar, with open-air markets, prostitution, and public intoxication creating a sense of disorder. These issues resonate with the cultural clashes depicted in Superman II, where Zod’s imposition of Kryptonian dominance disrupts Earth’s social order. For example, Zod’s destruction of human infrastructure parallels the disruption caused by behaviors like public drinking or loud music, which challenge local norms. However, attributing these problems to all immigrants ignores the broader context. Many of these behaviors stem from economic precarity, lack of integration resources, or cultural misunderstandings, not inherent criminality. For instance, public drinking and loud music may reflect cultural norms from immigrants’ home countries, where such activities are less regulated. Superman’s assimilation offers a solution to these tensions. Raised to respect Kansas’ quiet, orderly culture, he adapts to his environment without losing his Kryptonian identity. Similarly, integration programs that teach civic norms, language skills, and community expectations can help immigrants align with local standards while preserving their heritage. New York City’s immigrant affairs programs, such as the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, provide legal aid, language classes, and cultural orientation, helping newcomers navigate their responsibilities, much like the Kents guided Superman. Community policing and cultural exchange initiatives, like neighborhood dialogues in Washington Heights, can also bridge divides, reducing friction over quality-of-life issues. Historical examples illustrate the potential for integration to resolve cultural tensions. In the early 20th century, Italian immigrants in New York faced similar complaints about loud street festivals and public behavior, yet over time, their cultural contributions—cuisine, art, and community organizations—enriched the city. Today, Dominican immigrants, despite quality-of-life concerns, contribute significantly to New York’s economy, with over 900,000 Dominicans in the U.S. owning businesses and working in sectors like healthcare and education, per the Migration Policy Institute. Fostering integration, rather than exclusion, can transform cultural clashes into opportunities for enrichment, as Superman’s story suggests. Historical Parallels and the Evolution of Immigration Policy The allegory of Superman II resonates with America’s long history of immigration debates. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw waves of European immigrants—Irish, Italians, Poles—who faced nativist backlash but eventually assimilated, contributing to America’s cultural and economic growth. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act, referenced in X posts like JamesT_AL’s, marked a shift by abolishing national-origin quotas, increasing immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. While this diversification enriched the U.S., it also sparked fears of cultural erosion, echoing Zod’s threat in Superman II. Yet, these fears often overlook the contributions of post-1965 immigrants, who have driven innovation, entrepreneurship, and cultural dynamism. For example, immigrants founded 55% of U.S. startups valued at over $1 billion in 2024, per the National Foundation for American Policy. Contemporary immigration policy must balance security with opportunity. Legal pathways, like those Superman symbolically navigates, ensure that newcomers are vetted and prepared to contribute. However, the backlog of legal immigration applications—over 4 million in 2024, per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services—creates pressure for illegal entry, fueling perceptions of disorder. Streamlining legal processes, expanding work visas, and investing in integration programs can reduce illegal immigration while fostering Superman-like contributions. Conversely, policies that focus solely on enforcement, like mass deportations, risk alienating communities and echoing the indiscriminate exile of Zod’s Phantom Zone, which ultimately failed to address Krypton’s underlying issues. The U.S. has a history of balancing enforcement with opportunity. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized 3 million undocumented immigrants while strengthening border security, a model that encouraged integration while addressing illegal entry. Today, policies like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Haitians allow legal work and residency, reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. These approaches align with Superman’s model, fostering contributions from immigrants who, like him, seek to build rather than destroy. The Role of Media and Public Perception Media plays a significant role in shaping perceptions of immigration, often amplifying fears of crime and disorder. In Superman II, the media within the film—newspapers and television—report on Zod’s rampage, heightening public fear. Similarly, sensationalized coverage of migrant-related crimes, such as those highlighted in City Journal, shapes public opinion, even when data contradicts the narrative. X posts, while offering raw public sentiment, often perpetuate stereotypes, as seen in JamesT_AL’s comparison of immigrants to Zod. These platforms, while valuable for gauging public mood, lack the rigor of peer-reviewed research, making them inconclusive for policy-making, per the provided guidelines. Countering these narratives requires highlighting positive immigrant stories, like those of entrepreneurs, healthcare workers, and community leaders who embody Superman’s spirit. For example, immigrants make up 17% of the U.S. workforce, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, filling critical roles in industries like healthcare (28% of physicians) and technology (24% of STEM workers). Public campaigns that showcase these contributions, alongside transparent crime data, can shift perceptions from fear to appreciation. For instance, the “I Am an Immigrant” campaign by the Immigration Advocates Network highlights success stories, fostering a narrative of contribution rather than threat, much like Superman’s heroic image counters Zod’s villainy. Conclusion: Embracing the Superman Model for a Stronger Society Superman II offers a powerful allegory for navigating the complexities of immigration. Superman, the lawful immigrant who embraces American values, represents the potential for newcomers to enrich their adopted societies through integration and contribution. General Zod, the destructive outsider, embodies fears of illegal immigration and criminality, but his actions do not define all immigrants. The tendency to paint all immigrants as heroes or villains, as seen in some right-wing rhetoric on X, oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Crime statistics, while showing localized challenges, refute the notion of a migrant-driven crime surge, and quality-of-life concerns in places like New York City can be addressed through integration and community engagement, not exclusion. By fostering policies that encourage lawful immigration, vetting, and assimilation—much like the Kents nurtured Kal-El—the United States can cultivate more Supermans and fewer Zods. This requires balancing enforcement with opportunity, addressing cultural tensions with empathy, and grounding policy in data rather than fear. Just as Superman defeats Zod without rejecting his own Kryptonian identity, society can embrace immigrants who contribute while addressing those who harm, ensuring that immigration remains a source of strength and unity. By emulating Superman’s model—legal entry, respect for the law, and a commitment to service—the U.S. can harness the potential of immigration to build a stronger, more cohesive nation. --- Notes: - All asterisks and hashtags have been removed from the text, as requested, while preserving the content and structure.

