![Catholic thinkers, tech experts reflect on promise and perils of AI at New York Encounter #Catholic NEW YORK — How can Catholic social teaching guide us in weighing the benefits of artificial intelligence against the dangers it poses to human dignity? That question animated a wide-ranging discussion among Catholic thinkers and technology experts at the New York Encounter on Saturday.Citing Pope Leo XIV’s call to use AI responsibly as well as the Church’s historic defense of human dignity in the face of modern technology, Davide Bolchini, moderator and dean of the Luddy School of Informatics at Indiana University, opened the discussion before an audience of several hundred people gathered for the three-day cultural conference in New York City.“The pope encouraged us to use AI responsibly, to use it in a way that helps us grow, not to let it work against us, but to let it work with us, not to substitute human intelligence, not to replace our judgment of what’s right … our ability of authentic wonder,” Bolchini said.With technology rapidly advancing, Bolchini asked, how can the Church stay ahead of these challenges?Chuck Rossi, an engineer at Meta who is developing AI-driven content moderation technology at the technology conglomerate, which includes Facebook and Instagram, argued that in his work, developments in AI have been instrumental in safeguarding human beings from harm. AI systems, he said, can examine 2.5 billion pieces of of shared online content per hour, filtering harmful material including nudity and sexual activity, bullying and harassment, child endanger, dangerous organizations, fake accounts, hateful conduct, restricted goods and services, spam, suicide and self-injury, violence and incitement, and violent and graphic content.“That’s my world,” he said. “It’s a very, very hard problem. If we miss 0.1% of 2. 5 billion, that’s millions of things that we didn’t want to be seeing. But we do an excellent job, and we have for years — we’re one of the best at it,” Rossi said.Using AI also protects human content moderators from being exposed to disturbing material, as they were in the past.“The good thing that we are giving back to humans is you never have to do this horrible work,” he said.Paul Scherz, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, acknowledged the benefits of AI, which he said included advances in medicine and efficiency for tasks like billing (“Nobody wants to do billing,” he said).But Scherz warned of the dangers of relying on technology to do what is intrinsically human.“We are really starting to turn to AI as people more broadly for these relational aspects, which would be tragic because there is something in that human-to-human connection, the ‘I/thou connection,’ as Martin Buber called it, that is irreplaceable by a machine,” Scherz said. He noted that AI has even moved into ministry, with the rise of Catholic apps relying on bots to offer catechesis.Scherz also cautioned that substituting AI for human interaction and intelligence risks eroding our skills, whether in relationships or in professional life.“My fear is as we use these chatbots more and more we will lose those person-to-person skills. We’ll no longer be able to engage one another as well, or have the patience and virtue to deeply love and encounter one another,” Scherz said.In addition, relying on AI in our work, for example, when a doctor consults AI to make a diagnosis, will result in our “de-skilling,” he said. “We know that people, when they’re using automated systems, they tend to just become biased and complacent and just approve the automated system. They lose their skills,” he said, adding that airline pilots who rely too much on autopilot are more prone to making errors.Louis Kim, former vice president of personal systems and AI at Hewlett-Packard who is currently pursuing graduate studies in theology and health care, pointed out that it’s not possible to know today what skills will be required in the future.“My personal view is I often find that predictions of impacted technology are largely unconsciously based on what we know of the current paradigm and structure and technologies,” Kim said.“There are going to be skills needed to control AI that are going to be different,” he said.Kim also called for “humility” in discussions about AI’s potential to affect human relationships.“Let’s ask ourselves about the quality of our current human relationships, whether it’s in the workplace, in toxic cultures, sometimes at home — even at conferences, at your next break, as you go around talking to this person [or] that person, how many times that person is looking over your shoulder for the more important person to talk to?” he said.Our moral formation, he said, will continue to shape the quality of our encounters with others.