This is a task close to the Pope's heart. Earlier this year he spoke of political leaders' responsibility to ensure AI is used ethically.

Project plan

The University has announced that it will use an endowment to develop faith-based frameworks for the ethical uses of artificial intelligence - known as AI or AGI (the G stands for General).

This "is a pivotal moment for technology ethics" says Meghan Sullivan, director of the Catholic university's Institute for Ethics and the Common Good.

AGI is developing quickly and can potentially change our economies, our education systems and the fabric of our social lives, she says.

"We believe that the wisdom of faith traditions can make a significant contribution to the development of ethical frameworks for AGI" Sullivan says.

The first part of the framework development will see the Catholic University undertake a year-long planning project.

By next September, Sullivan says the university aims to have engaged and built a network of higher education and technology leaders, along with leaders of different faiths "to broach the topic of ethical uses of AI and eventually create faith-based ethical frameworks".

"This project will encourage broader dialogue about the role that concepts such as dignity, embodiment, love, transcendence and being created in the image of God should play in how we understand and use this technology.

"These concepts - as the bedrock of many faith-based traditions - are vital for how we advance the common good in the era of AGI."

The university says that, in September 2025, a conference will focus on the most pressing faith-based issues relating to the proliferation of AGI and provide training and networking opportunities for leaders who attend.

Priority work

For some time Pope Francis has been pushing for work on AI ethics to begin.

It must be used only to benefit humanity, he told the Group of Seven leaders at a summit in southern Italy in June.

"We cannot allow a tool as powerful and indispensable as artificial intelligence to reinforce such a technocratic paradigm but rather we must make artificial intelligence a bulwark against its expansion," Pope Francis said.

"This is precisely where political action is urgently needed."

According to 2024 statistics from National University in San Diego, 77 percent of companies are either using or exploring the use of AI in their businesses.

For 83 percent, the technology is a top priority in their future plans.

Source

• Crux

Some Catholics support Infinite Dignity's message. Others are dismayed.

Surrogate born woman against "womb renting"

A woman born in 1991 via a surrogate mother, who is now a leading campaigner for the abolition of "womb renting", is of a like mind to Francis regarding surrogacy.

It's a practice the Pope has called "deplorable".

The negative sides of surrogate pregnancies aren't made well known, says Olivia Maurel. It's totally unethical in her book.

"We're used to having in the news a lot of beautiful stories of children born via surrogacy … and we are not used to hearing the bad aspects of surrogacy and how it's totally unethical" Maurel told CNA in an interview on 5 April.

It led her to experience abandonment trauma, identity issues, and to make several suicide attempts.

"I was a product of surrogacy and I've always felt it inside me — a baby made to order, a commodity for money" she said.

It's totally unethical in her opinion.

Vatican view

On Monday the Vatican declared gender-affirming surgery and surrogacy as grave violations of human dignity.

These practices are on par with abortion and euthanasia as practices which reject God's plan for human life, the Vatican says.

The Vatican's doctrine office, with the Pope's approval, issued "Infinite Dignity" on 25 March. It is a 20-page declaration that has been in the works for five years.

The Vatican repeated its rejection of "gender theory" - the idea that one's biological sex can change.

God created man and woman as biologically different, separate beings, and people must not tinker with that or try to "make oneself God" the document says.

"It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception."

The document distinguishes between gender-affirming surgeries, which it rejected, and "genital abnormalities" that are present at birth or develop later.

Those abnormalities can be "resolved" with the help of health care professionals, the document says.

Transgender community distressed

Feedback from transgender Catholics shows they are disappointed with the new Vatican document.

That's because in essence, Infinite Dignity is as a restatement of longstanding Catholic teaching.

Transgender Catholics are particularly dismayed however, as recent moves by Pope Francis had encouraged some to hope the Church might become more accepting.

"A document like this is very hurtful to the larger LGBTQ+ community but especially to the trans community" one lifelong Catholic transgender man says,

"We have seen the care and love Pope Francis has personally extended to the trans community in his personal interactions, yet this document fails to extend that same respect, love and support."

Source

• AP News
• Catholic News Agency
• AP News

A new approach

Crossin and Bodin argue in favour of a health-based, Te Tiriti aligned approach that not only reduces harm but saves tax money and police time." (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

A useful definition of drug ‘harm' is offered by Crossin, Cleland and Boden (2023): (Crossin R, Cleland L, Wilkins C, et al., 2023)

They say harms can be categorised as those that impact on individuals who use a drug, and those which impact upon others, such as families, communities or broader society.

There is a complex interrelationship between harms.

Drug-related convictions and other related harms, for example, tend to further disadvantage vulnerable individuals and communities.

In addition, the illegality of some drugs can add to any harms accruing from merely using the drug.

The current drug laws

What evidence is there that our current drug laws are not working well?

Taking the example of cannabis, there is research clearly showing that:

"an arrest/conviction for a cannabis related offence does not reduce the use of cannabis, with up to 95 percent either increasing their use or continuing with the same level of cannabis use following arrest." (Fergusson, D M. Swain-Campbell, N R. Horwood, L J., 2003)

In addition, as Crossin and Boden point out:

"Drug harm is being created and increased by our drug laws.

"A person charged with drug possession can lose their job, be isolated from their family and friends, be stigmatised and shamed. "In short, they lose the things needed to live a meaningful and happy life, and stigma creates a barrier to seeking help.

