Threats – United Yam

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).
Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam October 21, 2025

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom.

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court.

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants.

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

Catholic experts say new AI ‘Friend’ device undermines real relationships #Catholic

A commuter waits at the Westchester/Veterans Metro K Line station on Thursday, Oct. 2, 2025, in Los Angeles. / Credit: Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
A controversial ad campaign posted in the New York City subway system has sparked criticism and vandalism over the past few weeks. The print ads are selling an AI companion necklace called “Friend” that promises to be “someone who listens, responds, and supports.”The device first launched in 2024, retailing at 9. It is designed to listen to conversations, process the information, and send responses to the user’s phone via a connected app. While users can tap the disc’s button to prompt an immediate response, the product will also send unprompted texts. The device’s microphones don’t offer an off switch, so it is constantly listening and sending messages based on conversations it picks up.CNA did not receive a response to a question from Friend.com about the success of its subway ad campaign and how many people are currently using the devices, but Sister Nancy Usselmann, FSP, director of the Daughters of St. Paul’s Pauline Media Studies who also studies AI, told CNA that “people are turning to AI for companionship because they find human relationships too complicated.” But “without that complicatedness, we cannot grow to become the best that we can be. We remain stagnant or selfish, which is a miserable existence,” she said.Creating ‘Friend’ amid loneliness epidemic Avi Schiffmann, the 22-year-old who started Friend.com, was a Harvard student before leaving school to focus on a number of projects. At 18, he created a website that tracked early COVID-19 data from Chinese health department sources. In 2022, he built another website that matched Ukrainian refugees with hosts around the world to help them find places to stay. He then founded Friend and now serves as the company’s CEO. Schiffmann and his company first turned heads when an eerie video announcing the new gadget was released in July 2024. The advertisement featured four different individuals interacting with their “friends.” One woman takes a hike with her pendant, while another watches a movie with hers. A man gets a text from his “friend” while playing video games with his human friends. He first appears to be sad and lonely around his friends, until his AI “friend” texts him, which appears to put him at ease.The marketing video ends with a young man and woman spending time together as the woman discusses how she has only ever brought “her” to where they are hanging out, referencing her AI gadget. “It’s so strange because it’s awkward to have an AI in between a human friendship,” Usselmann said about the video ad. Hundreds took to the comments section of the YouTube video to respond — mostly negatively — to both the Friend.com ads and the technology. Commentators called out the company for capitalizing on loneliness and depression. One user even called the video “the most dystopian advertisement” he had ever seen, and others wrote the video felt like a “horror film.”“While its creators might have good intentions to bring more people the joys of companionship, they are misguided in trying to achieve this through a digital simulacrum,” Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome, told CNA.The device “suffers from a misnomer, since authentic friendship involves an interpersonal relationship of mutual support,” said Baggot, who studies AI chatbots and works on the development of the Catholic AI platform Magisterium AI. “The product risks both worsening the loneliness epidemic by isolating users from others and undermining genuine solitude by intruding on quiet moments with constant notifications and surveillance. Friend commodities connection and may exploit human emotional vulnerabilities for profit,” he said, adding: “It might encourage users to avoid the challenging task of building real relationships with people and encourage them to settle for the easily controllable substitute.” Usselmann agreed. “Only by reaching out in genuine compassion and care can another person who feels lonely realize that they matter to someone else,” she said. “We need to get to know our neighbors and not remain so self-centered in our apartments, neighborhoods, communities, or places of work.”AI device ad campaign causes stirIn a post to social media platform X on Sept. 25, Schiffmann announced the launch of the subway ad campaign. The post has more than 25 million views and nearly 1,000 comments criticizing the pendant and campaign — and some commending them.Dozens of the ads have since been torn up and written on. People have posted images to social media of the vandalized ads with messages about the surveillance dangers and the general threats of chatbots. One urged the company to “stop profiting off of loneliness,” while another had “AI is not your friend” written on it.One person added to the definition of “friend,” writing it is also a “living being.” It also had the message: “Don’t use AI to cure your loneliness. Reach out into the world!”Usselmann said the particular issue with the campaign and device is “the tech world assuming certain words and giving them different connotations.” “A ‘friend’ is someone with whom you have a bond based on mutual affection,” she said. “A machine does not have real affection because it cannot love. It does not have a spiritual soul from which intellect, moral agency, and love stem.”She continued: “And from a Christian understanding, a friend is someone who exhibits sacrificial love, who supports through the ups and downs of life, and who offers spiritual encouragement and forgiveness. An AI ‘friend’ can do none of those things.”

unitedyam October 21, 2025

A commuter waits at the Westchester/Veterans Metro K Line station on Thursday, Oct. 2, 2025, in Los Angeles. / Credit: Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

A controversial ad campaign posted in the New York City subway system has sparked criticism and vandalism over the past few weeks. The print ads are selling an AI companion necklace called “Friend” that promises to be “someone who listens, responds, and supports.”

