The Word on Fire founder clarifies the call to evangelize, defends his nonpartisan advisory role on religious liberty, and warns of resurgent communism.
![Oregon officials back off ‘gender ideology mandate’ for mom seeking to adopt #Catholic Oregon officials have agreed they will not “categorically disqualify” a Christian woman from adopting or fostering children based on her religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, which settles a three-and-a-half-year legal battle.The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) agreed to a legal settlement with Jessica Bates, who was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). It affirms the department will not consider her religious beliefs when evaluating her application for a certification to adopt children and will not attempt to regulate her speech about gender and sexuality.“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from foster care because of the state’s own ideological crusade,” ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said in a statement following the Sept. 9 settlement.“Oregon officials turned Jessica away just because of her common-sense belief that parents should help children become comfortable with who they are instead of pushing them down a path of confusion and medicalization,” he said. “We believe this settlement is a win-win that protects constitutional rights and puts children’s interests first.”In September 2022, the ODHS denied Bates’ application because she would not comply with a state policy that requires applicants to agree they will “respect, accept and support the … sexual orientation, gender identity [and] gender expression … of a child or young adult” who is placed in the home, which ADF has characterized as a “gender ideology mandate.”Bates sued ODHS in March 2023, arguing that the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The lawsuit stated she told the certification officer she would love any child as her own but would not facilitate a child’s gender transition through hormone therapy, use pronouns inconsistent with a child’s biological sex, or encourage gender expression inconsistent with the child’s biological sex or same-sex attraction.A federal district court initially ruled in favor of ODHS in December 2023, but an appellate panel of judges ruled in July 2025 that ODHS likely violated her constitutional rights and blocked the department from enforcing the rules against her while the lawsuit continued.Legal settlementPer the legal agreement, ODHS will allow Bates to apply for a certification and will not consider her religious views in any way.It states ODHS will not deny the application “because of her religious beliefs that sexual activity should occur only within the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman, and a person should identify and seek to live consistent with his or her biological sex.”The settlement adds that this extends to her “desire to respectfully speak about, live out, parent, and make day-to-day caregiving decisions consistent with these sincerely held religious beliefs.”Under the agreement, ODHS also cannot require her to “agree to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression inconsistent with her religious beliefs described above as a condition of certification.”“[The] ODHS may not enforce any per se standard, rule, or policy that precludes Bates from being considered for any particular placement, based in whole or in part based on her religious belief,” the settlement agreement states.It further prohibits ODHS from disqualifying Bates from consideration for any particular child placement based on her religious beliefs.Yet, the settlement does not prevent ODHS from “deciding a child’s placement based on its individualized consideration of the child’s needs and of a foster parent’s concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”The Oregon attorney general’s office referred EWTN News to the Oregon Department of Human Services for comment. The department did not respond to a request for comment.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/oregon-officials-back-off-gender-ideology-mandate-for-mom-seeking-to-adopt-catholic-oregon-officials-have-agreed-they-will-not-categorically-disqualify-a-christian.jpg "Oregon officials back off ‘gender ideology mandate’ for mom seeking to adopt #Catholic Oregon officials have agreed they will not “categorically disqualify” a Christian woman from adopting or fostering children based on her religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, which settles a three-and-a-half-year legal battle.The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) agreed to a legal settlement with Jessica Bates, who was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). It affirms the department will not consider her religious beliefs when evaluating her application for a certification to adopt children and will not attempt to regulate her speech about gender and sexuality.“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from foster care because of the state’s own ideological crusade,” ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said in a statement following the Sept. 9 settlement.“Oregon officials turned Jessica away just because of her common-sense belief that parents should help children become comfortable with who they are instead of pushing them down a path of confusion and medicalization,” he said. “We believe this settlement is a win-win that protects constitutional rights and puts children’s interests first.”In September 2022, the ODHS denied Bates’ application because she would not comply with a state policy that requires applicants to agree they will “respect, accept and support the … sexual orientation, gender identity [and] gender expression … of a child or young adult” who is placed in the home, which ADF has characterized as a “gender ideology mandate.”Bates sued ODHS in March 2023, arguing that the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The lawsuit stated she told the certification officer she would love any child as her own but would not facilitate a child’s gender transition through hormone therapy, use pronouns inconsistent with a child’s biological sex, or encourage gender expression inconsistent with the child’s biological sex or same-sex attraction.A federal district court initially ruled in favor of ODHS in December 2023, but an appellate panel of judges ruled in July 2025 that ODHS likely violated her constitutional rights and blocked the department from enforcing the rules against her while the lawsuit continued.Legal settlementPer the legal agreement, ODHS will allow Bates to apply for a certification and will not consider her religious views in any way.It states ODHS will not deny the application “because of her religious beliefs that sexual activity should occur only within the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman, and a person should identify and seek to live consistent with his or her biological sex.”The settlement adds that this extends to her “desire to respectfully speak about, live out, parent, and make day-to-day caregiving decisions consistent with these sincerely held religious beliefs.”Under the agreement, ODHS also cannot require her to “agree to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression inconsistent with her religious beliefs described above as a condition of certification.”“[The] ODHS may not enforce any per se standard, rule, or policy that precludes Bates from being considered for any particular placement, based in whole or in part based on her religious belief,” the settlement agreement states.It further prohibits ODHS from disqualifying Bates from consideration for any particular child placement based on her religious beliefs.Yet, the settlement does not prevent ODHS from “deciding a child’s placement based on its individualized consideration of the child’s needs and of a foster parent’s concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”The Oregon attorney general’s office referred EWTN News to the Oregon Department of Human Services for comment. The department did not respond to a request for comment.")