- The essay expands on the original by deepening the historical context, crime statistics, quality-of-life issues, and policy recommendations, while maintaining the allegory of Superman II.

- Web sources (e.g., American Immigration Council, City Journal) provide statistical and anecdotal context, and X posts illustrate public sentiment but are treated as inconclusive.

- The essay addresses specific concerns like Tren de Aragua and Roosevelt Avenue, emphasizing targeted solutions over generalization. - If further refinements, additional sections, or specific adjustments are needed, please let me know!

Superman 2025: Movie Review

A Soaring Triumph: James Gunn’s Superman (2025) Redefines the Man of Steel for a New Era

Superman (2025), directed by James Gunn, is a cinematic triumph that breathes new life into the iconic superhero while staying true to the heart of what makes the character endure. With a bold narrative that weaves together themes of family, immigration, and geopolitical commentary, this reboot delivers a visually stunning, emotionally resonant, and socially relevant take on the Man of Steel. Starring David Corenswet as Superman, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, and Nicholas Hoult as a chilling Lex Luthor, the film is a masterful blend of action, heart, and moral complexity. Clocking in at 2 hours and 9 minutes,Superman is a PG-13 epic that balances spectacle with substance, offering a fresh perspective on a hero who has been a cultural touchstone for nearly a century. This review will explore the film’s innovative storyline, its emphasis on family and immigration, its daring political allegory, and its technical and emotional achievements, all while celebrating why this is the Superman we need in 2025.