The device first launched in 2024, retailing at $129. It is designed to listen to conversations, process the information, and send responses to the user’s phone via a connected app. While users can tap the disc’s button to prompt an immediate response, the product will also send unprompted texts. The device’s microphones don’t offer an off switch, so it is constantly listening and sending messages based on conversations it picks up.

CNA did not receive a response to a question from Friend.com about the success of its subway ad campaign and how many people are currently using the devices, but Sister Nancy Usselmann, FSP, director of the Daughters of St. Paul’s Pauline Media Studies who also studies AI, told CNA that “people are turning to AI for companionship because they find human relationships too complicated.”

But “without that complicatedness, we cannot grow to become the best that we can be. We remain stagnant or selfish, which is a miserable existence,” she said.

Creating ‘Friend’ amid loneliness epidemic

Avi Schiffmann, the 22-year-old who started Friend.com, was a Harvard student before leaving school to focus on a number of projects. At 18, he created a website that tracked early COVID-19 data from Chinese health department sources. In 2022, he built another website that matched Ukrainian refugees with hosts around the world to help them find places to stay. He then founded Friend and now serves as the company’s CEO.

Schiffmann and his company first turned heads when an eerie video announcing the new gadget was released in July 2024. The advertisement featured four different individuals interacting with their “friends.” One woman takes a hike with her pendant, while another watches a movie with hers. A man gets a text from his “friend” while playing video games with his human friends. He first appears to be sad and lonely around his friends, until his AI “friend” texts him, which appears to put him at ease.

The marketing video ends with a young man and woman spending time together as the woman discusses how she has only ever brought “her” to where they are hanging out, referencing her AI gadget.

“It’s so strange because it’s awkward to have an AI in between a human friendship,” Usselmann said about the video ad.

Hundreds took to the comments section of the YouTube video to respond — mostly negatively — to both the Friend.com ads and the technology. Commentators called out the company for capitalizing on loneliness and depression. One user even called the video “the most dystopian advertisement” he had ever seen, and others wrote the video felt like a “horror film.”

“While its creators might have good intentions to bring more people the joys of companionship, they are misguided in trying to achieve this through a digital simulacrum,” Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome, told CNA.

The device “suffers from a misnomer, since authentic friendship involves an interpersonal relationship of mutual support,” said Baggot, who studies AI chatbots and works on the development of the Catholic AI platform Magisterium AI.

“The product risks both worsening the loneliness epidemic by isolating users from others and undermining genuine solitude by intruding on quiet moments with constant notifications and surveillance. Friend commodities connection and may exploit human emotional vulnerabilities for profit,” he said, adding: “It might encourage users to avoid the challenging task of building real relationships with people and encourage them to settle for the easily controllable substitute.”

Usselmann agreed. “Only by reaching out in genuine compassion and care can another person who feels lonely realize that they matter to someone else,” she said. “We need to get to know our neighbors and not remain so self-centered in our apartments, neighborhoods, communities, or places of work.”

AI device ad campaign causes stir

In a post to social media platform X on Sept. 25, Schiffmann announced the launch of the subway ad campaign. The post has more than 25 million views and nearly 1,000 comments criticizing the pendant and campaign — and some commending them.

Dozens of the ads have since been torn up and written on. People have posted images to social media of the vandalized ads with messages about the surveillance dangers and the general threats of chatbots. One urged the company to “stop profiting off of loneliness,” while another had “AI is not your friend” written on it.

One person added to the definition of “friend,” writing it is also a “living being.” It also had the message: “Don’t use AI to cure your loneliness. Reach out into the world!”

Usselmann said the particular issue with the campaign and device is “the tech world assuming certain words and giving them different connotations.”

“A ‘friend’ is someone with whom you have a bond based on mutual affection,” she said. “A machine does not have real affection because it cannot love. It does not have a spiritual soul from which intellect, moral agency, and love stem.”

She continued: “And from a Christian understanding, a friend is someone who exhibits sacrificial love, who supports through the ups and downs of life, and who offers spiritual encouragement and forgiveness. An AI ‘friend’ can do none of those things.”

Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders

unitedyam September 29, 2025

President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission meets on Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 29, 2025 / 19:13 pm (CNA).

