Vatican officials deny mainstream media reports regarding ‘heated,’ tumultuous meeting at Pentagon 0%

By Lillian Mann0% Brooke Mallory0%

4/10/2026, 2:49:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 198 hits. Analysis detected 1,520 faulty-reasoning hits from 998 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 03: U.S. 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby arrives to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee at the Hart Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. 
The Committee met to examine an update on the National Defense Strategy. 
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) 
OAN Staff Lillian Mann and Brooke Mallory 
2:45 PM  Friday, April 10, 2026 
Both the Vatican and the Pentagon are pushing back against mainstream media reports claiming that a meeting earlier this year in January between the Holy See’s then-envoy to the U.S. and a top Pentagon official turned both heated and tumultuous, resulting in “threats” made against the Catholic Church. 
A small group of officials, including the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of War for Policy, Elbridge A. 
Colby, and Cardinal Christophe Pierre, reportedly met at the Pentagon on January 22nd to discuss their views related to current events, according to those who were in attendance. 
Media speculation also intensified following a report from The Free Press claiming that, during the encounter, Colby threatened that the U.S. military has the “power to do whatever it wants” and warned the Church to align with American interests. 
The Department of War has since flatly denied those claims. 
In a social media post on Thursday, the Pentagon dismissed the “grossly false and distorted” reporting, asserting instead that Colby and Cardinal Christophe Pierre engaged in a “respectful and reasonable discussion.” 
Notably, the Vatican has also since corroborated the Pentagon’s account. 
On Friday, Catholic Church officials clarified that the meeting was a routine component of the “Pontifical Representative’s regular duties,” serving as a standard opportunity to exchange views on matters of mutual interest. 
“The account offered by certain media outlets regarding this meeting does not correspond to the truth in any way,” said Matteo Bruni, the director of the Holy See Press Office. 
“During the cordial meeting, they discussed a range of topics, including issues of morality in foreign policy, the logic of the U.S. 
National Security Strategy, Europe, Africa, Latin America and other topics,” the Pentagon said Thursday. 
“Cardinal Pierre expressed his appreciation for the outreach and both sides looked forward to continued open and respectful dialogue.” 
I was pleased to speak today with His Eminence, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. 
As expected, he confirmed that recent media characterizations of his meeting with Undersecretary Colby are “fabrications” that were “just invented.” 
Given the intelligence and seriousness of Mr. 
Colby, I… https://t.co/R2ogLy2HAf 
 Ambassador Brian Burch (@BrianBurchUSA) April 9, 2026 
U.S. 
Ambassador to the Holy See Brian Burch also intervened on Thursday, stating he had spoken directly with the Cardinal. 
According to Burch, the Cardinal confirmed that reports characterizing the meeting as hostile were “fabrications that were just invented.” 
Left-wing critics of the Trump administration had also pointed to allegations that a U.S. official referenced the Avignon Papacy during the exchange. 
This 14th-century historical period saw the French monarchy leverage its military and political power to exert control over the papacy, eventually forcing the relocation of the papal seat from Rome to Avignon. 
However, Burch slammed this claim on a post on the platform X. 
“Given the intelligence and seriousness of Mr. 
Colby, I was likewise not surprised when His Eminence acknowledged there were no threats of any kind in the meeting,” Burch wrote. 
“It was a frank and cordial meeting that took place two months ago. 
Threat of Avignon? 
None.” 
“When we disagree, we have done so with sincerity and respect. 
I believe the same could be said of his January meeting with Undersecretary Colby,” Burch continued in another post. 
“It’s regrettable that some journalists and online agitators chose to exploit a routine meeting to sow division between the Holy See and the United States.” 
Nonetheless, renewed interest in the January meeting comes amid recent policy friction between the Vatican and U.S. officials. 
In a recent address, the new American Pope Leo XIV warned that “a zeal for war is spreading,” arguing that the post-WWII prohibition against using force to violate national borders has been “completely undermined.” 
When questioned about the January encounter, the White House defended the administration’s foreign policy as a stabilizer for global safety. 
Officials also highlighted President Trump’s record of support for Catholic Americans during the 2024 election as evidence of a constructive relationship with the Catholic Church. 
Reverend Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education, also emphasized separately that, “The Pope is against war, not against Trump or any other political figure or head of state. 
There is a very clear message  the defense of peace, of international law  that has always characterized the Holy See.” 
U.S. 
Ambassador to Holy See: Cardinal Pierre Calls Stories of Pentagon Threatening the Vatican ‘Fabrications’https://t.co/tlonbCJ0uv 
 Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) April 10, 2026 
On Friday morning, as attention on the meeting escalated, the Vatican issued a statement, saying: “As confirmed by His Eminence Christophe Pierre, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, his meeting with Mr. 
Elbridge Andrew Colby was part of the Papal Representative’s regular mission and provided the opportunity for an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest. 
The narrative offered by some media outlets about this meeting is completely untrue.” 
In a February interview with the Washington Post, Vice President JD Vance addressed the rumors by delineating the boundaries between church and state. 
He emphasized that as a government official, he holds “a different job” than the clergy, suggesting that while the administration respects the Vatican’s moral perspective, its primary obligation remains the advancement of American national security and strategic interests. 
“So that is going to inevitably lead to conflict between the government and the clergy,” Vance said. 
“What I try to do is come at that conflict in a spirit of charity.” 
Stay informed! 
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. 
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts 
What do YOU think? 
Click here to jump to the comments! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.8%Lillian Mann: 4.7%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Lillian Mann: 2.9%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 3.2%Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 1.5%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Lillian Mann: 8.6%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.2%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Lillian Mann: 2.4%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 1.7%Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 11.0%Lillian Mann: 8.8%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias11.0%This article: 5.8%Lillian Mann: 2.8%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 1.5%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Lillian Mann: 2.0%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Lillian Mann: 3.3%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 1.0%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Lillian Mann: 1.2%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem2.5%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Lillian Mann: 4.2%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 3.8%Lillian Mann: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 1.7%Lillian Mann: 0.5%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope1.7%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Lillian Mann: 4.2%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 2.3%Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring2.3%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.5%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.6%Lillian Mann: 6.7%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 4.3%Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 4.3%Lillian Mann: 2.5%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.7%Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.7%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Lillian Mann: 1.0%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.3%Lillian Mann: 1.8%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.3%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.9%Lillian Mann: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.9%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.2%Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy3.2%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.3%Lillian Mann: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 7.8%Lillian Mann: 5.0%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice7.8%This article: 0.4%Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.4%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lillian Mann: 2.9%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Lillian Mann: 1.5%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.2%

998 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers51%attributed speech489writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMatteo Bruni • 30 words • 100.0% coveragePentagon • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAmbassador Brian Burch • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageReverend Antonio Spadaro • 33 words • 0.0% coverageReverend Antonio Spadaro • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 7 words • 0.0% coverageVatican • 33 words • 0.0% coverageVatican • 25 words • 0.0% coverageVatican • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matteo Bruni

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words5.9% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+90.2 ptsWriter: 9.8%Matteo Bruni: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Matteo Bruni: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Matteo Bruni: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Matteo Bruni: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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