A Bold New Storyline: Echoes of Brightburn with a Heroic Heart One of the most striking aspects of Superman (2025) is its narrative ambition, which draws inspiration from the darker, subversive tone of Brightburn (2019) while remaining steadfastly heroic. Unlike Brightburn, where a superpowered alien child descends into villainy, Gunn’s Superman flips the premise, exploring what happens when an alien with godlike abilities chooses compassion over destruction. The film opens with a bruised and battered Superman (David Corenswet), three years into his public career, grappling with the weight of his role as Metropolis’s protector. The introductory title cards inform us that it’s been three decades since Kal-El crash-landed on Earth, setting the stage for a story that dives into his dual identity as both a Kryptonian and a human raised in Kansas. The central conflict revolves around Superman’s intervention in a war between two fictional nations, Boravia and Jarhanpur. Boravia, a technologically advanced U.S. ally with a vaguely Eastern European aesthetic, seeks to displace the indigenous, Middle Eastern-coded Jarhanpurians in a settler-colonial project. The parallels to real-world geopolitics are unmistakable, but more on that later. This conflict serves as the backbone of the film, with Superman caught between his desire to save lives and the political ramifications of his actions. Unlike Brightburn, which leaned into horror and nihilism, Superman uses its darker elements to underscore the hero’s moral clarity. Where Brightburn’s Brandon Breyer embraced his alien power to dominate, Kal-El rejects the temptation to impose his will, choosing instead to protect the vulnerable and uphold justice. This narrative choice sets Superman apart from previous iterations. While Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel (2013) explored Superman’s alienation through gritty realism, and Christopher Reeve’s Superman (1978) leaned into campy optimism, Gunn finds a middle ground. The film is neither overly dour nor excessively light; it’s a thoughtful exploration of what it means to be a hero in a world that doesn’t always value heroism. The Brightburn-like premise—What if an alien with limitless power arrived on Earth?—is reframed as a meditation on choice. Superman’s decision to be a force for good, despite the chaos around him, makes the film feel both timeless and urgently relevant. The Heart of the Story: Family as Superman’s Anchor At its core, Superman (2025) is a story about family, both biological and chosen. The film delves deeply into Clark Kent’s relationship with his adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince and Neva Howell), who ground him in human values. Early scenes in Smallville are some of the film’s most poignant, showing a young Clark learning to control his powers under his parents’ patient guidance. These moments are beautifully understated, with Vince and Howell delivering performances that radiate warmth and quiet strength. A particularly moving scene sees Jonathan teaching Clark to fix a tractor, using the moment to impart a lesson about responsibility: “You’ve got all this power, son, but it’s what you do with it that makes you who you are.” This line encapsulates the film’s thesis, echoing the Kents’ role as the moral compass that shapes Superman’s heroism. The theme of family extends beyond the Kents to Superman’s connections with Lois Lane and his colleagues at the Daily Planet. Rachel Brosnahan’s Lois is a revelation—a whip-smart journalist whose tenacity matches Superman’s strength. Their romance is less about starry-eyed idealism and more about mutual respect, with Lois challenging Clark to confront the ethical dilemmas of his actions. A standout scene features Lois and Clark debating the morality of his intervention in the Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict, with Lois arguing that stopping one side might embolden another. Brosnahan imbues Lois with a fierce intelligence and vulnerability, making her a true partner rather than a damsel in distress. The film also introduces Krypto, Superman’s super-powered dog, as a delightful nod to the character’s comic book roots. Voiced by Bradley Cooper, Krypto is both a comic relief and a symbol of loyalty, stealing scenes with his poorly trained antics and unwavering devotion to Clark. A moment where Krypto leaps into battle to protect Superman is both thrilling and heartwarming, proving that even a super-dog can embody the film’s focus on family. These relationships—Clark with the Kents, Lois, and Krypto—anchor the film’s high-stakes action, reminding us that Superman’s strength comes not just from his Kryptonian heritage but from the love and values instilled by his human family. Superman as Immigrant: A Powerful Allegory James Gunn has been vocal about Superman (2025) being an “immigrant story,” a theme that resonates deeply in a world grappling with xenophobia and border disputes. The film leans into Superman’s origin as Kal-El, a refugee from the destroyed planet Krypton, sent to Earth by his parents to escape annihilation. This narrative, rooted in the character’s creation by Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, is foregrounded with sensitivity and boldness. David Corenswet, the first Jewish actor to play Superman, brings a nuanced gravitas to the role, embodying both the alien outsider and the all-American hero. His performance captures the tension of living between two worlds, a struggle that resonates with immigrant experiences worldwide. The film’s pro-immigration stance is woven into its narrative without feeling preachy. Superman’s intervention in the Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict is framed as a defense of the displaced Jarhanpurians, who are depicted as non-white, indigenous people facing a settler-colonial power. Scenes of Jarhanpurians marching toward a metal fence, clutching makeshift weapons and a flag bearing Superman’s symbol, evoke powerful imagery of refugees seeking hope amidst oppression. These moments are handled with care, emphasizing Superman’s role as a protector of the marginalized rather than a savior imposing his will. The film’s message is clear: immigrants, like Superman, bring strength and humanity to their adopted homes, challenging the nativism that seeks to exclude them. This theme has sparked controversy, particularly among right-leaning critics who view the film’s politics as “woke.” Yet, as Gunn has noted, Superman’s immigrant identity is not a new invention but a core aspect of his mythos. The film’s emphasis on “basic human kindness” as a value worth defending feels like a natural extension of the character’s history, created by two Jewish teens during a time of global antisemitism. By casting Corenswet and foregrounding this narrative, Superman (2025) honors its roots while speaking to contemporary issues, making it a powerful rebuttal to anti-immigrant rhetoric. A Daring Parody: Netanyahu and the Israel-Palestine Allegory Perhaps the most audacious element of Superman (2025) is its geopolitical allegory, which many viewers have interpreted as a commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The fictional nations of Boravia and Jarhanpur serve as stand-ins, with Boravia’s leader, Vasil Glarkos (Zlatko Buric), bearing a striking resemblance to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Glarkos is depicted as a cunning, authoritarian figure who collaborates with Lex Luthor to advance Boravia’s aggressive expansion into Jarhanpur. The Jarhanpurians, portrayed as an indigenous, Middle Eastern-coded people, face displacement and violence, with imagery that evokes the Gaza conflict—arid landscapes, modest clothing, and a heavily militarized border. Gunn has been careful not to explicitly confirm the allegory, stating that the film is “about politics” and “morality” rather than a direct critique of any real-world conflict. However, the parallels are hard to ignore, especially given the film’s release on July 11, 2025, amidst ongoing global debates about the Israel-Palestine situation. The Boravian-Jarhanpur conflict is not a simplistic metaphor; it’s a nuanced exploration of power dynamics, colonialism, and the role of external actors like the U.S. and Lex Luthor, who supplies Boravia with advanced weaponry. A particularly chilling scene shows Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) orchestrating a social media campaign to vilify Superman, mirroring real-world propaganda tactics. The parody of Netanyahu through Glarkos is both bold and risky. Buric’s performance is layered, portraying Glarkos as a charismatic yet ruthless leader who justifies his actions as necessary for Boravia’s security. This characterization avoids caricature, instead offering a critique of authoritarianism and militarism. A standout moment sees Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) confronting Glarkos in a dramatic aerial sequence, symbolizing resistance to unchecked power. The film doesn’t shy away from showing the human cost of the conflict, with scenes of Jarhanpurian families caught in the crossfire, yet it maintains Superman’s idealism by having him focus on saving lives rather than picking sides. Critics have been divided on this allegory, with some praising its courage and others accusing it of being too on-the-nose. Social media platforms like X have buzzed with reactions, with one user calling it “a powerful and clear commentary on the senseless genocide against Palestinians” while others decry it as “anti-Israel.” Regardless of one’s interpretation, the allegory elevates Superman (2025) beyond typical superhero fare, challenging audiences to think critically about justice, power, and humanity. By using fictional nations, Gunn sidesteps direct political endorsement while still engaging with “current ethical questions,” as he put it, making the film a conversation starter rather than a polemic. Technical Brilliance and Performances Beyond its thematic depth, Superman (2025) is a technical marvel. Gunn’s direction is confident, blending his signature humor and heart with the epic scope required for a Superman film. The cinematography by Henry Braham is breathtaking, with sweeping shots of Metropolis contrasting with the stark, arid landscapes of Jarhanpur. The action sequences are kinetic yet coherent, avoiding the quick-cut chaos of some superhero films. A climactic battle involving Superman, Hawkgirl, and Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi) against a Luthor-engineered creature is a visual spectacle, blending comic book flair with Gunn’s penchant for quirky, visceral action. The performances are uniformly excellent. Corenswet is a revelation as Superman, balancing vulnerability and strength with a charisma that recalls Christopher Reeve while forging his own path. His Clark Kent is endearingly awkward, while his Superman radiates quiet resolve. Brosnahan’s Lois Lane is a standout, bringing wit and gravitas to a character who could easily have been overshadowed. Hoult’s Lex Luthor is a chilling departure from past portrayals, channeling a tech-bro sociopathy that feels ripped from headlines about figures like Elon Musk. The supporting cast, including Nathan Fillion as a sardonic Guy Gardner/Green Lantern and Skyler Gisondo as a hapless Jimmy Olsen, adds humor and depth. The score by John Murphy is another highlight, blending triumphant orchestral themes with quieter, emotional cues. The return of Superman’s classic red trunks, a nod to Joe Shuster’s original design, is a visual triumph, symbolizing the film’s embrace of the character’s roots while updating him for 2025. Even the much-debated wide-angle lenses, which some found disorienting in trailers, enhance the film’s dynamic energy, making every flight and punch feel larger than life. Emotional Resonance and Cultural Impact Superman (2025) succeeds because it understands what makes the character enduring: his unwavering belief in humanity, even when humanity falters. The film’s exploration of family grounds Superman’s heroism in relatable terms, while its immigrant narrative and geopolitical allegory make it a bold statement in a polarized world. It’s a film that dares to ask big questions—What does it mean to be a hero? How do we navigate power and morality?—without losing sight of the hope and kindness that define Superman. The film’s release has sparked intense discussion, particularly around its political themes. Some have criticized its pro-immigration stance and alleged anti-Trump undertones, with right-wing commentators labeling it “woke.” Yet, as The Guardian noted, Superman has always been about “subverting the powerful” and “sticking up for the underdogs.” This is not a new, politicized Superman but a return to the character’s roots as a champion of justice, created by immigrants who saw him as a symbol of hope in a world on the brink. For fans, the film is a love letter to Superman’s legacy, packed with Easter eggs like Krypto and cameos from other DC heroes. For newcomers, it’s an accessible entry point that doesn’t require knowledge of the comics. The film’s flaws—an occasionally rushed pace and overstuffed subplots—are minor compared to its ambition and heart. It’s a reminder that Superman, in all his earnestness, remains a beacon of hope in a cynical age. Conclusion: A Superman for Our Time James Gunn’s Superman (2025) is a triumph that soars above its predecessors, blending the subversive edge of Brightburn with the optimism of classic Superman stories. Its emphasis on family, from the Kents to Krypto, grounds the film in emotional truth, while its pro-immigration message and daring geopolitical allegory make it a bold commentary on our world. David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult deliver performances that elevate the material, supported by stunning visuals and a heartfelt score. At a time when division and cynicism dominate, Superman reminds us that kindness, justice, and hope are worth fighting for. It’s not just a superhero movie; it’s a cultural event that redefines the Man of Steel for a new generation. As one X user put it, “It’s a beautiful and much-needed film.” Indeed, it’s a bird, it’s a plane—it’s the Superman we need in 2025.