Teachers, coaches, and other public and private school leaders said their religious liberty was threatened in American schools at a hearing conducted by President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 29.

Speakers said there must be a fight for schools to bring back the “truth” to protect students and religious liberty. Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach; Monica Gill, a high school teacher; Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a seventh grade teacher; and Keisha Russell, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, addressed the commission led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“There has to be a call to action,” commission member Dr. Phil McGraw said. “The most common way to lose power is to think you don’t have it to begin with. We do have power, and we need to rally with that power.”

Teachers and coaches describe experiences

Kennedy said he was suspended — and later fired — from his position as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying a brief and quiet prayer after football games.

“After the game, I took a knee to say thanks,” Kennedy explained. “That’s all. If that could be turned into a national controversy, it says more about the confusion in our country than the conduct of the person performing it.”

Kennedy told the commission the law is “cloudy and muddy” and they “have the power to clarify it.” Kennedy also said some lawyers “need to be held accountable” for actions taken in religious liberty cases.

Kennedy said: “I don’t know a lot about law and liberty, but I know that you’re supposed to advise people on the truth and the facts, and they’re not. They have an agenda, and their agenda is well set and in place and is working very well, keeping prayer out of the public square. They’re still doing it. That needs to be exposed.”

“Being a teacher has been one of the greatest blessings of my life,” Gill said to the committee. “God really gave my heart a mission … to show all of my students every day that they are loved. No matter what they’re going through, no matter what their grades are, no matter what their status is with their peers, I love them.”

“But in the summer of 2021 … Loudoun County Public Schools adopted a policy that forced teachers to deny the foundational truth of what it means to be human, created as male and female,” Gill said.

“This policy forced teachers to affirm all transgender students,” Gill said. “My employer gave teachers a choice: deny truth or risk everything … I knew that I could not stand in front of my Father in heaven one day and say: ‘My pension plan was more important than your truth.’ I also knew that if I say that I love my students, the only right choice would be to stand in love and truth for them.”

To combat the policy, Gill joined a lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom after a fellow Virginia teacher was fired for speaking out against the same policy. The lawsuit “resulted in victory for all teachers to freely speak truth and love when Loudoun County finally agreed not to require teachers to use pronouns in accordance with the student’s sex,” Gill said.

Arroyo-Castro testified that she was punished for displaying a cross in her private workspace in her seventh grade classroom in a New Britain School District school in Connecticut.

“I share this with you to help you understand why the crucifix is so significant to me and why I will never hide it from anyone’s view,” Arroyo-Castro said. “The vice principal told me that the crucifix was of a religious nature, so against the Constitution of the United States, and that it had to be taken down by the end of the day.”

If she did not take it down it would be considered “insubordination and could lead to termination,” Arroyo-Castro said. She asked if she could have time to pray on it, and was told she could, but “it wouldn’t change anything.”

“I was later called to a meeting with the district chief of staff, the principal, the vice principal, [and a] union representative. The chief of staff suggested that I put the crucifix in a drawer. I knew I couldn’t do that since my grandmother has instilled in me the meaning of the crucifix and how it should be treated with respect. But the chief of staff said that the Constitution says that I had to take it down,” Arroyo-Castro said.

After she refused to remove it, Arroyo-Castro was released from school with an unpaid suspension. She was offered legal defense by lawyers at First Liberty, which sued the school for violating the Constitution. While the lawsuit is ongoing she works in the administrative building “far from the students.”

Arroyo-Castro said: “Every day, I wonder how they’re doing.”

“Please do what you can to educate the districts in American schools about the true meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause,” Arroyo-Castro advised the commission members. “How can we do our jobs well when many education leaders today don’t understand the Constitution themselves? We must understand as Americans that freedom of religion is a right that benefits all Americans.”

Suggestions from faith leaders

Leaders at Jewish, Catholic, and Christian schools also recounted religious freedom issues facing faith-based schools across the nation and what the country can do.

The leaders highlighted the need to protect the financial aid faith-based institutions receive and stop any threats of losing money if certain values are not enforced. Todd J. Williams, provost at Cairn University, said: “Schools will begin to cave because they’re worried about the millions of dollars that will go out the door.”

Father Robert Sirico, a priest at Sacred Heart Catholic School in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he was recently affected by a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that redefined sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

“While presented as a matter of fairness, this reinterpretation proposes grave dangers, grave risks for all religious institutions, even those like Sacred Heart that receive absolutely no public support,” he said.

Sacred Heart has filed a lawsuit to combat the issue, but Sirico said what needs to be done “exceeds the competency of [the] commission and the competency of this administration.”