The legal settlement ensures that Jessica Bates’ religious views will not be a factor in determining whether she can adopt children.
![Jimmy Lai’s family, advocates press for his release before Xi-Trump meeting #Catholic Family members and advocates of imprisoned Catholic pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai offered urgent pleas for his release ahead of President Xi Jinping’s planned trip to the U.S. to meet with President Donald Trump.In anticipation of Xiʼs visit to Washington on Sept. 24, Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai’s son, met with leaders to advocate for his father. He joined a Sept. 16 congressional hearing led by Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey.“Jimmy Lai is not being imprisoned because he committed any act of violence whatsoever,” Smith, co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said. “His son has emphasized that his father has never, never advocated violence. Rather, Jimmy Lai used his voice, his newspaper, and his public platform to support freedom and democracy,” he said. Smith said he introduced legislation Sept. 16 that would require the State Department to quickly assess any death in custody of a Hong Kong political prisoner and impose sanctions on officials found responsible. He titled the bill the “Jimmy Lai Hong Kong Political Prisoner Accountability Act of 2026.”At the hearing, Sebastien Lai offered testimony along with Steve Yates, a research fellow on China and national security policy, and Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.“I want to thank America, President Trump, who has been a true champion of my fatherʼs, his administration, and the senators and members of both parties whose support has never wavered and only gotten stronger. That is moral courage, and my family does not take it for granted,” Sebastien Lai said.“By the end of this year my father will have spent six years in a maximum-security prison in solitary. At 78, he is the oldest political prisoner in Hong Kong. With a 20-year sentence looming over him, if he’s not freed soon, he will most likely die in prison,” he said. “My sister Claire was to testify beside me today. A few weeks ago, she was diagnosed with cancer,” he said. “I was with her in London last week as she began chemotherapy. My father learned of his own daughterʼs diagnosis from a maximum-security prison. He cannot hold her hand. She wants nothing more than to have him with her for this fight,“ he said.
Claire Lai, daughter of imprisoned pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai, discusses her father’s sentencing on “EWTN News Nightly” on Feb. 9, 2026. | Credit: “EWTN News Nightly”/Screenshot
“We hope the Chinese authorities will consider what compassionate release would mean for her, and for a 78-year-old man who has already suffered enough,” he said.“America understands, in its bones, that freedom dies with the last man willing to defend it and that the cost of not standing up for liberty is not felt until it is too late,“ he said.The appeal to Xi “is simple," Sebastien Lai said. “My father poses no threat. His imprisonment makes him a symbol of injustice; his death in prison would be a disgrace. Let Jimmy Lai come home to his family and let him sit beside his daughter in her hardest moment.”
America understands, in its bones, that freedom dies with the last man willing to defend it and that the cost of not standing up for liberty is not felt until it is too late.”