My nephew, sister, and I enjoyed it very much. The AMC theater we attended was nearly full. Everyone applauded at the end, laughed during the comedic parts of the film, and voiced a collective "awww" when Krypto the dog was presented. Despite criticism online from people who had not even seen the film, the movie does not contain "woke" content. There is some mild swearing and,, of course violence due to the fighting. It is a must-see!! Citations: [](https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/2025/07/10/is-james-gunns-superman-movie-critical-of-israel/)

[](https://www.thewrap.com/superman-2025-review-james-gunn-david-corenswet/)

[](https://deadline.com/2025/07/james-gunn-superman-immigrant-american-story-kindness-1236450534/)

Diane Montagna Rehashes the Same Lies

The article by Diane Montagna, published on July 10, 2025 (New Evidence Confirms CDF Report, Erodes Vatican Narrative on Traditional Latin Mass Restrictions), on her Substack, claims to present new evidence from a Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) report that undermines the rationale for Pope Francis’ 2021 decree, Traditionis Custodes, which restricted the Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass. Montagna argues that the CDF’s 2020 survey of bishops showed widespread satisfaction with Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007), which allowed broader use of the Extraordinary Form, and that Traditionis Custodes misrepresented the survey’s findings by exaggerating issues with the Extraordinary Form. Your request is to refute Montagna’s claims, citing Matteo Bruni’s statement, and to argue that her article lacks full evidence, contains falsehoods, and rehashes prior claims. Why did she post the "evidence" now? Why not in the first article? She is clearly desperate to prove her credibility after she was exposed.