“We have to think of this in existential terms, and we have to come at this project with the understanding that this is going to take years to transform. This is why religious people can transform the world: We believe in something that’s greater than our politics. We can reenvision.”

Catholic University of America panel explores how Christians should think about AI

unitedyam September 25, 2025

From left: Ross Douthat, media fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology; Will Wilson, CEO of AI company Antithesis; Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome; and Brian J.A. Boyd, director for the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans discuss AI and the Church on Sept. 23, 2025, at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 25, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

The Catholic University of America (CUA) hosted a panel this week to discuss how Christians should think about the developing technology surrounding artificial intelligence (AI).

The Sept. 23 panel was hosted by CUA’s Institute for Human Ecology, which works to identify the economic, cultural, and social conditions vital for human flourishing. The group discussed the threats posed by AI, the future of the technology, and the Church’s place in the conversation.

Ross Douthat, media fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology, led the discussion between Father Michael Baggot, LC, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome; Will Wilson, CEO of AI company Antithesis; and Brian J.A. Boyd, director for the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans.

Douthat asked the panelists what they each believe to be the greatest threat of the emerging technology as it poses new challenges to the defense of human dignity, justice, and labor.

According to Boyd, the potential loss of human connection is the most prominent threat of AI. He said: “To be human is to be created in and for relationships of love — by love of God. Our nature is made to be receptive to grace.”

AI becomes an issue if “our main relationship and reference point is talking to a computer rather than to humans,” Boyd said. “I think that is an existential threat, and something worth discussing.”

“If we’re habituated to look at the screen before we look at our neighbor … and AI is [the] constant reference point, it will make habits of prayer much more difficult to include. It will make it harder to learn to listen to the voice of God, because the answer is always in your pocket.”

Baggot said his greatest concern is that “artificial intimacy is going to distract us from, and deter us from, the deep interpersonal bonds that are central to our happiness and our flourishing.”

“Companies now grip not only our minds but also are capturing our affections,” Baggot said. “We can all read about these tragic cases of exploitation and manipulation that are only going to continue unless we put proper guardrails in place and also provide the information that allows us to have the kind of deep interpersonal relationships we were made for.”

While many people worry that AI could create “mass unemployment,” Wilson said he disagrees: “I think that this is a very silly fear because human desires and human wants are infinite, and therefore, we always find new things for people to do.”

Rather, Wilson shared his concern that humans will no longer create their own ideas and will lose their intelligence and knowledge.

“The trouble with AI is even if it’s not actually intelligent, it does a very good simulacrum of intelligence, and it’s very tempting to use it to substitute for human intelligence,” Wilson said. “It’s very possible that we’re entering a world where very soon any cognitive labor, any reason, [or] any thought will be a luxury.”

Catholic AI

While there are dangers to AI, Baggot addressed the positive aspects the tool can offer, highlighting the benefits of Catholic AI companies.

“I’ve been privileged to work on the Scholarly Advisory Board of Magisterium AI, which is basically a Catholic answer engine that’s very narrowly trained on reliable documents, magisterial documents, [and] theological texts,” Baggot said.

Magisterium AI is a “system designed to give people reliable responses to their questions about the Catholic faith,” Baggot explained. “This is appealing to Catholics who want to go deeper, but it’s also quite appealing to people who have never really had the chance, or aren’t quite ready, to speak to another human person about their curiosities regarding Catholicism.”

Baggot explained that creators of the technology work hard to keep it from being “anthropomorphic” to avoid users confusing the AI with actual connection. He said: “We do not want people having an intimate relationship with it.”

While Magisterium AI can provide useful information, Baggot acknowledged that it is not a tool for spiritual direction. He said: “Spiritual direction … should be with another living, breathing human being who actually has insight into human experience [and] who can develop a relationship of real empathy and real compassion.”

The Church’s place in AI

The panelists had differing viewpoints about the Church’s place in AI and how Christians should approach it. Wilson said he believes “the conversation about where the technology is going and what we’re going to do with it is happening among people who do not care … what any Christian church has to say on the topic.”

“It’s actually a little hard to blame them because Christians have basically sacrificed their place at the forefront of science and technology, which is where we were in centuries past,” Wilson said.

“Control goes to those who can deploy the most capital, and capital gets allocated very fast to people who are able to deploy very efficiently. And by and large, those people are not Christians because Christians aren’t really trying.”

Baggot said that while AI does pose dangers, the Church “has a lot of insight and wisdom” that can help guide the conversation. “The Church is in a privileged position to leverage its incredible patrimony, its reflection on the human person, [and] human flourishing.”