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/catholic-thinkers-tech-experts-reflect-on-promise-and-perils-of-ai-at-new-york-encounter-catholic-new-york-how-can-catholic-social-teaching-guide-us-in-weighing-the-benefits-of-artificial-scaled.jpg "Catholic thinkers, tech experts reflect on promise and perils of AI at New York Encounter #Catholic NEW YORK — How can Catholic social teaching guide us in weighing the benefits of artificial intelligence against the dangers it poses to human dignity? That question animated a wide-ranging discussion among Catholic thinkers and technology experts at the New York Encounter on Saturday.Citing Pope Leo XIV’s call to use AI responsibly as well as the Church’s historic defense of human dignity in the face of modern technology, Davide Bolchini, moderator and dean of the Luddy School of Informatics at Indiana University, opened the discussion before an audience of several hundred people gathered for the three-day cultural conference in New York City.“The pope encouraged us to use AI responsibly, to use it in a way that helps us grow, not to let it work against us, but to let it work with us, not to substitute human intelligence, not to replace our judgment of what’s right … our ability of authentic wonder,” Bolchini said.With technology rapidly advancing, Bolchini asked, how can the Church stay ahead of these challenges?Chuck Rossi, an engineer at Meta who is developing AI-driven content moderation technology at the technology conglomerate, which includes Facebook and Instagram, argued that in his work, developments in AI have been instrumental in safeguarding human beings from harm. AI systems, he said, can examine 2.5 billion pieces of of shared online content per hour, filtering harmful material including nudity and sexual activity, bullying and harassment, child endanger, dangerous organizations, fake accounts, hateful conduct, restricted goods and services, spam, suicide and self-injury, violence and incitement, and violent and graphic content.“That’s my world,” he said. “It’s a very, very hard problem. If we miss 0.1% of 2. 5 billion, that’s millions of things that we didn’t want to be seeing. But we do an excellent job, and we have for years — we’re one of the best at it,” Rossi said.Using AI also protects human content moderators from being exposed to disturbing material, as they were in the past.“The good thing that we are giving back to humans is you never have to do this horrible work,” he said.Paul Scherz, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, acknowledged the benefits of AI, which he said included advances in medicine and efficiency for tasks like billing (“Nobody wants to do billing,” he said).But Scherz warned of the dangers of relying on technology to do what is intrinsically human.“We are really starting to turn to AI as people more broadly for these relational aspects, which would be tragic because there is something in that human-to-human connection, the ‘I/thou connection,’ as Martin Buber called it, that is irreplaceable by a machine,” Scherz said. He noted that AI has even moved into ministry, with the rise of Catholic apps relying on bots to offer catechesis.Scherz also cautioned that substituting AI for human interaction and intelligence risks eroding our skills, whether in relationships or in professional life.“My fear is as we use these chatbots more and more we will lose those person-to-person skills. We’ll no longer be able to engage one another as well, or have the patience and virtue to deeply love and encounter one another,” Scherz said.In addition, relying on AI in our work, for example, when a doctor consults AI to make a diagnosis, will result in our “de-skilling,” he said. “We know that people, when they’re using automated systems, they tend to just become biased and complacent and just approve the automated system. They lose their skills,” he said, adding that airline pilots who rely too much on autopilot are more prone to making errors.Louis Kim, former vice president of personal systems and AI at Hewlett-Packard who is currently pursuing graduate studies in theology and health care, pointed out that it’s not possible to know today what skills will be required in the future.“My personal view is I often find that predictions of impacted technology are largely unconsciously based on what we know of the current paradigm and structure and technologies,” Kim said.“There are going to be skills needed to control AI that are going to be different,” he said.Kim also called for “humility” in discussions about AI’s potential to affect human relationships.“Let’s ask ourselves about the quality of our current human relationships, whether it’s in the workplace, in toxic cultures, sometimes at home — even at conferences, at your next break, as you go around talking to this person [or] that person, how many times that person is looking over your shoulder for the more important person to talk to?” he said.Our moral formation, he said, will continue to shape the quality of our encounters with others.")
“The pope encouraged us to use AI responsibly, to use it in a way that helps us grow, not to let it work against us, ” said Davide Bolchini, the moderator of an AI panel at the weekend conference.
![Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/democratic-lawmaker-asks-ice-director-if-hes-going-to-hell-in-fiery-hearing-catholic-a-democratic-lawmaker-asked-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-acting-direc.jpg "Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.")
Top U.S. immigration officials defended their policies during a contentious hearing as lawmakers continue to negotiate potential ICE funding and reforms.