Sebastien LaiSon of imprisoned Hong Kong media publisher and democracy advocate Jimmy Lai
Clifford, of the Washington‑based advocacy group promoting human rights in Hong Kong, spoke on behalf of his friend Jimmy Lai and to remind “people that Jimmy is just one of hundreds of political prisoners being held in often appalling conditions.”“Iʼd like to emphasize the release of Jimmy Lai would be something President Trump, Republicans and Democrats, indeed, freedom-loving people around the world would applaud,” Clifford said. “It would be a unifying event at the time when the world really needs it.”Yates said Jimmy Lai’s case is “a test of character, of Xi Jinping’s leadership, of the president’s relationship with his counterpart, and of whether there remains any credible basis for the assumptions on which American policy toward Hong Kong was long constructed.”The case is “a litmus test of whether there remains any reason to believe there is a future in Xi Jinping’s China for the kind of man Jimmy Lai is: a child of God, a lover of the real China, and, it may fairly be said, one of China’s greatest entrepreneurs,” Yates said. Lai’s health ‘is going to get worse’At a subsequent event, Sebastien Lai spoke at a press conference at Georgetown University about his father.Trump has previously met with Xi about Jimmy Lai’s case, which did not end with his release, but Sebastian Lai said he does not believe “it is a lost cause.” He said he hopes Trump raises his father’s case “again and again.”Sebastian Lai detailed his father’s health, which “hasnʼt gotten any better” while in solitary confinement.“He now has heart issues. His nails fall off. His teeth are rotting. During the summer, he bleeds all over his body because [of] his rashes,” he said.His health was especially worrisome recently because “Hong Kong just had a record summer,” Sebastien Lai said. “The heat traps in there and essentially bakes in itself. So weʼre very, very worried.”Caoilfhionn Gallagher, human rights lawyer and leader of the international legal team representing Jimmy Lai, further laid out the urgency of the case.“It’s very clear that if someone is detained in solitary confinement for an extended period of time, there is a direct ramification for their mortality,” she said.“The risk to prisoners detained in solitary confinement is particularly heightened if they’re elderly or diabetic, and Jimmy Lai is both. So this couldn’t be a more urgent and timely discussion,” she said. Gallagher also noted the broader human rights issues and lack of democracy in Hong Kong.Hong Kong “has become a place where you can be thrown in prison for singing the wrong song, or not singing the right song, or wearing the wrong T-shirt, printing the wrong newspaper. And I think Jimmy Laiʼs case is hugely important in itself because of who he is,” Gallagher said.“Heʼs probably the worldʼs most famous political prisoner at the moment. His case is hugely important, but we think part of why theyʼve gone for Jimmy Lai is because by getting the biggest fish of all, it sends the message to the small fry across Hong Kong,” Gallagher said. "It makes very clear that their message is keep silent or youʼll be next,” Gallagher said. Xi’s visit to the U.S. offers “a particular opportunity to shine a light on this issue,” she said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/jimmy-lais-family-advocates-press-for-his-release-before-xi-trump-meeting-catholic-family-members-and-advocates-of-imprisoned-catholic-pro-democracy-activist-jimmy-lai-offered-urgent-pleas.jpg "Jimmy Lai’s family, advocates press for his release before Xi-Trump meeting #Catholic Family members and advocates of imprisoned Catholic pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai offered urgent pleas for his release ahead of President Xi Jinping’s planned trip to the U.S. to meet with President Donald Trump.In anticipation of Xiʼs visit to Washington on Sept. 24, Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai’s son, met with leaders to advocate for his father. He joined a Sept. 16 congressional hearing led by Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey.“Jimmy Lai is not being imprisoned because he committed any act of violence whatsoever,” Smith, co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said. “His son has emphasized that his father has never, never advocated violence. Rather, Jimmy Lai used his voice, his newspaper, and his public platform to support freedom and democracy,” he said. Smith said he introduced legislation Sept. 16 that would require the State Department to quickly assess any death in custody of a Hong Kong political prisoner and impose sanctions on officials found responsible. He titled the bill the “Jimmy Lai Hong Kong Political Prisoner Accountability Act of 2026.”At the hearing, Sebastien Lai offered testimony along with Steve Yates, a research fellow on China and national security policy, and Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.“I want to thank America, President Trump, who has been a true champion of my fatherʼs, his administration, and the senators and members of both parties whose support has never wavered and only gotten stronger. That is moral courage, and my family does not take it for granted,” Sebastien Lai said.“By the end of this year my father will have spent six years in a maximum-security prison in solitary. At 78, he is the oldest political prisoner in Hong Kong. With a 20-year sentence looming over him, if he’s not freed soon, he will most likely die in prison,” he said. “My sister Claire was to testify beside me today. A few weeks ago, she was diagnosed with cancer,” he said. “I was with her in London last week as she began chemotherapy. My father learned of his own daughterʼs diagnosis from a maximum-security prison. He cannot hold her hand. She wants nothing more than to have him with her for this fight,“ he said.
