America Magazine Has Lost It Again. This Time It’s The Strangest Target. 53%

By Lucy Spence0%

6/25/2026, 11:58:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.9% saturation with 229 hits. Analysis detected 1,855 faulty-reasoning hits from 718 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.7% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,406 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.50% of the article peer group.

Just when we thought disgruntled liberal Catholics couldn’t find any more Church practices to take issue with, America Magazine has delivered. 
But this time it’s the strangest target. 
An associate editor at the liberal Jesuit magazine recently brought his personal liturgical angst to X, decrying  of all things  the Prayer to St. 
Michael. 
Often said at the end of Mass, the prayer asks the intercession of the archangel Michael against the “wickedness and snares of the Devil.” 
(RELATED: Vatican Publishes ‘Emerging Issues’ Report On Engaging With The Gays) 
The devotion is viewed by Catholics as a prayer of protection, asking God to defeat the demons who wander the world and seek its destruction. 
But the sentiment expressing hatred for the Devil  the Father of Lies  is apparently too strong for this editor, who wrote, “I cannot express how much I dislike the St. 
Michael Prayer after Mass. it [sic] is so, so jarring to me every time.” 
I wouldn’t think to describe a prayer commonly recited at Mass as a sudden or extremely uncomfortable shock  but I digress. 
I cannot express how much I dislike the St. 
Michael Prayer after Mass. it is so, so jarring to me every time. 
To say nothing of the intent/content of the prayer, the language, and repetition and prominence given to it breed a sense of paranoia and cynicism. 
Instead of going out… https://t.co/ASuJJbxS3m 
 Zac Davis (@zacdayvis) June 24, 2026 
The editor continues: “To say nothing of the intent/content of the prayer, the language, and repetition and prominence given to it breed a sense of paranoia and cynicism. 
Instead of going out to evangelize the world, everyone is ready to go to war with it.” 
Beyond the strong implications given here that the post’s author fundamentally disagrees with a plea for protection against the Devil (excuse me?), the man just gets the prayer wrong. 
The St. 
Michael Prayer doesn't wage war against the world; it actually asks for the downfall of those who seek to destroy it. 
It’s an intercession to God on behalf of the world. 
And the author’s attacks against the prayer’s “repetition and prominence” are difficult to justify. 
The practice of reciting the St. 
Michael Prayer after Mass is optional and done after the final blessing  and is therefore outside the official liturgy. 
(RELATED: Catholic Conversions Skyrocket During Easter As Numbers Rebound) 
And let's be clear: The Devil is, in fact, your enemy. 
The author’s not done yet, though. 
The post concludes: “This prayer is totally fine in private devotion. 
It does not belong in the liturgy (or effectively within the liturgy, when it is said after the final blessing but before the recessional hymn).” 
The lay pontificating couldn’t be more ridiculous, given that the prayer was composed by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. 
Pope Francis, moreover  beloved by America Magazine  actually suggested that the St. 
Michael Prayer be reintroduced into liturgies after it was no longer mandatory following the Second Vatican Council. 
Following the new revelations of church scandals in 2018, Pope Francis said, “[The church must be] saved from the attacks of the malign one, the great accuser and at the same time be made ever more aware of its guilt, its mistakes, and abuses committed in the present and the past.” 
Francis had also earlier consecrated the Vatican to St. 
Michael and St. 
Joseph in 2013, with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in attendance, asking the angel to “defend us from the Evil One and cast him out.” 
(RELATED: Vatican Shuts Down German Bishops’ Bid For Lay Preachers) 
The reactions on X have been, as they usually are, priceless. 
A seminarian  Jesuit, no less  politely pointed out, “Sir, the prayer seeks the wellbeing [sic] of the world. 
It is a prayer for protection against the enemy of all humanity.” 
Another priest wrote: “The paranoia and cynicism isnt [sic] coming from the St. 
Michael’s prayer. 
It's coming from a worldview so comfortable with the age it has forgotten the Church is by divine design ALWAYS in battle. 
The St. 
Michael Prayer is simply the honest acknowledgment of that fact.” 
But the MVP award must go to Michael Knowles. 
I’ll let the image speak for itself. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.0%Lucy Spence: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Lucy Spence: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 3.5%Lucy Spence: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Lucy Spence: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 1.5%Lucy Spence: 8.4%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Lucy Spence: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 31.9%Lucy Spence: 12.1%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias31.9%This article: 2.9%Lucy Spence: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias2.9%This article: 7.7%Lucy Spence: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.7%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Lucy Spence: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Lucy Spence: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Lucy Spence: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.8%Lucy Spence: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.8%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Lucy Spence: 5.9%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem15.3%This article: 8.5%Lucy Spence: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man8.5%This article: 22.8%Lucy Spence: 6.1%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority22.8%This article: 2.4%Lucy Spence: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma2.4%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Lucy Spence: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Lucy Spence: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 6.8%Lucy Spence: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion6.8%This article: 5.6%Lucy Spence: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 7.1%Lucy Spence: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.1%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.4%Lucy Spence: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof5.4%This article: 1.5%Lucy Spence: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.5%This article: 3.5%Lucy Spence: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division3.5%This article: 1.0%Lucy Spence: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal1.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Lucy Spence: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.0%Lucy Spence: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity5.0%This article: 3.5%Lucy Spence: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading3.5%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.7%Lucy Spence: 5.7%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote16.7%This article: 3.9%Lucy Spence: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 29.0%Lucy Spence: 12.5%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice29.0%This article: 1.5%Lucy Spence: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 6.5%Lucy Spence: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lucy Spence: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

718 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.0%attributed speech711writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageZac Davis • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Zac Davis

0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.3 ptsWriter: 29.3%Zac Davis: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.9 ptsWriter: 16.9%Zac Davis: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Zac Davis: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Zac Davis: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Zac Davis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.