Scary Movie 6: The Return After Years – A Raunchy, Unapologetic Blast from the Past That Somehow Still Hits in 2026

Scary Movie 6: The Return After Years – A Raunchy, Unapologetic Blast from the Past That Somehow Still Hits in 2026

In the summer of 2026, nearly thirteen years after Scary Movie 5 limped into theaters with diminishing returns and a noticeable lack of the original spark, the Wayans brothers have stormed back to reclaim their franchise. Scary Movie 6 (officially titled just Scary Movie but colloquially Scary Movie 6: The Return) reunites key players like Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Anna Faris, and Regina Hall, with Keenen Ivory Wayans co-writing and producing. Directed by Michael Tiddes, this 96-minute R-rated fever dream opened to a franchise-record $55 million domestically and over $105 million worldwide, proving that nostalgia for unfiltered, boundary-pushing comedy still sells tickets—even if critics are mixed at best (around 24% on Rotten Tomatoes) while audiences are more forgiving (68-69% Popcornmeter).

It's not a masterpiece, but it's a chaotic, vulgar, mirror-to-society satire that throws punches in every direction. If you're a Millennial who grew up on the first two Scary Movies, buckle up—this one feels like a reunion tour that occasionally nails the high notes while reminding you why the originals were lightning in a bottle.

 Plot and Structure: Requels, Meta, and Mayhem

The story picks up with the "Core Four" (or what's left of them) in a world obsessed with horror requels. Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris, still game for physical comedy) and Brenda Meeks (Regina Hall) are back, now navigating middle age in a culture warped by social media, identity politics, and endless franchise reboots. Ghostface returns, of course, but the killers this time are a mix of supernatural entities, AI-generated horrors, and parodies of recent hits like Scream requels, Smile, M3GAN, The Substance, Terrifier, and even Michael (the horror one, not the singer).

The plot is threadbare by design—it's a vehicle for sketches. Characters stumble through haunted houses, college campuses turned DEI battlegrounds, and viral TikTok challenges that summon demons. There's a lengthy sequence spoofing Final Destination with pronouns and "safe spaces" that escalate into absurd body horror. Marlon Wayans' character (a reimagined Ray or a new chaotic figure) delivers rapid-fire one-liners while dodging everything from possessed sex dolls to "woke" serial killers who pause to check trigger warnings.

Cameos abound. Original franchise favorites pop up in blink-and-you'll-miss-it roles: Dave Sheridan as Doofy (now a conspiracy podcaster), some surprise returns from Scary Movie 1-4 alumni, and even a meta nod to the Wayans' White Chicks with a character (played by a Wayans) in drag infiltrating a "diversity summit" only for the bit to spiral into bathroom humor and identity swap chaos. It's equal parts nostalgic fan service and a reminder that the Wayans haven't lost their knack for broad physical comedy.

 Tone: Campy, Silly, Goofy, and Relentlessly Satirical

Scary Movie 6 leans hard into camp. It's not trying to be clever like Scream; it's embracing the dumb, the crude, and the over-the-top. Sight gags, slapstick, and fart jokes coexist with sharp (if blunt) social commentary. The film mocks Gen Z's obsession with pronouns by having a character introduce themselves as "they/them... but only on Tuesdays" before getting eviscerated in increasingly ridiculous ways. Gender theory gets roasted through a subplot involving a "transitional" ghost who haunts people for misgendering, complete with exaggerated mannerisms and payoff gags that had preview audiences howling but will surely spark thinkpieces.

Political correctness is the biggest target. A university scene features a "DEI hire" slasher who can't be fired because of optics, leading to a chase where the heroes keep apologizing for running. Black victimization tropes are skewered mercilessly: Brenda's character complains about "everything being about Black trauma" while simultaneously weaponizing it for laughs, only for the film to flip it with white characters doing the same in reverse. White guilt, Black entitlement, Gen Z fragility—nothing is sacred.

The movie doesn't spare anyone. Gays and trans characters appear in exaggerated stereotypes for punchlines: flamboyant sidekicks who break into song during horror set pieces, or a pronoun-obsessed antagonist whose "lived experience" monologue gets interrupted by chainsaws. It's the kind of humor that Family Guy or early 2000s comedy thrived on—offensive by today's standards, but delivered with such cartoonish absurdity that it feels like performance art rather than malice. The film knows it's being "problematic" and doubles down, winking at the audience.

Vulgarity is off the charts. Expect extended sequences of sexual imagery: prosthetic penis jokes (including one involving a "gender reveal" party gone wrong), graphic simulated sex acts parodying modern horror's eroticism (think Poor Things meets Terrifier), and toilet humor that rivals the first film's infamous scenes. There's a threesome parody involving a ghost, a robot, and a celebrity impersonator that pushes R-rating boundaries. It's not subtle. Parents, heed this: do not bring kids. This is not Scary Movie lite—it's raunchier than the originals in places, with full-frontal gags and bodily fluid sight gags.

 Strengths: Nostalgia, Performances, and Satirical Wins

Where Scary Movie 6 triumphs is in recapturing the spirit of the early entries. Anna Faris and Regina Hall have insane chemistry; their scenes together feel like no time has passed. Faris throws herself into physical bits—tripping, screaming, accidental exposures—with the same manic energy. Hall steals scenes with deadpan delivery on race and gender lines that land because of her timing.

Marlon Wayans carries much of the male comedy, channeling his White Chicks energy into a character who's constantly code-switching between "woke ally" and street-smart survivor. The White Chicks cameo (or homage) is a highlight: a convoluted plot where characters disguise themselves to expose a "cultural appropriation" scam, leading to runway walks interrupted by killers. It's silly, dated in the best way, and pure Wayans.