Claire Lai, daughter of imprisoned pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai, discusses her father’s sentencing on “EWTN News Nightly” on Feb. 9, 2026. | Credit: “EWTN News Nightly”/Screenshot
“We hope the Chinese authorities will consider what compassionate release would mean for her, and for a 78-year-old man who has already suffered enough,” he said.“America understands, in its bones, that freedom dies with the last man willing to defend it and that the cost of not standing up for liberty is not felt until it is too late,“ he said.The appeal to Xi “is simple,\" Sebastien Lai said. “My father poses no threat. His imprisonment makes him a symbol of injustice; his death in prison would be a disgrace. Let Jimmy Lai come home to his family and let him sit beside his daughter in her hardest moment.”
America understands, in its bones, that freedom dies with the last man willing to defend it and that the cost of not standing up for liberty is not felt until it is too late.”
Sebastien LaiSon of imprisoned Hong Kong media publisher and democracy advocate Jimmy Lai
Clifford, of the Washington‑based advocacy group promoting human rights in Hong Kong, spoke on behalf of his friend Jimmy Lai and to remind “people that Jimmy is just one of hundreds of political prisoners being held in often appalling conditions.”“Iʼd like to emphasize the release of Jimmy Lai would be something President Trump, Republicans and Democrats, indeed, freedom-loving people around the world would applaud,” Clifford said. “It would be a unifying event at the time when the world really needs it.”Yates said Jimmy Lai’s case is “a test of character, of Xi Jinping’s leadership, of the president’s relationship with his counterpart, and of whether there remains any credible basis for the assumptions on which American policy toward Hong Kong was long constructed.”The case is “a litmus test of whether there remains any reason to believe there is a future in Xi Jinping’s China for the kind of man Jimmy Lai is: a child of God, a lover of the real China, and, it may fairly be said, one of China’s greatest entrepreneurs,” Yates said. Lai’s health ‘is going to get worse’At a subsequent event, Sebastien Lai spoke at a press conference at Georgetown University about his father.Trump has previously met with Xi about Jimmy Lai’s case, which did not end with his release, but Sebastian Lai said he does not believe “it is a lost cause.” He said he hopes Trump raises his father’s case “again and again.”Sebastian Lai detailed his father’s health, which “hasnʼt gotten any better” while in solitary confinement.“He now has heart issues. His nails fall off. His teeth are rotting. During the summer, he bleeds all over his body because [of] his rashes,” he said.His health was especially worrisome recently because “Hong Kong just had a record summer,” Sebastien Lai said. “The heat traps in there and essentially bakes in itself. So weʼre very, very worried.”Caoilfhionn Gallagher, human rights lawyer and leader of the international legal team representing Jimmy Lai, further laid out the urgency of the case.“It’s very clear that if someone is detained in solitary confinement for an extended period of time, there is a direct ramification for their mortality,” she said.“The risk to prisoners detained in solitary confinement is particularly heightened if they’re elderly or diabetic, and Jimmy Lai is both. So this couldn’t be a more urgent and timely discussion,” she said. Gallagher also noted the broader human rights issues and lack of democracy in Hong Kong.Hong Kong “has become a place where you can be thrown in prison for singing the wrong song, or not singing the right song, or wearing the wrong T-shirt, printing the wrong newspaper. And I think Jimmy Laiʼs case is hugely important in itself because of who he is,” Gallagher said.“Heʼs probably the worldʼs most famous political prisoner at the moment. His case is hugely important, but we think part of why theyʼve gone for Jimmy Lai is because by getting the biggest fish of all, it sends the message to the small fry across Hong Kong,” Gallagher said. \"It makes very clear that their message is keep silent or youʼll be next,” Gallagher said. Xi’s visit to the U.S. offers “a particular opportunity to shine a light on this issue,” she said.")
“America understands, in its bones, that freedom dies with the last man willing to defend it and that the cost of not standing up for liberty is not felt until it is too late,” Sebastien Lai said.