Matteo Bruni’s Statement and Its Context Matteo Bruni, the director of the Holy See Press Office, responded to Montagna’s article on July 3, 2025, during a news conference. He stated that Montagna’s documents represent “a very partial and incomplete reconstruction of the decision-making process” behind Traditionis Custodes. While Bruni did not explicitly confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents Montagna published, his statement suggests that her presentation of the CDF report lacks critical context and does not fully represent the factors that led to Pope Francis’ decision.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) Refuting Montagna’s Claims Here are the key points to refute Montagna’s article, supported by evidence and reasoning: 1. Incomplete Evidence and Selective Presentation Montagna claims to have obtained the “Overall Assessment” (Giudizio Complessivo) and a collection of bishops’ quotations from the CDF’s 2020 survey, which she says show that most bishops were satisfied with Summorum Pontificum and that Traditionis Custodes misrepresented the survey’s findings. However, her article only provides excerpts from the report’s second part (the summary) and not the full 224-page document, which includes a detailed analysis of survey results by continent and country. [](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) - Criticism: By presenting only selected portions, Montagna risks cherry-picking data that supports her narrative while omitting potentially contradictory findings. For example, Bruni’s statement implies that additional evidence, not included in Montagna’s excerpts, informed the Vatican’s decision. Specifically, a leaked survey from France, which Montagna does not address, reportedly highlighted negative impacts of the Extraordinary Form on Church unity, particularly in regions with a strong Extraordinary Form presence. This omission undermines her claim that the CDF report universally supported Summorum Pontificum.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: The French survey, referenced in commentary on Montagna’s article, indicated that the Extraordinary Form created divisions in some dioceses, which aligns with Pope Francis’ stated concerns in his 2021 letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes. He noted that the survey revealed “a situation that preoccupies and saddens me,” suggesting issues with the Extraordinary Form’s implementation, even if not universal.[](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) 2. Misrepresentation of Pope Francis’ Rationale Montagna suggests that Traditionis Custodes was based on a false premise that bishops widely opposed Summorum Pontificum, implying that Pope Francis or his advisors fabricated or exaggerated the survey’s negative findings. However, this overstates the case. - Criticism: Pope Francis never claimed that a majority of bishops demanded the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum. In his letter to bishops, he stated that the survey responses revealed a situation requiring intervention, without specifying that the majority opposed the Extraordinary Form. Montagna’s assertion that the Vatican misrepresented the survey hinges on her interpretation of the “Overall Assessment,” but Bruni’s statement counters that her documents do not capture the full scope of the decision-making process.[](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) - Evidence: The CDF report, as partially described by Montagna, acknowledges some positive outcomes of Summorum Pontificum (e.g., attracting young people), but it also notes “gaps, divergences, and disagreements” in its implementation, particularly from a minority of bishops resistant to the Extraordinary Form. This suggests a mixed picture, not a uniformly positive one, and supports the Vatican’s claim that issues existed, even if not universal. Furthermore, a critical analysis on akacatholic.com points out that the CDF’s Fourth Section, which compiled the report, was formerly the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, tasked with overseeing Summorum Pontificum. This group may have had a bias toward the Extraordinary Form, potentially skewing the "Overall Assessment” to emphasize positive findings, which Montagna relies on.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/) 3. Rehashing Prior Claims Montagna’s article reiterates claims she made in October 2021, namely that Traditionis Custodes exaggerated minor issues in the CDF report and ignored the positive impact of Summorum Pontificum. [](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://nonvenipacem.org/2025/07/01/diane-montagna-has-a-new-substack-and-she-brings-the-receipts-on-the-lying-liars/) - Criticism: The July 2025 article largely recycles these earlier assertions, presenting the leaked documents as “new evidence” without substantially new analysis. The documents she provides (the “Overall Assessment” and quotations) are consistent with her 2021 reporting, but they do not conclusively prove that the Vatican lied or misrepresented the survey. The lack of the full report or additional primary data limits her ability to make a definitive case. Moreover, her reliance on the same narrative suggests confirmation bias, as noted by critics who argue that she overlooks evidence like the French survey that contradicts her thesis.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: A new book by Father Bux and Gaeta, released on July 2, 2025, contains additional sections of the CDF report, including continent-by-continent summaries. While Montagna cites this book to support her claims, it also confirms that the report noted variations in Summorum Pontificum’s implementation, including instances where it was ignored or caused tension. This suggests that Montagna’s focus on positive findings is selective and does not account for the broader context.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) 4. Lack of Vatican Confirmation Montagna’s documents have not been officially verified by the Vatican. Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press reported that a Vatican spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on their authenticity as of July 2, 2025. Bruni’s statement further casts doubt on their completeness. [](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) - Criticism: Without Vatican confirmation, the authenticity and context of Montagna’s documents remain uncertain. Her claim that they expose “major cracks” in Traditionis Custodes relies on unverified materials, which weakens her argument. Critics argue that her publication of these documents may be an attempt to pressure the Vatican, as noted in commentary on cal-catholic.com, rather than a definitive exposé.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: The Vatican’s silence and Bruni’s dismissal of the documents as “incomplete” suggest that Montagna’s evidence may not fully represent the CDF’s findings or the rationale for Traditionis Custodes.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) 5. Allegations of Falsehoods Diane lied again and her post shows evidence of deliberate falsehoods. It is misleading due to its selective use of evidence and failure to address countervailing data, such as the French survey. [](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Criticism: Montagna’s omission of negative findings (e.g., from France) and her emphasis on positive excerpts suggest a biased presentation rather than a deliberate lie. However, her failure to acknowledge Bruni’s statement or engage with the possibility that other factors (e.g., theological or pastoral concerns) influenced Traditionis Custodes undermines her credibility. Critics on akacatholic.com argue that her narrative aligns with a “Resist-the-Pope” movement, which may exaggerate claims of Vatican deception to rally support for the Extraordinary Form.[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/) - Evidence: Bruni’s statement directly challenges the completeness of Montagna’s account, and the French survey’s findings, as noted in online commentary, provide a counterpoint to her claim that the CDF report was overwhelmingly positive.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) Diane Montagna’s article does not provide sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that Traditionis Custodes was based on a misrepresentation of the CDF’s 2020 survey. Her selective use of excerpts, omission of contradictory findings (e.g., the French survey), and reliance on unverified documents weaken her argument. Matteo Bruni’s statement that her documents offer a “very partial and incomplete reconstruction” highlights the limitations of her evidence. While Montagna’s claims build on her 2021 reporting, they largely rehash earlier arguments without addressing new counterevidence or the broader context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. Critics’ points about confirmation bias and the influence of the Extraordinary Form-friendly Fourth Section of the CDF further suggest that her narrative may be skewed. To fully refute her claims, access to the complete 224-page CDF report would be necessary, but based on available information, her article is incomplete and misleading. (https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244)[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/)

MORE UPDATES TO COME, STAY TUNED!