The satire on modern norms works more often than not. A sequence mocking "victimhood Olympics" has characters competing over who suffered more—Black trauma, trans struggles, Gen Z anxiety—while Ghostface picks them off. DEI hires get lampooned in a boardroom scene where incompetence is excused by identity checkboxes. Pronoun policing turns lethal. The film argues, through absurdity, that hypersensitivity makes everything worse. Millennials in the audience (myself included) will cackle at the recognition of how far culture has swung since 2000. Gen Z and younger viewers? Many will feel targeted, and that's intentional. The movie positions itself as anti-cancel culture comedy, "edgy as f---" in the words of its cast.

Horror parodies are spot-on. The requel framework lets them riff on legacy sequels, fan service, and studio greed. Jump scares are undercut with goofy sound effects. A Smile parody has the cursed smile turning into a TikTok dance challenge. It's meta without being insufferable.

 Weaknesses: Average Execution, Dated Bits, and Inconsistency

It's not as good as the original Scary Movie or even the second. The first film was a cultural phenomenon because it perfectly timed parodies of Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and early-2000s pop culture. This one feels like a victory lap. Some jokes land flat because they're too on-the-nose or already meme'd to death. The runtime flies by, but pacing drags in the middle when it relies on repetitive chase gags.

Humor is hit-or-miss. For every gut-busting bit (the pronoun ghost, the DEI slasher), there's a groaner relying on celebrity impressions or forced callbacks. Sexual content, while funny in context, sometimes feels like padding—gratuitous rather than integral. The film tries to balance nostalgia with timeliness, but some Gen Z references feel researched rather than lived.

Critics' low scores stem from this: it's "tired" or "regressive." But that's missing the point. The movie knows what it is—a silly, campy satire meant to offend the easily offended and entertain those who miss punch-up/punch-down comedy without apology.

 Cultural Impact and Audience Divide

This film is a litmus test. Millennials who remember sneaking into the first Scary Movie as teens will love the throwbacks and the roasting of today's absurdities. The unapologetic mockery of identity politics, victimization narratives, and performative wokeness feels cathartic after years of sanitized comedy. It's a reminder that the Wayans built their brand on crossing lines.

Gen Z and progressive audiences will likely decry it as transphobic, racist, or whatever -ist is trending. The film anticipates this with in-movie protests and "outrage" montages that mirror real Twitter/X meltdowns. It wins on that aspect: holding a mirror to how quickly offense culture escalates.

Box office success shows demand for this. At $30 million budget, it's profitable and already spawning "Scary Movie 7" teases.

 Final Verdict

Scary Movie 6: The Return After Years is funny—consistently enough to justify a theater trip for fans—but average compared to the franchise's peak. It excels as campy, goofy satire that skewers everyone: gays, straights, trans folks, Black people, white people, Gen Z, Boomers, politicians, and Hollywood. The vulgarity and sexual imagery make it adults-only. Not for kids, not for the humorless.

If you want escapist raunch that punches sacred cows, see it. Score: 6.5/10. Nostalgia boosts it; tighter editing could've made it great. The Wayans are back, unfiltered. In 2026, that's rarer than a good horror requel.

 

A Meeting at the Vatican: Father James Martin, Pope Leo XIV, and the Call to Welcome All

A Meeting at the Vatican: Father James Martin, Pope Leo XIV, and the Call to Welcome All

On September 1, 2025, Jesuit priest Father James Martin, a prominent advocate for greater inclusion of the LGBTQIA community within the Catholic Church, met with Pope Leo XIV in a private audience at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace. This meeting, announced officially by the Vatican, has sparked significant discussion among Catholics worldwide. For some, it signals a hopeful continuation of Pope Francis’ legacy of openness and pastoral care toward marginalized groups. For others, it raises concerns about the direction of the Church and the risk of diluting its doctrinal teachings. This blog post explores the context of this meeting, the reasons behind the mixed reactions, the Church’s call to welcome all people, the concerns surrounding Father Martin’s approach, and the importance of interpreting this event with nuance and mercy.

 The Context of the Meeting

Father James Martin, S.J., is a well-known figure in Catholic circles, particularly for his ministry through Outreach, an organization he founded to promote inclusion and pastoral care for LGBTQIA Catholics. His 2017 book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity, has been both praised and criticized. Supporters see it as a compassionate call to bridge divides, while detractors argue it risks undermining the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage. Martin’s multiple audiences with Pope Francis, who appointed him to the Dicastery for Communication and the Synod on Synodality, further elevated his profile as a voice for inclusion. His meeting with Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, elected in May 2025, continues this trajectory.

Pope Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert F. Prevost, is a relatively new figure on the global stage. His election followed the papacy of Pope Francis, whose 12-year tenure was marked by a pastoral emphasis on mercy, inclusion, and synodality—a process of listening and dialogue within the Church. Leo’s choice of name invokes Leo XIII, known for his contributions to Catholic social teaching, signaling a commitment to justice and the marginalized. However, his past remarks from 2012, where he criticized the “homosexual lifestyle” and media portrayals of same-sex relationships, raised questions about his stance on LGBTQIA issues. In a 2023 interview, Prevost acknowledged Pope Francis’ call for a more inclusive Church, stating, “All people are welcome in the Church,” while emphasizing that doctrine remains unchanged.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)

The September 1 meeting, lasting about 30 minutes, was described by Father Martin as “wonderful,” “consoling,” and “encouraging.” He reported that Pope Leo XIV echoed Pope Francis’ message of welcome, quoting the famous phrase, “Todos, todos, todos” (everyone, everyone, everyone), and encouraged Martin to continue his ministry. The Vatican’s public announcement of the meeting, held in the pope’s private library—a space reserved for significant encounters—underscored its importance. Yet, it also fueled debate, as some Catholics interpreted it as an endorsement of Martin’s approach, while others urged caution in reading too much into it.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 Why Some Catholics Are Concerned

