‘Popesplaining’ Vance out of depth in argument over whether Iran is a just war 51%

By Peter Beaumont0%

4/17/2026, 2:00:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,456 faulty-reasoning hits from 890 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.6% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,831 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

The contrast in experience between the two men disagreeing over war and theology was striking. 
On the one side was Pope Leo XIV, the first North American to head the Catholic church and the first cleric from the Augustinian order, who this week visited the modern Algerian city where Saint Augustine once lived. 
For Leo, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Augustine’s ideas, it was the culmination of a lifelong intellectual interest. 
On the other, the US vice-president, JD Vance, a very recent adult convert to Catholicism with no academic background in the history of the church’s thinking. 
At the heart of their disagreement: how Augustine, the fourth-century thinker, framed the idea of a “just war” after centuries in which the early Christian tradition had rejected war and violence, even in self-defence. 
It is one of the most persistently important ideas in western thinking. 
Every major philosopher, jurist and theologian on the subject has weighed in on it over the centuries. 
The dispute is one strand of the intense controversy caused by the Trump administration’s efforts to imbue the US war against Iran with an incoherent Christian militancy. 
At its most bizarre, the US president posted an image of himself on social media as a Christ-like figure healing the sick under flying jets and armed supernatural beings. 
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has meanwhile conducted himself like a modern crusader, claiming the mantle of a righteous violence. 
In a series of interventions last month, Leo said Christ’s teaching rejected war and that moreover, he “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them”. 
In recent weeks his discourse has became more pointed. 
Trump’s threat on 7 April that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” unless Iran made a deal with the US was “truly unacceptable”, he said, adding that such attacks would violate international law. 
Vance delivered his reply at an event for the conservative group Turning Point USA at the University of Georgia on 14 April. 
“When the pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just-war theory,” Vance said. 
“How do you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword?” 
he asked, citing the example of US troops that had liberated France from the Nazis and freed prisoners from the Holocaust camps. 
“I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology,” Vance said. 
“If you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful.” 
Vance’s attack drew accusations on social media that he was “popesplaining” theology to the pontiff. 
Augustine himself had argued that a just war was the business of the state. 
It could be justified if it was fought with the “right intention” and in pursuit of restoring peace. 
The leader who waged war should be like a Christian judge; the innocent should be protected; actions motivated by revenge, wrath or greed invalidated any claim to justice. 
The tests set by Augustine and the thinkers that followed remain the guiding principles of conflict law. 
In an interview with the Catholic Standard in March, Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington DC said the US and Israeli attack on Iran had failed the just-war criteria. 
“You cannot satisfy the just war tradition’s criterion of right intention if you do not have a clear intention,” the cardinal said. 
Then on Wednesday, Bishop James Massa, the chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ committee on doctrine, intervened on behalf of the Catholic bishops in the US to make clear that Leo’s comments were not a question of the pope’s “opinion” but Catholic teaching contained in the catechism, the collected doctrine of the church. 
“For over 1,000 years, the Catholic church has taught just-war theory, and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war,” Massa said. 
“A constant tenet of that 1,000-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defence, once all peace efforts have failed’. 
That is, to be a just war it must be a defence against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’" 
While many have been offended both by Trump’s posting of himself as Jesus and the attacks on the pope, inevitably, the row has drawn in Trump’s most reliable defenders, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who identifies as a Southern Baptist and appears as foggy as Vance about the point Leo was making. 
“If you wade into political waters, you should expect some political response,” said Johnson. 
Others, such as the conservative Catholic New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, have found themselves straddling the fence, at once complaining that the church can seem hostile to conservatives, while conceding that the Trump administration’s justifications for the war against Iran are ever changing and sometimes evaporating. 
“Is the war just or is it not?” 
asks Douthat, offering his own arguments about why it might be just. 
“The administration simply has not made a coherent and consistent case for the justice of the conflict.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Peter Beaumont: 1.1%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Peter Beaumont: 2.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 1.9%Peter Beaumont: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Peter Beaumont: 5.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.9%Peter Beaumont: 1.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%Peter Beaumont: 16.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias28.7%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Peter Beaumont: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Peter Beaumont: 3.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Peter Beaumont: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 6.5%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 1.6%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Peter Beaumont: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 6.1%Peter Beaumont: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Peter Beaumont: 14.5%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem18.9%This article: 3.0%Peter Beaumont: 3.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man3.0%This article: 20.6%Peter Beaumont: 12.3%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority20.6%This article: 0.9%Peter Beaumont: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.5%Peter Beaumont: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.5%This article: 1.9%Peter Beaumont: 1.6%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.7%Peter Beaumont: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon1.7%This article: 3.3%Peter Beaumont: 4.2%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion3.3%This article: 1.9%Peter Beaumont: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.9%Peter Beaumont: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Peter Beaumont: 1.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Peter Beaumont: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Peter Beaumont: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 6.2%Peter Beaumont: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 21.2%Peter Beaumont: 20.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice21.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 4.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Beaumont: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

890 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers35%attributed speech575writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coveragePope Leo XIV • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCardinal Robert McElroy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCardinal Robert McElroy • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Massa • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Massa • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBishop James Massa • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageMike Johnson • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageRoss Douthat • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRoss Douthat • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bishop James Massa

100%flagged-word coverage
92 attributed words29% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+41.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bishop James Massa: 41.3%41.3%Biased Writer Voice-32.9 ptsWriter: 32.9%Bishop James Massa: 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…

Analysis

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