The article by Diane Montagna, published on July 10, 2025, on her Substack, claims to provide further evidence confirming the authenticity of a leaked Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) report from 2020 regarding the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter liberalizing the Extraordinary Form. The article argues that this report undermines the rationale for Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which restricted the Extraordinary Form. Below, I will address the claims made in the article, focusing on Matteo Bruni’s comments and the unverified nature of the documents, while critically examining the evidence presented. Key Claims in Montagna’s Article 1. Authenticity of the CDF Report: Montagna claims to have obtained the Vatican protocol number (N. 03/2020-ED) and additional sections of the CDF report, including the introduction to its Second Part, which she says confirms the report’s status as the “official opinion” of the CDF. She argues this validates the sections she published on July 1, 2025, which include the report’s overall assessment and a collection of bishops’ quotations. 2. Contradiction with Traditionis Custodes: The article asserts that the CDF report shows the majority of bishops who responded to the 2020 survey believed that altering Summorum Pontificum would “cause more harm than good,” contradicting Pope Francis’ stated rationale in Traditionis Custodes that the survey revealed a need to intervene due to divisions caused by the Extraordinary Form. 3. Matteo Bruni’s Comments: Montagna references Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni’s July 3, 2025, statement, where he declined to confirm the authenticity of the leaked documents, described them as “very partial and incomplete,” and noted that other “confidential reports” informed Pope Francis’ decision. She argues this raises questions about why these additional documents were not mentioned in Traditionis Custodes or its accompanying letter. 4. Burden of Proof: Montagna contends that the Vatican must prove the CDF report inaccurately represented the bishops’ responses, or else the report’s conclusion—that most bishops supported Summorum Pontificum—stands. Refutation with Evidence While Montagna’s article presents a compelling narrative, there are several points where her claims can be challenged or require further scrutiny, particularly due to the unverified nature of the documents and the broader context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. 1. Unverified Documents: - Lack of Official Confirmation: Matteo Bruni, the Holy See Press Office Director, explicitly stated on July 3, 2025, that he would not confirm the authenticity of the leaked documents, describing them as “presumably” part of one of the documents used in the decision-making process for Traditionis Custodes but “very partial and incomplete.” This lack of verification undermines Montagna’s claim of definitive authenticity. The protocol number (N. 03/2020-ED) and images provided in the article are not corroborated by any official Vatican source, and their provenance remains unclear.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://www.osvnews.com/vatican-says-documents-on-latin-mass-assessment-incomplete/) - Incomplete Nature of the Leaked Documents: Bruni’s statement aligns with the possibility that the leaked sections do not represent the full scope of the CDF’s findings or the broader evidence considered by Pope Francis. Montagna acknowledges that the leaked sections are part of a larger report (over 200 pages, per), but her focus on the “overall assessment” and “florilegium” may cherry-pick favorable data, omitting context that could support the Vatican’s rationale for Traditionis Custodes. For example, some bishops noted in the leaked documents that Summorum Pontificum failed to foster reconciliation, preferring a return to pre-2007 rules requiring episcopal permission for the Extraordinary Form.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/)[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/) - Potential Bias in Source: Montagna’s Substack is noted for its traditionalist leanings, which may influence her interpretation of the documents. Without independent verification from neutral sources or the Vatican releasing the full report, the documents’ authenticity and completeness remain speculative.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/02/extra-extra-news-and-views-for-wednesday-july-2-2025/) 2. Matteo Bruni’s Comments and Additional Evidence: - Bruni’s July 3 statement indicates that the decision to issue Traditionis Custodes was based on more than just the CDF’s 2020 survey, including “further documentation” and “confidential reports” submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Montagna questions why these additional documents were not referenced in Traditionis Custodes, but this does not negate their existence or relevance. The Vatican is not obligated to disclose all inputs into a papal decision, especially confidential reports, which may involve sensitive issues like schismatic groups or liturgical abuses.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://catholicvote.org/holy-see-press-office-spokesman-responds-to-alleged-vatican-latin-mass-report/)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053) - For instance, the leaked documents themselves note resistance from some bishops, particularly in regions like Italy and Spanish-speaking countries, due to “nescience, prejudice, and resistance” to Summorum Pontificum. Additionally, issues with traditionalist groups like Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) in Brazil were not addressed in Montagna’s leaked sections, suggesting selective reporting.[](https://infovaticana.com/2025/07/01/traditionis-custodes-se-baso-en-una-mentira-summorum-pontificum-funcionaba/)[](https://wherepeteris.com/will-pope-leo-take-on-the-traditionalists) - Bruni’s reluctance to confirm the documents’ authenticity does not inherently discredit them but emphasizes that they are only part of a larger decision-making process. This aligns with the Vatican’s consistent position that Traditionis Custodes aimed to address liturgical divisions and promote ecclesial unity, as Pope Francis stated in his accompanying letter.[](https://www.osvnews.com/vatican-says-documents-on-latin-mass-assessment-incomplete/)[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) 3. Context of Traditionis Custodes: - Pope Francis’ rationale for Traditionis Custodes was not solely based on the 2020 survey but also on his broader concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s use fostering division. He criticized traditionalist Catholics for being “navel-gazing retrogrades” out of touch with the Church’s evangelizing mission. The survey may have highlighted positive aspects of Summorum Pontificum (e.g., attracting younger Catholics, increasing vocations), but it also noted challenges, such as bishops’ concerns about controlling Extraordinary Form celebrations or divisions within dioceses.[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd)[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/) - The leaked documents suggest that some bishops warned that suppressing Summorum Pontificum could drive traditionalists to schismatic groups, but this does not negate the possibility that other evidence (e.g., confidential reports) highlighted significant issues with traditionalist communities, particularly in regions like the United States, where liturgical disputes have been prominent.[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) - A new Italian book, The Liturgy Is Not a Show, co-authored by Don Nicola Bux and Saverio Gaeta, reportedly corroborates Montagna’s findings but also reveals that 42% of French bishops supported mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form, while 13% favored maintaining Summorum Pontificum’s balance. This indicates a diversity of views, not a uniform endorsement of the Extraordinary Form, undermining Montagna’s claim of a clear majority opposing restrictions.[](https://catholicism.org/leaked-report-grows-new-book-blows-hole-in-traditionis-custodes-narrative.html)[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) 4. Burden of Proof: - Montagna argues that the Vatican must prove the CDF report inaccurately represented the bishops’ responses. However, this shifts the burden of proof inappropriately. As the claimant, Montagna must demonstrate that her leaked documents are both authentic and representative of the full report. The Vatican’s decision-making process, as Bruni noted, involved multiple inputs, and the lack of transparency about these inputs does not inherently invalidate Traditionis Custodes. Papal authority allows decisions based on broader considerations, not solely survey results. - The CDF report’s “overall assessment” may state that most bishops opposed changes to Summorum Pontificum, but without the full report, it’s unclear how representative this is. For example, the report notes that some bishops requested a return to pre-2007 rules for greater control, suggesting a split in opinions. Additionally, the survey’s findings in France, which has a significant Extraordinary Form presence, were reportedly leaked before Traditionis Custodes and indicated mixed results, not universal support for Summorum Pontificum.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) 5. Alternative Perspectives: - Critics of Montagna’s report, such as those on Where Peter Is, argue that her claims collapse under scrutiny due to the unverified nature of the documents and the lack of context. They note that the leaked sections omit critical issues, such as problematic traditionalist groups in Brazil, and that the bishops’ responses included concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s implementation.[](https://wherepeteris.com/will-pope-leo-take-on-the-traditionalists) - The Vatican’s broader goal, as articulated by Pope Francis and reiterated by Pope Leo XIV, is to promote unity and reconciliation. The restrictions in Traditionis Custodes were intended to address perceived divisions, particularly in regions like the United States, where the Extraordinary Form has been a flashpoint. Montagna’s focus on the CDF report ignores these broader pastoral concerns.[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) Matteo Bruni’s Comments Matteo Bruni’s statement on July 3, 2025, during a press conference on the “Mass for the Care of Creation,” is critical to understanding the Vatican’s position: - He stated, “I do not confirm the authenticity of the texts that have been published, which presumably concern part of one of the documents on which the decision was based and, as such, contribute to a reconstruction that is also very partial and incomplete with regard to the decision-making process. In fact, further documentation was later added to the consultation mentioned, including other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations that were submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.”[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd) - This suggests that the leaked documents, even if authentic, do not capture the full scope of evidence considered by Pope Francis. Bruni’s reference to “confidential reports” indicates that sensitive information, possibly involving specific dioceses or traditionalist groups, played a role but was not publicly disclosed for pastoral or administrative reasons. - Bruni’s comments align with the Vatican’s consistent messaging that Traditionis Custodes aimed to address liturgical divisions, not merely to suppress the Extraordinary Form. The lack of explicit reference to additional documents in Traditionis Custodes does not mean they did not exist, as papal decisions often involve internal deliberations not fully disclosed.