The concerns among certain Catholics stem from Father Martin’s public persona and the perception that his ministry sometimes blurs the line between pastoral care and doctrinal fidelity. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), are clear: homosexual acts are considered “intrinsically disordered” (CCC 2357), and marriage is defined as a sacramental union between one man and one woman (CCC 1601). While the Church calls for respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward individuals with same-sex attraction, it maintains that sexual activity is reserved for marriage and oriented toward procreation.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)

Critics argue that Father Martin’s advocacy, while framed as pastoral, sometimes downplays or sidesteps these teachings. His book Building a Bridge emphasizes dialogue and inclusion but has been criticized for not sufficiently addressing the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality. Some point to his public statements, such as his support for blessings of same-sex unions under certain circumstances (as permitted by Fiducia Supplicans in 2023), as risking confusion among the faithful. Conservative Catholic commentators, such as Taylor Marshall and John-Henry Weston, expressed dismay at the meeting, with Weston calling it a “nightmare scenario” on social media. They fear that Martin’s prominence, amplified by papal audiences, could signal a shift away from traditional teachings, even if no doctrinal change has occurred.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

These concerns are not merely about Martin’s actions but reflect broader tensions within the Church. The Synod on Synodality, in which both Martin and then-Cardinal Prevost participated, emphasized listening to diverse voices, including those of marginalized groups like LGBTQIA Catholics. However, some Catholics worry that this emphasis on dialogue could lead to a watering-down of doctrine, particularly on contentious issues like sexuality. The fear is that high-profile meetings like this one might be interpreted as tacit approval of views that challenge the Church’s moral framework, even if no explicit endorsement is made.

 The Call to Welcome All

Despite these concerns, the Catholic Church’s mission to welcome all people is rooted in the Gospel and the example of Jesus Christ. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and Jesus’ outreach to sinners and outcasts (e.g., the woman caught in adultery, John 8:1-11) demonstrate a call to love and accompany all people, regardless of their circumstances. The Catechism itself instructs that individuals with homosexual inclinations “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358). Pope Francis’ papacy amplified this message, famously saying, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about a gay priest, and emphasizing that the Church is a “home for all.”[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

This call to welcome extends to the LGBTQIA community, who often feel marginalized or excluded from the Church. Many LGBTQIA Catholics experience a profound tension: they desire to live their faith authentically while grappling with teachings that label their attractions or relationships as disordered. Pastoral ministry to this community seeks to bridge this gap, offering spiritual accompaniment and a sense of belonging without compromising the Church’s teachings. Pope Francis’ actions—meeting with LGBTQIA individuals, approving Fiducia Supplicans, and appointing figures like Father Martin to prominent roles—reflected this balance, prioritizing mercy while upholding doctrine.[](https://outreach.faith/2025/04/pope-francis-changed-my-life-countless-lgbtq/)

Pope Leo XIV’s meeting with Father Martin suggests a continuation of this approach. By quoting “Todos, todos, todos,” Leo reaffirmed that the Church is a place for everyone, including those who feel on the margins. This is particularly significant during the 2025 Jubilee of Hope, which includes a pilgrimage for LGBTQIA Catholics organized by Martin’s Outreach and the Italian group Jonathan’s Tent. Though not officially sponsored by the Vatican, the pilgrimage’s inclusion on the Vatican’s calendar signals a willingness to engage with this community. As Martin noted, this reflects Jesus’ outreach to those on the margins, a core tenet of Christian charity.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 Why Father Martin May Not Be the Ideal Messenger

While the call to welcome all is indisputable, some argue that Father Martin is not the ideal figure to lead this effort due to his approach to Church doctrine. His public statements and writings often emphasize inclusion over clarity, which can create confusion. For example, his support for blessings of same-sex unions, while aligned with Fiducia Supplicans, has been seen by critics as implying approval of relationships that the Church does not recognize as equivalent to marriage. His reluctance to explicitly reaffirm the Church’s teachings on sexual morality in some contexts has led to accusations that he “waters down” doctrine to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

This perception is compounded by Martin’s high-profile platform, including his role at America Magazine, his books, and his frequent media appearances. His X posts, such as the one announcing his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, are often celebratory and focus on themes of welcome without always addressing the Church’s moral teachings. This can lead some to misinterpret his message as endorsing a change in doctrine, even when he insists he upholds the Catechism. Critics argue that a more effective messenger would clearly articulate both the Church’s call to love and its unchanging teachings, avoiding ambiguity that could mislead the faithful or polarize the Church.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

Moreover, Martin’s critics point to his association with advocacy groups that sometimes push for changes beyond pastoral care, such as altering the Catechism’s language on homosexuality or recognizing same-sex unions. While Martin himself has not explicitly called for these changes, his participation in events organized by such groups can create the impression of alignment with their agendas. This risks alienating Catholics who value doctrinal clarity and fear that the Church is moving toward a more progressive stance that could undermine its moral authority.