“The Church has reflected a lot about the meaning and value of work, the subjective value of work. It’s not just about economic efficiency, but it’s about how I use my own God-given talents to grow as a person and then also to serve others in intrinsically valuable activities.”

Mothers urge lawmakers to ban assault weapons after Minneapolis Catholic school shooting

unitedyam September 22, 2025

Police gather at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, 2025, following a mass shooting that killed two children and injured 17 others, 14 of them children. / Credit: Chad Davis, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Sep 22, 2025 / 17:17 pm (CNA).

At a town hall meeting in Plymouth, Minnesota, over the weekend, three mothers whose children survived the school shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in August advocated for stricter gun laws.

Two children were killed and 21 people were injured after Robin Westman, 23, a man who identified as a woman, shot through the stained-glass windows of the church during a school Mass on Aug. 27.

Fletcher Merkel, 8, and Harper Moyski, 10, were killed in the attack.

Carla Maldonado, who has two children at Annunciation Catholic School, said “taking action” by tightening gun laws would honor the deaths of the two children and “all lives taken by gun violence.”

“We cannot accept a world where civilians have access to weapons designed for battlefields,” she said, referring to assault weapons and calling for their prohibition.

Another mother, Malia Kimbrell, who also supports an assault weapons ban, asked: “If the next mass shooting happens at your child’s school, what type of weapon are you comfortable with the shooter being armed with?”

Kimbrell, whose daughter Vivian, 9, is recovering after she was shot multiple times, advocated for “more mental health resources and safer gun storage and better background checks and detecting potential threats online and improved security measures.”

Stephanie Moscetti said her son “was an honorary pallbearer at his friend’s [Merkel’s] funeral; how is this our reality?”

“Our kids deserve safe schools, they deserve safe childhoods where they can play and learn,” she said.

Rep. Kelly Morrison, a Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District, organized the town hall meeting, which focused on the prevention of gun violence.

Several of the mothers at the town hall also testified last week before a working group of state lawmakers who deliberated over proposed reforms dealing with gun violence.

At the hearing, Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, asked lawmakers to strengthen the law surrounding mental health resources access, pointing out that none of the proposals put forward would have prevented the shooting because Westman legally purchased the weapons.

Westman used three firearms during the August attack: a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, all of which were purchased legally under existing state law. The rifle was likely an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, which is considered an assault weapon.

Laws limiting those with mental health disorders from gun possession

Though Westman struggled with his gender identity, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed “gender identity disorder” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and replaced it with “gender dysphoria” in the revised version, known as the DSM-5, published in 2013.

This change marked a significant shift in how struggles with a person’s sexual identity are classified, with health care professionals no longer calling it a mental illness.

The new classification of gender dysphoria, though it is still in the APA’s manual of mental disorders, addresses the symptoms, or the distress, associated with gender incongruence and not the incongruence itself.

Minnesota, along with 29 other states, bars people with mental health issues who have been involuntarily committed or found to be a danger to self or others from possessing a gun.

This law did not come into play in the August shooting, however.

Gov. Tim Walz in early September called for a special session, which has yet to take place, that will focus on gun safety. He proposed banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips as well as more safety regulations concerning storage and a stronger red flag law.

Minnesota’s current red flag law allows family or local and state officials to ask for an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, which allows them to petition the court to have an at-risk person’s guns removed or to temporarily prohibit that person from buying a gun.

“We passed a red flag law. It was passed in 2023 and it was supposed to deal with a situation like this,” Minnesota House Republican leader Harry Niska said in early September after Walz proposed the special session. “So I hope everyone is asking serious questions about why — why did this incident not trigger either a background check flag or a red flag?”

Walz will need the support of Republican lawmakers in the special session, and they have different proposals. They want to make private school security eligible for state funding, something the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of Minnesota’s six Catholic dioceses, has asked for multiple times.

Republicans also want to allow doctors more discretion concerning transgender medical procedures, more funds for mental health facilities, and harsher penalties for certain gun crimes.

Ten states ban assault weapons, but the proposal in Minnesota failed to come up for a vote in 2023. Just over half of rural residents opposed an assault weapons ban in a 2022 MinnPost poll, while 69% of urban dwellers supported it. Overall, the poll found that nearly 54% supported it.

Minnesota already has one of the nation’s stronger gun regulation frameworks, according to Everytown Research, which ranks the state 14th in the country for gun safety policies.

The state requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, including private transfers, and domestic violence protections prohibit access for those under restraining orders or with misdemeanor convictions, among many other regulations.