![Apostolic nuncio calls for ‘moral voice’ in AI development #Catholic Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia, apostolic nuncio to the United States, discussed the need for a “moral voice” in artificial intelligence (AI) development during a panel discussion hosted by Georgetown University on Sept. 9.The panel, titled “AI, Catholic Social Teaching, and Pope Leoʼs Invitation to Dialogue with the World,” examined Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and its call for a shared human effort to develop technology that serves the common good rather than harms it.Speakers noted that the Holy Father’s encyclical stopped short of prescribing specific policy ideas for addressing the moral and ethical concerns, but the nuncio said “there is the perception that we need a moral voice” on the subject.“A moral voice is what?” he said. “Not everything which is possible to be done should be done. Not everything that technology offers should be taken. This is a moral choice.”Caccia stressed that decisions affecting human lives should not be handed over to AI, citing distinctions between AI algorithms and the human conscience, as the Holy Father discussed in Magnifica Humanitas.Leo drew a distinction between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in the encyclical, focusing on how each approaches moral questions. The pope wrote that he rejected ideas of “artificial moral agents” and the notion that a machine can “distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being.”“Moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” Leo wrote. “Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.”Caccia said during the panel discussion that, as a society, “we have to keep the value of the human relationship.”“The problem is that [if] life and death is decided by a machine, not by the human being, who is accountable?” he said. “So these are very important, important questions. But I am confident, as I said, that together we can face this situation and find a way.”The nuncio said he has similar concerns about the use of AI in other types of decision-making that impacts humans.“I hear very troubling accounts of algorithms that can block access to healthcare, employment, and security on the basis of data tainted by prejudice and injustice,” he said. “And Iʼve heard the silence of those who have no voice. When decisions are made, decisions [are] likely to generate new forms of exclusion and suffering.”Quoting the encyclical, Caccia affirmed the pope’s call that AI “needs to be disarmed.”
Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See’s permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, speaks on Aug. 29, 2025, the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. | Credit: Holy See Mission to the United Nations
“The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity,” he said. “This is more or less a framework in which we can go on with the conversation.”Speaking to EWTN News after the panel, Caccia said the pope’s call to address moral concerns of AI is not just a call to Church leadership but to every Catholic.“There is, of course, the voice of the bishops,” he said. “But there is also the voice of Catholic people who are in the business or are engineers who are in the economy, who are in the field. So itʼs not just for those who have pastoral responsibility, but for the bigger community.”Pope’s impact on AI discussionSeveral panelists discussed the importance of Magnifica Humanitas in providing a type of moral guidance on AI development that focuses on the common good of humanity.Jasmine Sun, a journalist who writes about AI and Silicon Valley, said she “was actually surprised by how much folks I knew in Silicon Valley, in the AI industry did pay attention to Magnifica Humanitas.”“It was a lot more engagement, I think, than I expected,” she said. “And once again, I think itʼs because there is this sense that the profit motive that has driven Silicon Valley, that continues to drive Silicon Valley, is not enough.”Molly Kinder, CEO of the Breakwater Initiative, said the Church provides “wisdom and moral leadership” and believes its broad focus on humanity is why people listened.“Iʼm struck that in the opening pages of the Bible, there is a discussion of Adam and Eve being put on Earth to till the land as our fundamental reason for existing,” she said. “And it feels to me sometimes when Iʼm in Silicon Valley … they almost talk about almost a new Garden of Eden that AI is going to bring about, that maybe our purpose is not to work, or maybe itʼs leisure or a check and a hobby.”Caccia too said he was “positively surprised” by the reaction to the encyclical, saying “it seems that there was a need to do something about this.”“It didnʼt pretend to have the answers,” he said, “but he put questions, common questions that we have to tackle together to decide where we want to go.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/apostolic-nuncio-calls-for-moral-voice-in-ai-development-catholic-archbishop-gabriele-giordano-caccia-apostolic-nuncio-to-the-united-states-discussed-the-need-for-a-moral.jpg "Apostolic nuncio calls for ‘moral voice’ in AI development #Catholic Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia, apostolic nuncio to the United States, discussed the need for a “moral voice” in artificial intelligence (AI) development during a panel discussion hosted by Georgetown University on Sept. 9.The panel, titled “AI, Catholic Social Teaching, and Pope Leoʼs Invitation to Dialogue with the World,” examined Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and its call for a shared human effort to develop technology that serves the common good rather than harms it.Speakers noted that the Holy Father’s encyclical stopped short of prescribing specific policy ideas for addressing the moral and ethical concerns, but the nuncio said “there is the perception that we need a moral voice” on the subject.“A moral voice is what?” he said. “Not everything which is possible to be done should be done. Not everything that technology offers should be taken. This is a moral choice.”Caccia stressed that decisions affecting human lives should not be handed over to AI, citing distinctions between AI algorithms and the human conscience, as the Holy Father discussed in Magnifica Humanitas.Leo drew a distinction between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in the encyclical, focusing on how each approaches moral questions. The pope wrote that he rejected ideas of “artificial moral agents” and the notion that a machine can “distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being.”“Moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” Leo wrote. “Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.”Caccia said during the panel discussion that, as a society, “we have to keep the value of the human relationship.”“The problem is that [if] life and death is decided by a machine, not by the human being, who is accountable?” he said. “So these are very important, important questions. But I am confident, as I said, that together we can face this situation and find a way.”The nuncio said he has similar concerns about the use of AI in other types of decision-making that impacts humans.“I hear very troubling accounts of algorithms that can block access to healthcare, employment, and security on the basis of data tainted by prejudice and injustice,” he said. “And Iʼve heard the silence of those who have no voice. When decisions are made, decisions [are] likely to generate new forms of exclusion and suffering.”Quoting the encyclical, Caccia affirmed the pope’s call that AI “needs to be disarmed.”
Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See’s permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, speaks on Aug. 29, 2025, the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. | Credit: Holy See Mission to the United Nations
“The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity,” he said. “This is more or less a framework in which we can go on with the conversation.”Speaking to EWTN News after the panel, Caccia said the pope’s call to address moral concerns of AI is not just a call to Church leadership but to every Catholic.“There is, of course, the voice of the bishops,” he said. “But there is also the voice of Catholic people who are in the business or are engineers who are in the economy, who are in the field. So itʼs not just for those who have pastoral responsibility, but for the bigger community.”Pope’s impact on AI discussionSeveral panelists discussed the importance of Magnifica Humanitas in providing a type of moral guidance on AI development that focuses on the common good of humanity.Jasmine Sun, a journalist who writes about AI and Silicon Valley, said she “was actually surprised by how much folks I knew in Silicon Valley, in the AI industry did pay attention to Magnifica Humanitas.”“It was a lot more engagement, I think, than I expected,” she said. “And once again, I think itʼs because there is this sense that the profit motive that has driven Silicon Valley, that continues to drive Silicon Valley, is not enough.”Molly Kinder, CEO of the Breakwater Initiative, said the Church provides “wisdom and moral leadership” and believes its broad focus on humanity is why people listened.“Iʼm struck that in the opening pages of the Bible, there is a discussion of Adam and Eve being put on Earth to till the land as our fundamental reason for existing,” she said. “And it feels to me sometimes when Iʼm in Silicon Valley … they almost talk about almost a new Garden of Eden that AI is going to bring about, that maybe our purpose is not to work, or maybe itʼs leisure or a check and a hobby.”Caccia too said he was “positively surprised” by the reaction to the encyclical, saying “it seems that there was a need to do something about this.”“It didnʼt pretend to have the answers,” he said, “but he put questions, common questions that we have to tackle together to decide where we want to go.”")
Speakers at a Georgetown University event said Magnifica Humanitas offers moral guidance without policy steps, and the nuncio noted rising concern that debates over AI need a moral voice.
Chad Pecknold, a longtime professor at The Catholic University of America, has begun working for the government agency that oversees immigration enforcement.
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-allow-communities-to-regulate-firearms-under-second-amendment-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-allow-local-commu.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.")
The Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not Americans are permitted to possess AR-15 rifles and similar firearms.
A student challenges a 2004 Supreme Court decision, the Diocese of Scranton reopens its seminary, and Benedictine College names a speaker for its library dedication in this week’s education roundup.
With Archbishop Paul Gallagher’s visit to Moscow this week, the Vatican continues to try to be a facilitator in bringing about a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war.
Ecuadoran lawyer Pablo Proaño’s remarks followed the death due to a pregnancy complication of Stefano, the son of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and his wife, Lavinia Valbonesi.
Aid to the Church in Need has launched a petition that urges international leaders to take action to end religious persecution.
Commissioner appointee Heidi Overton has criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s chemical abortion policies in the past. She is now poised to be in a position to change them.
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-for-criminal-cases-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-in-crimina-scaled.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.")
The bishops argue that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors.
![Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/medicaid-formally-ends-funds-for-sex-rejecting-procedures-for-minors-with-final-rule-catholic-the-centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services-cms-announced-it-has-implemented-a-f.jpg "Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.")
The development formalizes a policy of the Trump administration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged government action in this area.
Moon rocks are seen during a March 24, 2026, event where NASA is outlining how the agency is executing the National Space Policy and accelerating preparations for America’s return to the surface of the Moon by 2028.
Read More