 The Need for Mercy and Nuance

Despite these concerns, the Catholic call to mercy remains paramount. Jesus’ command to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34) is a cornerstone of Christian life. Mercy does not mean abandoning truth but approaching others with humility, compassion, and a willingness to accompany them in their struggles. For LGBTQIA Catholics, this means recognizing their dignity as children of God, listening to their experiences, and helping them navigate their faith journey without judgment or exclusion. Father Martin’s ministry, for all its controversies, seeks to embody this mercy, and his meetings with both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV suggest that the Church’s leadership values this pastoral approach, even if it is imperfectly executed.[](https://outreach.faith/2025/04/pope-francis-changed-my-life-countless-lgbtq/)

However, mercy must be balanced with truth. The Church’s teachings on sexuality are rooted in its understanding of human anthropology, the complementarity of the sexes, and the purpose of marriage. These are not arbitrary rules but reflections of the Church’s belief in God’s design for humanity. Pastoral care that ignores or downplays these truths risks leading people astray, offering a false sense of acceptance that may not align with the path to holiness. The challenge is to communicate both love and truth in a way that invites people into the Church without compromising its moral foundation.

 Interpreting the Meeting with Caution

Father Martin’s X post about his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, where he wrote, “I was honored and grateful to meet with the Holy Father… and moved to hear the same message I heard from Pope Francis on LGBTQ Catholics, which is one of openness and welcome,” has been widely shared and interpreted. Some see it as evidence that Pope Leo XIV fully endorses Martin’s ministry, while others caution against overreading the encounter. The Vatican’s decision to announce the meeting publicly suggests it carries symbolic weight, but it does not necessarily imply an endorsement of every aspect of Martin’s platform.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

Pope Leo XIV, in his brief papacy, has emphasized synodality—listening to diverse voices within the Church. His meeting with Martin, whom he knew from the Synod on Synodality, reflects this commitment to dialogue. As Martin noted in a May 2025 interview, Leo (then Cardinal Prevost) was “very open, welcoming, [and] inclusive” during synod discussions. However, Leo’s 2023 comments reaffirming unchanged doctrine indicate that his openness is not a blank check for revising Church teaching. The meeting, therefore, is best seen as an act of listening, not a wholesale approval of Martin’s views. Vatican officials have also clarified that the inclusion of the Outreach pilgrimage on the Jubilee calendar is logistical, not an endorsement, further underscoring the need for nuance.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

Catholics should avoid jumping to conclusions based on Martin’s X post or media reports. The Church’s history shows that popes often meet with individuals whose views spark debate, not to endorse them but to engage in dialogue. Pope Francis met with controversial figures across the spectrum, from liberation theologians to traditionalist leaders, as part of his pastoral mission. Leo’s meeting with Martin fits this pattern, reflecting a desire to hear from those ministering to marginalized groups without necessarily affirming every aspect of their approach.

 Conclusion: Balancing Welcome, Truth, and Mercy

The meeting between Father James Martin and Pope Leo XIV highlights the delicate balance the Catholic Church must strike in its mission to welcome all people while upholding its teachings. The call to love and accompany the LGBTQIA community is rooted in the Gospel and reinforced by the examples of Popes Francis and Leo. However, this welcome must be grounded in truth, clearly communicating the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage to avoid confusion or division. Father Martin’s ministry, while well-intentioned, has sparked legitimate concerns about clarity and fidelity, making him a polarizing figure. Yet, the response to his work—and to this meeting—should be marked by mercy, recognizing his desire to reach those on the margins.

Catholics must approach this moment with nuance, resisting the temptation to read too much into a single meeting or social media post. Pope Leo XIV’s commitment to synodality suggests he will continue to listen to diverse voices, including those like Father Martin, without necessarily endorsing their platforms. As the Church navigates these complex issues, it must embody Christ’s love, welcoming all while guiding them toward the truth that leads to true freedom and holiness. In doing so, it can fulfill its mission as a “home for all,” where mercy and truth meet in the heart of the Gospel.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 

Tragic Mass Shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis Leaves Two Children Dead, 17 Injured

Tragic Mass Shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis Leaves Two Children Dead, 17 Injured

Minneapolis, MN – A horrific mass shooting unfolded at Annunciation Catholic School in south Minneapolis on Wednesday, August 27, 2025, during a morning Mass marking the first week of the school year. The attack claimed the lives of two children, aged 8 and 10, and left 17 others injured, 14 of whom are children. The shooter, a 20-year-old male dressed in white clothing, opened fire through the church windows before taking his own life, according to Minneapolis police.  This was literally a MASS Shooting!

The shooting occurred around 8:15 a.m. local time at Annunciation Catholic Church, adjacent to the school, which serves students from prekindergarten through eighth grade. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara described the incident as a “deliberate act of violence against children and worshippers.” The suspect, armed with a rifle, shotgun, and pistol, approached the side of the church and fired dozens of rounds through the windows, targeting children and worshippers seated in the pews during the all-school Mass.

“It’s an incomprehensible act of cowardice,” Chief O’Hara said during a press conference. He confirmed the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the church parking lot. Authorities have not yet released the suspect’s identity but noted he had no extensive known criminal history. The motive for the attack remains under investigation.

Of the 17 injured, 14 are children, with two in critical condition, according to police reports. Emergency responders rushed to the scene, and at least six children were transported to Children’s Hospital of Minnesota for treatment. The Minneapolis city government confirmed shortly after 10:30 a.m. that the shooter had been “contained,” and there was no ongoing threat to the community. A reunification zone was established for families to reconnect with their children.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz called the violence “horrific,” stating, “I’m praying for our kids and teachers whose first week of school was marred by this tragic act.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a vocal advocate for gun control, expressed profound grief, saying, “Children are dead, there are families that have a deceased child. You cannot put into words the gravity of this situation.”

Witnesses reported hearing up to 50 shots over several minutes. Bill Bienemann, a local resident who attends Mass at Annunciation Church, described the terrifying sound of gunfire echoing through the neighborhood. The school, which began its academic year on Monday, August 25, has an enrollment of approximately 370 students.

Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI responded to the scene to assist local law enforcement. President Donald Trump, in a statement on Truth Social, said he was “fully briefed” on the tragedy and urged prayers for those affected.

The Annunciation Catholic School shooting marks the 287th mass shooting in the United States in 2025, according to reports. The community is reeling as parents, students, and residents grapple with the aftermath of this devastating event.

Let us offer our thoughts and prayers to those affected by this horrific shooting.  

This post will be updated as we learn more. UPDATE August 27. 2025 1:29 PM EDT: Social media accounts are posting that Robin Westman was the shooter. An image and video from his now-deleted YouTube account are being posted on X. Some accounts are claiming he is a trans person, possessed or may have had some kind of mental illness.  According to the videos, a layout of the church property is allegedly visible.  We have not independently confirmed these claims, but will post them for your information.

Minneapolis church shooter looks like a troon. YouTube has already deleted his channel.

Discussion: https://t.co/0Rq7uUBLtk pic.twitter.com/wb9kWEFrUw

— Kiwi Farms (@KiwiFarmsDotNet) August 27, 2025

Robin Westman uploaded this Youtube short hours before the Annunciation Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis pic.twitter.com/bnB0h2R7SJ

— Fred G. Sanford (@NotoriousKDot) August 27, 2025

YouTube just removed Robin Westman’s YT channel 👀 pic.twitter.com/sP8WNhUNSe

— Fred G. Sanford (@NotoriousKDot) August 27, 2025

Breaking: Shooter is a 22 year old biological male transgender who posted a manifesto on YouTube.

Out of respect for the investigation and victims I am withholding those specifics at this time but have it archived pic.twitter.com/XTJU8OASh6

— Rob O'Donnell (@odonnell_r) August 27, 2025

Suspect whose identity is known posted a video at the time of the shooting allegedly recorded a day prior preparing his weapons. Writing on magazines said “for the Children” and “kill Donald Trump” pic.twitter.com/5TXcejwOja

— Rob O'Donnell (@odonnell_r) August 27, 2025

Alleged suspect recorded a lengthy video laying out weapons and what possibly is a drawing of the shooting location where he stabbed it with a knife saying “where I kill myself”. pic.twitter.com/Dkq2nBabMA

— Rob O'Donnell (@odonnell_r) August 27, 2025

This will be the only portion of the clip I will be posting at this time. In what appears to be a drawing of the school church (which leads us to believe extensive pre planning) the suspect stabs a knife into and states “where I kill myself” echoing myself.
This account has been… pic.twitter.com/EKxZXfKlC1

— Rob O'Donnell (@odonnell_r) August 27, 2025

"His motive is unknown" pic.twitter.com/Dxy9567EVB

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 27, 2025

The written manifesto is 4 pages extensively apologizing to his family and saying it’s ok to change their name after this. Blames Vaping for giving him cancer, and continues with a dialogue of depression, sadness stating this is what he always wanted.

— Rob O'Donnell (@odonnell_r) August 27, 2025

Minneapolis Catholic church shooter Robin Westman was a transgender who was a man and identified as a woman, and changed his name from “Robert”, which his equally mentally ill parents signed off on in 2020 pic.twitter.com/c0Wh1R0xKY

— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) August 27, 2025

Shooter Robin Westman posted this video. Disgusting. These people are mentally ill! We have to stop acting like they are not pic.twitter.com/3cnAOZM6sD

— The Iron Lady 🇺🇸 (@ironwitch_) August 27, 2025

The Minneapolis shooter was Trans Apparently we would never have known that if he didn't tell him himself. I guarantee it pic.twitter.com/RYEXzZ3ZWp

— TheQuartering (@TheQuartering) August 27, 2025

The Minnesota shooter was trans. These mentally ill ghouls are not only grooming children but also targeting & killing children.

They are a threat to public safety. Institutionalize them and open up the mental asylums again. pic.twitter.com/VQEVmfv6TZ

— Kangmin Lee | 이강민 (@kangminjlee) August 27, 2025

BREAKING: The Minneapolis shooting suspect has been identified as Robin Westman.

The alleged shooter released multiple videos on social media, which showed that he clearly hated Christians. They have since been taken down.

"Where is your God?" read one mag.

Evil monster. pic.twitter.com/oyiCkqNwkw

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 27, 2025

Neurotic mentally ill hypochondriac idiot transgender who decided to kill kids pic.twitter.com/0jzqVBG3D8

— Alexander Augustine (@WurzelRoot) August 27, 2025

UPDATE August 27, 2025, 5:35PM: According to the latest updates, it has been confirmed that Robert Weston was, in fact, the shooter. His mother worked as a secretary and administrative assistant at the school/parish and retired in 2021 (https://t.co/JJqSjN32wx).  Weston also attended the school as a child, which allowed him to know the logistics of the property. 

UPDATE August 28, 2024, 1:00 PM:

Two students, ages 8 and 10, are dead, shot in the head. A new video has emerged showing the aftermath of the shooting.  Officials say that the locking of church doors helped prevent the shooter from entering and possibly killing more children.  The authorities are classifying this act as a hate crime against Catholics. The shooter also had racist writings, atheistic ramblings against God, and wanted to kill children and enjoy doing it.   