While Montagna’s article raises provocative questions about the rationale for Traditionis Custodes, it relies on unverified documents and lacks the full context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. Matteo Bruni’s comments underscore that the leaked sections are “presumably” partial and incomplete, and additional confidential reports informed Pope Francis’ decision. Without the full CDF report or corroboration from official Vatican sources, Montagna’s claims remain speculative. The leaked documents suggest some bishops supported Summorum Pontificum, but they also indicate diverse views, including concerns about division and control, which align with the Vatican’s stated goals in Traditionis Custodes. The burden of proof lies with Montagna to substantiate her claims with verified evidence, and the Vatican’s broader pastoral concerns—promoting unity and addressing liturgical disputes—provide a plausible basis for Traditionis Custodes beyond the 2020 survey alone.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd)

A Critique of the "We're So Back" Trope Among Catholic Traditionalists: Misplaced Nostalgia and a Misreading of Church History

A Critique of the "We're So Back" Trope Among Catholic Traditionalists: Misplaced Nostalgia and a Misreading of Church History

In recent years, particularly following the election of Pope Leo XIV on May 8, 2025, a segment of Catholic traditionalists has embraced the phrase "we're so back" as a rallying cry. This trope, often circulated on social media platforms and within certain online communities, suggests a triumphant return to a perceived golden age of Catholicism—characterized by rigid doctrinal enforcement, the widespread use of the Extraordinary Form, and a rejection of what they view as the liberalizing tendencies of the post-Vatican II Church. The election of an American pope, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who chose the name Leo XIV, has fueled this narrative among some traditionalists who see his Augustinian background and choice of name as a nod to pre-conciliar popes like Leo XIII, a figure associated with social teaching that some interpret as aligning with their ideals. However, this enthusiasm rests on a flawed premise: the notion that the Catholic Church "left" somewhere and is now "back" where it belongs. This critique argues that such a view is historically inaccurate, statistically unsupported, and theologically deficient, particularly when measured against the Church's growth under Pope Francis, the continuity of its mission, and the promises of Christ as reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIV. The Historical Misconception: The Church Never "Left" The "we're so back" trope implies a departure from an authentic Catholic identity, often traced to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the subsequent papacies, especially that of Pope Francis (2013-2025). Traditionalists frequently point to changes in liturgy, such as the shift from the Extraordinary Form to the Ordinary Form Mass, and perceived doctrinal ambiguities as evidence of a Church that has strayed. Yet, this narrative overlooks the Church's unbroken continuity across two millennia. The Catholic Church, as an institution guided by the Holy Spirit, has never ceased to be the Body of Christ, despite internal challenges, schisms, or reforms. Historical precedents—such as the Arian heresy in the 4th century, the Great Schism of 1054, or the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century—demonstrate that the Church has faced periods of crisis and adaptation without losing its essence. The gates of hell, as Christ promised, have not prevailed (Matthew 16:18), a promise reiterated in theological reflections that emphasize the Church's resilience through human imperfection. Vatican II, far from being a rupture, was a development of doctrine, building on the foundations laid by previous councils. Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, often revered by traditionalists, upheld its legitimacy, with Benedict XVI famously describing it as a "hermeneutic of continuity" rather than rupture. Pope Francis, despite his pastoral innovations, maintained this continuity, issuing magisterial documents like Amoris Laetitia (2016) and Laudato Si' (2015) that, while addressing modern issues, remained rooted in traditional Catholic teaching on mercy, justice, and stewardship. The claim that the Church "left" its authentic path under Francis ignores the fact that the Church's mission—proclaiming the Gospel and administering the sacraments—has persisted uninterrupted. The Extraordinary Form's restriction under Traditionis Custodes (2021) is cited as evidence of decline, but this was a disciplinary measure, not a doctrinal shift, and reflects a pastoral response to division rather than a rejection of tradition itself. Statistical Evidence: Church Growth Under Pope Francis One of the most striking counterpoints to the "we're so back" narrative is the measurable growth of the Catholic Church during Pope Francis' pontificate. Contrary to the traditionalist lament of a Church in decline, global Catholic population increased by over 10% from approximately 1.2 billion in 2013 to around 1.4 billion by 2025, according to estimates from Church statistics and reports. This growth, while not uniform across regions, reflects a robust expansion in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, where Francis' emphasis on the poor and marginalized resonated deeply. In Africa alone, the number of Catholics rose from about 200 million to over 250 million, driven by missionary efforts and local vocations, a trend Francis actively supported through synodality and outreach. This growth challenges the traditionalist assertion that the Church's openness to dialogue, inclusivity, and social justice under Francis weakened its identity. Attendance at Mass and sacramental participation, while declining in some Western countries (a trend predating Francis), remained stable or increased in the Global South, where the Church's presence is expanding. The ordination of priests also saw a global uptick, with seminaries in Africa and Asia reporting higher enrollment, countering the narrative of a Church in crisis. Francis' reforms, such as addressing the sexual abuse scandal with stricter protocols and curial transparency, further strengthened institutional credibility, contributing to this growth. The "we're so back" trope, by contrast, offers no evidence of a Church that was "gone" or is now returning—rather, it reveals a nostalgic fixation on a Western, pre-Vatican II model that never represented the global Church's full reality. Theological Deficiency: Distrust in Christ's Promise At its core, the "we're so back" trope betrays a lack of trust in Christ's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). This promise, articulated by Jesus to Peter, the first pope, has been a cornerstone of Catholic theology, interpreted by saints and scholars as a guarantee of the Church's indefectibility. The traditionalist narrative, however, suggests that the Church under Francis—and now potentially under Leo XIV—has been so compromised by modernity, liberalism, or synodality that it required a dramatic "return." This view implies that the Holy Spirit's guidance faltered, a position that contradicts the Church's teaching on its divine protection. Theological reflections, both historical and contemporary, reinforce this critique. Early Church Fathers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized that the Church's holiness derives not from the sinlessness of its members but from Christ's redemptive presence. During the Arian crisis, when most bishops adhered to heresy, the Church survived through a faithful remnant, proving that divine protection transcends human failings. Similarly, under Francis, challenges like clericalism and polarization were met with calls for conversion and unity, not abandonment of the faith. The traditionalist distrust in this process suggests a faith more in human control than in divine providence, a stance that undermines the very tradition they claim to defend. Pope Leo XIV's early statements further underscore this continuity. In his first address on May 8, 2025, he echoed Francis' themes of synodality and mercy, declaring, "God loves us, God loves you all, and evil will not prevail!" This reaffirmation of Christ's promise aligns with Francis' legacy and counters the traditionalist narrative of a Church that needed rescuing. Leo's commitment to a "synodal church" and his participation in the Synod on Synodality (2023-2024) indicate an intent to build on Francis' inclusive approach, not to revert to a pre-conciliar model. The "we're so back" trope, therefore, misaligns with the current pontiff's vision and the theological assurance of the Church's enduring mission. Pope Leo XIV and the Continuation of Francis' Legacy The election of Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff, has been interpreted by some traditionalists as a pivot away from Francis' papacy. His choice of the name Leo, evoking Leo XIII's social encyclicals like *Rerum Novarum* (1891), and his Augustinian background have fueled hopes of a return to a more "traditional" Church. However, Leo XIV's actions and words since his election on May 8, 2025, suggest a deliberate continuation of Francis' legacy. In his inaugural Mass homily on May 9, 2025, he called for a Church that serves a hostile world with joyful faith, echoing Francis' emphasis on outreach to the marginalized. His pledge to renew commitment to the path set by Vatican II and *Evangelii Gaudium* (2013) further aligns him with Francis' vision of a missionary, synodal Church. Leo's background as a missionary in Peru and his role as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops under Francis highlight his pastoral approach, which prioritizes listening to the laity and fostering unity—principles central to Francis' pontificate. His address to the Synod's 16th Ordinary Council on June 26, 2025, described synodality as "a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church," directly building on Francis' reforms. This continuity undermines the traditionalist expectation of a "return," as Leo XIV appears committed to addressing modern challenges—climate change, social justice, and ecumenism—rather than retreating to a nostalgic past. Traditionalists' optimism about Leo XIV often hinges on misinterpretations, such as seeing his name choice as a signal of doctrinal rigidity. Yet, Leo XIII's legacy was one of adaptation to industrial society, not a rejection of progress. Leo XIV's early focus on unity, as seen in his June 29, 2025, feast of Sts. Peter and Paul address, where he spoke of an "ecumenism of blood," suggests a forward-looking Church, not a backward glance. The "we're so back" trope, therefore, rests on a misreading of Leo's intentions and a projection of traditionalist desires onto his papacy. Cultural and Psychological Drivers of the Trope The "we're so back" sentiment also reflects cultural and psychological dynamics within traditionalist circles, particularly in the West. The phrase, borrowed from internet slang, signifies a resurgence after a perceived decline, mirroring trends in political and cultural conservatism. In the U.S., where Leo XIV hails from, the rise of national populism and media polarization has influenced Catholic discourse, with some traditionalists aligning the Church's "return" with right-wing values. This is evident in online posts where users express relief that Leo XIV might counter globalism or liberalism, a sentiment that oversimplifies the Church's transpolitical mission. Psychologically, the trope may stem from a desire for certainty in an era of rapid change—technological, cultural, and ecological. Francis' ambiguity on issues like LGBTQ+ pastoral care and women's roles, while rooted in mercy, unsettled those seeking clear boundaries. The election of an American pope, combined with his traditional name, offered a psychological anchor, fueling the "we're so back" narrative. However, this reflects more a reaction to secular trends than a response to the Church's actual state, which, as shown, has grown and adapted under Francis.

Critiquing the Evidence Base Traditionalists often cite anecdotal evidence—declining Mass attendance in Europe, the Extraordinary Form's popularity, or Francis' off-the-cuff remarks—as proof of a Church in crisis. Yet, these are selective and lack context. Mass attendance decline began post-World War II, long before Vatican II, due to secularization, not papal policy. The Extraordinary Form, while cherished by a minority, represents a fraction of global Catholic practice, with the Ordinary Form remaining the norm. Francis' remarks, often pastoral rather than doctrinal, are misinterpreted as shifts when they are invitations to dialogue, as seen in his synodal process. Conversely, evidence of Church vitality—global growth, new vocations, and Francis' reforms—receives less attention. The traditionalist focus on a "lost" Church ignores the Holy Spirit's role in guiding it through diversity. Leo XIV's continuation of this trajectory further invalidates the trope, as his synodal emphasis seeks to unify, not divide, the faithful. Conclusion: A Call for Trust and Unity The "we're so back" trope among Catholic traditionalists is a misjudgment of history, statistics, and theology. The Church never "left" its mission, growing under Pope Francis and maintaining Christ's promise against the gates of hell. Pope Leo XIV's commitment to Francis' legacy reinforces this continuity, challenging traditionalist nostalgia. Rather than celebrating a return, Catholics are called to trust in the Church's divine guidance and work toward unity, embracing the global, synodal Church of today. The trope, while emotionally resonant, lacks substance and risks fracturing the Body of Christ it claims to defend.