Fletcher Merkel, 8, and Harper Moyski, 10

Source:

[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/27/minneapolis-active-shooter-school)

[](https://nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/annunciation-church-shooting-minneapolis.html)

[](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-active-shooter-situation-minneapolis-church-catholic-scho-rcna227498)

Active shooter 'guns down TWENTY people at Minneapolis church' | Kiwi Farms

Minneapolis school shooting live: Two children killed after gunman opens fire

Minneapolis Catholic school shooting leaves 3 dead, including the shooter, police say | AP News

Annunciation Church Minneapolis: What’s known about shooting suspect | KTVU FOX 2

Annunciation Church school shooting: What we know about the victims | KTVU FOX 2

Minneapolis Catholic school shooting leaves 2 children dead, 17 people injured

https://t.co/JJqSjN32wx

Angela Carini Trans Controversy

The recent events at the Paris 2024 Olympics involving Italian boxer Angela Carini have sparked a significant discussion on gender and sportsmanship. Carini, known for her strong boxing prowess and nicknamed "tiger" by her late father and coach, faced Algerian boxer Imane Khelif in a match that ended abruptly. Carini left the ring after just 46 seconds, citing the pain from Khelif's punches and a resulting nosebleed as the reasons for her withdrawal.

The controversy arose not just from Carini's sudden exit but also from the surrounding circumstances involving Khelif's eligibility to compete. Khelif had previously been disqualified from a world championship due to an unspecified gender eligibility test, leading to a broader debate on gender policies within sports organizations. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit (PBU) have since reaffirmed that all athletes in the competition comply with the necessary regulations, emphasizing that gender and age are verified based on the athletes' passports.

Carini's actions, including not shaking Khelif's hand post-match, were met with mixed reactions. She later expressed regret for her behavior and offered an apology, stating that the controversy saddened her and that she felt sorry for Khelif, who was there to compete just like herself. This incident has highlighted the complexities of gender identity in sports and the need for clear, fair, and respectful policies that recognize the dignity of all athletes.

The debate continues as sports bodies, athletes, and fans grapple with these sensitive issues. The situation calls for a thoughtful examination of how sports can be inclusive while maintaining the integrity of competition. It's a reminder that behind the medals and the glory, there are human stories and challenges that deserve our understanding and empathy.

Source:

Paris Olympics: Italy's Angela Carini abandons fight with Algeria's Imane Khelif, who failed unspecified gender test, after 46 seconds - Yahoo Sports

Vatican Condemns Gender Theory etc.

The Vatican's recent document on human dignity, titled "Dignitas Infinita," represents a significant contribution to the ongoing discourse on the inherent worth of the human person within Christian anthropology. This declaration, which took several years to develop, underscores the Church's unwavering stance on the intrinsic and inalienable dignity of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed in Jesus Christ.

"Dignitas Infinita" is not merely a theological treatise; it is a call to recognize and respect the dignity of every person in various spheres of life, including social, political, and economic realms. The document draws from the rich teachings of the Church and the latest developments in academia to address the ambivalent ways in which the concept of human dignity is understood today.

One of the most notable aspects of this document is its comprehensive approach to human dignity. It goes beyond the traditional bioethical concerns to include pressing contemporary issues such as poverty, the plight of migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, and war. This holistic view aligns with Pope Francis' encyclical "Fratelli Tutti," which offers an original analysis of human dignity beyond all circumstances.

The declaration also seeks to bridge the gap between different perspectives within the Church, emphasizing that the defense of human dignity encompasses both the protection of life from conception to natural death and the advocacy for the marginalized and oppressed. This inclusive approach reflects a maturation in the Church's social doctrine, recognizing that various violations of human dignity are interconnected and must be addressed collectively.

Fundamental to "Dignitas Infinita" is the affirmation of the equal dignity of all people, irrespective of their conditions or qualities. It challenges the misunderstandings that arise from equating personal d
ignity with the capacity for reasoning, thereby excluding the unborn, the elderly, and individuals with mental disabilities from the scope of personal dignity. The document firmly asserts that dignity is a gift present in every human being, regardless of their stage in life or cognitive abilities.

The Vatican's declaration is a testament to the Church's dedication to upholding human dignity in the face of modern challenges. It serves as a moral compass for believers and non-believers alike, guiding actions and policies towards a more just and compassionate society where every person is valued and respected.

For those interested in delving deeper into the theological and magisterial foundations of the Church's understanding of human dignity, as well as the contemporary moral issues it addresses, "Dignitas Infinita" is an essential read. It not only reaffirms the Church's long-standing teachings but also responds to the critiques and questions of our time, offering a path forward for all who seek to honor the infinite worth of every human person.

The Vatican's "Dignitas Infinita" document is a profound exploration of human dignity from a Christian anthropological perspective. Here are some key points highlighted in the document:

1. Inherent Dignity: The document reaffirms the Church's belief in the inherent and inalienable dignity of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by Jesus Christ. This dignity is not subject to change and is independent of any cultural, social, or personal conditions.

2. Holistic Approach: It adopts a holistic approach to human dignity, addressing not only traditional bioethical concerns but also contemporary issues such as poverty, migration, violence against women, human trafficking, and war.

3. Inclusivity: The document emphasizes the equal dignity of all people, irrespective of their conditions or qualities, challenging the notion that dignity is tied to the capacity for reasoning and thus excluding certain groups such as the unborn, the elderly, or individuals with mental disabilities.

4. Interconnected Violations: It recognizes that various violations of human dignity are interconnected and must be addressed collectively, bridging the gap between different perspectives within the Church.

5. Response to Modern Challenges: The declaration serves as a moral compass, guiding actions and policies towards a more just and compassionate society where every person is valued and respected.

6. Biblical and Magisterial Foundations: The document draws from biblical revelation and the Church's teachings to assert that human dignity is confirmed by the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, which reveals man's call to communion with God.

7. Misunderstandings of Dignity: It addresses misunderstandings that arise from equating personal dignity with the capacity for reasoning, thereby advocating for the dignity of every human being regardless of their stage in life or cognitive abilities.

"Dignitas Infinita" is a call to action for all individuals and institutions to recognize and uphold the infinite worth of every human person, reflecting the Church's dedication to human dignity in the face of modern challenges. It is an essential document for anyone interested in the theological, social, and moral implications of human dignity as understood within the Christian tradition.

The Vatican's Perspective on Human Dignity, Gender Theory, and IVF

The Vatican has a long history of engaging with complex moral and ethical issues, and its documents often reflect deep theological reflection and guidance on these topics. Recently, the Vatican has released a new document titled "Dignitas Infinita" which addresses the theme of human dignity in the context of contemporary challenges.

The document, which took five years to develop, builds upon the teachings of the Catholic Church and recent papal magisterium. It emphasizes the "indispensable nature of the dignity of the human person in Christian anthropology" and discusses the implications of this concept in various realms, including social, political, and economic.

One of the key aspects of the document is its stance on gender theory. The Vatican has reaffirmed its position that gender theory, which suggests that gender identity can be separated from biological sex, is a "grave threat" to society. The document states that gender-affirming surgeries and surrogacy are considered grave violations of human dignity, equating them with other practices such as abortion and euthanasia.

The document also touches upon the topic of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church's position on IVF has been consistent over the years, viewing it as morally unacceptable because it separates procreation from the marital act and establishes the "domination of technology" over the creation and destiny of human life.

"Dignitas Infinita" serves as a reminder of the Church's view that human dignity is inherent and flows from the creation of individuals "in the image and likeness of God" and their redemption in Christ. This dignity is present from conception to natural death, and the Church calls for the respect and protection of this dignity in all stages of life.

The document's release has sparked discussions and debates, reflecting the diverse opinions within the Catholic community and beyond. While some view the document as a reinforcement of traditional Catholic teachings, others criticize it for not applying the principle of respect and honor to gender-diverse individuals.

The Vatican's contributions to these discussions are significant as they shape the moral and ethical discourse within the Church and influence the global conversation on these pressing issues. "Dignitas Infinita" is an example of the Vatican's ongoing effort to engage with modern challenges while upholding the principles of the Catholic faith. 

For those interested in exploring the full text and implications of the Vatican's document, it is available for review and study.  See: Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on Human Dignity (2 April 2024) (vatican.va)

Source:

Vatican document on modern issues shows 'how stupid it is' to see Church as 'left' or 'right': Bishop Barron (msn.com)

Vatican declares gender-affirming surgery/surrogacy as grave violations (msn.com)

Vatican slams surrogacy, gender-affirming surgery (nydailynews.com)

Vatican denounces gender-affirming surgery, surrogacy in declaration on 'dignity' (msn.com)

Gender-affirming surgery threatens ‘unique dignity’ of a person, Vatican says (msn.com)

Gender-affirming surgery threatens ‘unique dignity’ of a person, Vatican says (msn.com)

What's the Vatican Statement on Gender Theory Really About? | Opinion (msn.com)

Roundtable: What the Vatican said about gender theory in ‘Dignitas Infinita’ | America Magazine

Vatican blasts gender-affirming surgery, surrogacy and gender theory as violations of human dignity – The Morning Call (mcall.com)

Trans Funeral Organizer: 'We Want An Apology from Catholic Church'

In an ironic turn of events, LGBT activists are demanding a public apology from St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City and the Catholic Church after the funeral of a male using the pseudonym "Cecilia Gentili," a transgender activist, and actor, was allegedly cut short by the Cathedral during the service. 

The organization Gays & Lesbians Living in a Transgender Society (GLITS) has called for an explanation from the Cathedral regarding what they describe as "painfully dismissive and exclusionary language" used in a statement after the incident. 

During the funeral, participants, many of them wearing extravagant drag, repeatedly interrupted the priest and broke into loud chants. One reveler even took to the podium to pray for "access" to "gender-affirming healthcare," a cause that the Catholic Church opposes. 

The founder of GLITS, a man who calls himself "Ceyenne Doroshow," organized the event and later admitted to deceiving the Cathedral by keeping details about Gentili "under wraps" before the gathering. In response, St. Patrick’s Cathedral expressed "outrage" at having been deceived and assured concerned Catholics that a Mass of reparation had been said at the Cathedral since the incident.

The Cathedral's actions have sparked controversy, with GLITS claiming that St. Patrick’s Cathedral was filled with over 1,400 mourners and community members for Cecilia Gentili's funeral. However, his service ended an hour earlier than scheduled, denying him the full funeral mass that had been agreed upon. GLITS also disputes the Cathedral's narrative that they were manipulated by funeral organizers regarding Gentili's identity, stating that they had advised Cathedral staff to look up Cecilia Gentili's work and community service.

Activist Ceyenne Doroshow gave a small press conference giving his narrative claiming that the Catholic Church knew Gentili was a transexual and about his life. Doroshow claimed the Archdiocese's statement was offensive, hateful, and contradicted Fiducia Supplicans stating Pope Francis okayed "Same-sex Marriage." This is of course not true. Doroshow continued claiming that it was none of the staff of St. Patrick's cathedral what was "in between Cecilia's legs" implying gender.  He claims the cathedral discriminated against the trans community after admitted he did deceive the cathedral about the deceased.  Moreover, he continued to tell a story about being raised Catholic and going to school only to be molested by another student and a security guard. 

The situation highlights tensions between LGBTQ activists and religious institutions, emphasizing the need for respectful dialogue and understanding across different perspectives.

Doroshow is right to a certain extent. The Archdiocese, particularly the staff at St. Patrick's Cathedral did botch things up.  Canon Law is clear:

§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available. 

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals: 1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics; 2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith; 3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. §2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed. 

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

A baptism certificate should have been requested and produced. The situation should have been vetted. If Doroshow is being truthful that he told the staff that Gentili was an activist, then they should have done their research.  Moreover, once attendees entered the Cathedral, the staff should have known this event would be problematic.  They should have canceled right on the spot and not let it go on.  It seems the staff did not think and just took the donation.

However, Doroshow did admit to deceiving the staff so he has blame as well. He should have done his own research. If he claims Gentili battled the Catholic Church for decades then he should have known the Church's stance on homosexuality. He should have researched what Fiducia Supplicans is and what it really says. Doroshow is under the impression it is a license to bless so-called Same-Sex Unions.  As many Catholics showed concern about, the declaration would cause confusion and make people think that the Church changed its stance on marriage.  We are seeing the bad fruits of the wording and promotion of Fiducia Supplicans at play. 

Priests like James Martin of the Jesuit order are also not helping by playing word games and giving false hope to the LGBTQIA community thinking the Church is changing her teachings on homosexuality.  We can have bridges, but like with real ones, the linking destinations will always be the same.  The George Washington Bridge will always link the Bronx with New Jersey.  We can extend bridges to the LGBTQIA community, but our side will still have the same destination: Gospel Truth.  We cannot change this.  

It seems this drama or story is not over and will continue. As time moves on, it seems this funeral was a stunt and not a genuine goodbye to the trans community's "icon."  Time will tell.  I will update this post if new details come along.

What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can go through.  

Sources:

Advocates Demand Catholic Officials Apologize for Calling Cecilia Gentili’s Funeral a “Scandal” | Them

N.Y. Archdiocese condemns a trans activist Cecilia Gentili’s funeral - The Washington Post

LGBT Activists to Demand Public Apology from St. Patrick’s Cathedral - CatholicVote org

Advocates Demand Catholic Officials Apologize for Calling Cecilia Gentili’s Funeral a “Scandal” (yahoo.com)

  

Child Removed from Catholic Parents after 'Improper Pronoun Usage'

In a recent legal battle that has drawn national attention, a Catholic couple from Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for removing their child from their home. The heart of the dispute lies in the parents' refusal to use their child's chosen name and pronouns, which they believe are inconsistent with his biological sex.

## The Case: M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Mary and Jeremy Cox, devout Catholics, found themselves at odds with Indiana officials when their son expressed a desire to identify as the opposite sex. In 2019, their son informed them that he identified as a girl. However, due to their religious beliefs that God created human beings with an immutable sex—male or female—, the Coxes could not bring themselves to refer to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology.

Investigated by Indiana Officials

In 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after receiving reports that they were not using their child's preferred gender identity. Despite unsubstantiated claims of abuse, the state removed the teen from their custody and placed him in a "gender-affirming" home. The Coxes believed that their son was struggling with underlying mental health conditions, including an eating disorder, so they sought therapeutic care for both issues.

State Courts' Decision

State courts allowed Indiana to keep the child away from his parents' home because of their disagreement with his gender identity—a disagreement rooted in their religious beliefs. The court restricted visitation time between the Coxes and their child, barring them from discussing their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity.

The Legal Battle

Becket, a legal organization representing the Coxes, argues that no parent should endure what Mary and Jeremy have faced. Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, emphasizes that "keeping a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs—even when the state admits there was no abuse or neglect—is wrong and it’s against the law." Windham hopes that the Supreme Court will take up this case to protect other parents from similar situations.

Conclusion

The case of M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana is a case every parent has to keep an eye on.  It deals with parental rights and the overreach of the state. It was at one time when kids had to obey their parents and follow their rules until their legal emancipation, usually around 18 years of age.  Logically and biologically speaking, a child never ceases to be the child of parents. Parents conceived them and they have their genetic makeup. No state, no religion, no organization or institution can undue this or magically pretend it does not exist at a set age.  Nevertheless, we see the latter take hold where the state feels it can infringe on the rights of parents. Granted, the state can and should intervene in cases where abuse is taking hold and the child does not know any better and cannot seek help or escape from the situation. 

However, this story is different. A male child was conceived and was born. He is still a minor and is not being abused in any fashion. The only "crime" here is two Catholic parents raising their male son in that manner just like it has been done since Adam and Eve. They do not use pronouns other than the ones that semantically and logically apply to a male person.  It is absurd that for simply using proper English and proper application of language their child was taken from them and they are being labeled as abusive parents.  It is like we are in the Twilight Zone where illogical scenarios take hold defying explanation.  

Many of them know how incompetent ACS or Child Services is.  They love to remove children for no reason and love to prolong cases by fabricating claims of abuse which eventually get dismissed in court for lack of evidence.  Minorities are disproportionately targeted by this institution in every state.  Now Catholics are being targeted. T

his is about imposing anti-Catholic rhetoric on Catholic families.  These parents are simply doing their jobs as parents raising their son in the manner they feel fit. No one has a say in this. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States will right this huge error on the part of Indiana.  If not, then anything goes. There will be no reason to have children. Parents cannot parent.  They will just become baby factories for the state.  

What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can go through.  

    

Source:

:: Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage: ‘Can happen anywhere’ (msn.com)

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/citing-religious-parental-rights-hoosier-couple-asks-scotus-for-relief-after-trans-child-was-removed

https://www.osvnews.com/2024/02/20/catholic-parents-ask-high-court-to-correct-dangerous-precedent-on-parental-rights-trans-identity/

https://www.becketlaw.org/media/parents-turn-to-supreme-court-for-justice-after-child-is-removed-by-state/

https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/indiana-removes-gender-confused-teen-christian-home-parents-ask-supreme-court-help

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2860444/indiana-parents-supreme-court-weigh-transgender-child-custody/