"This creates a cycle of harm that impacts a person, their family, their community." (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

Crossin and Bodin's concerns echo that of others such as Lynne Bowyer and Deborah Stevens:

"A drug conviction has serious repercussions for a person's future possibilities; it narrows life opportunities, making it more difficult to get employment, to travel and to move into more life-affirming and sustainable social spaces.

"Further, if imprisoned, individuals are exposed to more ‘hardened' criminals and little is done to address the impetus for drug use.

"Such negative repercussions have been noted by the Law Commission, who state that individuals who receive criminal convictions as a result of their possession or use often experience levels of harm quite disproportionate to their offending.

"Extending beyond the individuals involved, the harms from a punitive approach to drug use also become woven into families and communities, becoming entrenched with each generation, all of which further alienates those concerned.

"Statistics show that many of those convicted on charges relating to cannabis possession and use are young people from already marginalised groups. (Bowyer, L. Stevens, D., 2019)

In short, "a significant proportion of harm of some substances is caused by the legal status of the drug, rather than from the drug itself." (Vincent, 2023)

Punishment vs justice

Catholic ethicist Dan Fleming, who is Group Manager of Ethics and Formation, St Vincent's Health Australia, recently shared a story relayed to him by one of the addiction medicine specialists from St Vincent's Healthcare Group, Australia. (Fleming, 2023)

A young man from a non-English speaking background struggles with anxiety. Using cannabis helps him curb his emotional turmoil.

He gets caught buying for personal use from someone he knows. He's given a low-level drug dealing offence, and a criminal record.

His family - good people - are thrown into turmoil.

His mother is ashamed and in tears when she sees him. His father and brothers are angry. They disown him.

The community are destabilised, and the family becomes isolated.

The young man can't get a job because of his record.

All of this makes him more anxious. More anxious. More drug use.

He found his way to our addiction medicine service, and very slowly things began to turn around.

But the starting point for providing our help to him is not where it could have been.

We were not caring for a man who needed help dealing with anxiety and who was desperate for some advice on how to manage that stress without drugs.

We were now caring for a young man cut off from family and friends, who was struggling to find a job because of his criminal record, and who was wrestling with his inner turmoil at his family's anguish.

That's a much harder place from which to begin a healing journey.

Compounding problem

Fleming, commenting on the Australian context, which employs a similar approach to Aotearoa New Zealand. It also concludes:

"Rather than acting as a solution to a problem, our solidarity with those we serve has taught us that our current criminal justice framework for illicit drugs compounds problems, undermining human flourishing in an ongoing way, particularly for those who have a substance use disorder."

Drawing on Martin Luther Jr's commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan, Fleming argues that:

"we ought to fuse concern for attending to a person's immediate wounds and their long- term needs with offering our voice and expertise to bring about the reforms needed to prevent them from becoming wounded in the first place."

To paraphrase Fleming, it's about using our power to effect change, being committed to changing the road so it's not so dangerous anymore, while still caring for the one who is hurting.

The Referendum

Just three years ago, New Zealanders participated in a poorly thought-out referendum that asked people whether or not they would "support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill".

The Bill was ultimately rejected by a small margin.

That led various politicians, including the then Minister of Health Andrew Little (who readily agrees the current approach is causing harm) to suggest that there is now no social licence for drug law reform. (Radio New Zealand, 2022)

Commentators such as Crossin and Bodin, who are specialists in the field, reject the idea that there is no licence for reform. In their words:

"New Zealanders were asked a specific question about legalising cannabis ...

"We were not asked about whether we supported decriminalisation, or increased funding for harm reduction, or expanding programmes like Te Ara Oranga that are proven to reduce drug harm without criminalisation.

"All of these actions must be taken, and we do not need another referendum to do so. (Crossin, R. Boden, J., 2023)

A 2019 amendment allows the police to exercise discretion as to whether to prosecute anyone caught in possession of a controlled drug,.

That amendment led some to describe the current state of affairs as approximating decriminalisation, there is plentiful evidence to show that it is not applied equitably:

"Maori, those with a previous arrest record for non- cannabis related offences and those reporting involvement in violent/property offending were more likely to be arrested or convicted than other cohort members having the same level of cannabis use."

(Fergusson, D M. Swain-Campbell, N R. Horwood, L J., 2003)

Examples of an alternative health-based approach are already in operation.

Court system

Pat Snedden writes passionately about Aotearoa's three specialist Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts located in Auckland and Hamilton.

"The court is solutions focused and aims to ‘break the cycle' by treating the causes of offending.

It targets offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned, but whose offending is being fuelled by their unresolved ‘high-needs' issues of addiction or dependency.

"They are also assessed as being ‘high-risk' in terms of their non-compliance: in other words, past sentences and court orders made have not changed their situation.

"Consequently, they are on a treadmill of offending, typically being punished but then going on to reoffend.

"As an alternative to prison, the court applies evidence-based best practices in a potentially transformative programme of case management, treatment, drug testing, monitoring and mentoring. (Snedden, 2023)

Changing the law

To conclude, in 2020, in the leadup to the Cannabis Referendum, the Nathaniel Centre wrote:

"There are good arguments to be made that the current laws and regulations around the possession and use of recreational cannabis are not working well; that certain groups of people are more disadvantaged by these laws than others, including the way the law is applied.

"Saying ‘NO' to legalising recreational cannabis will still allow us the opportunity in the future to revisit our current laws, including the possibility of some form of decriminalisation.

"That opportunity exists now. It needs to be taken up by our politicians using a cross-party approach. There is no shortage of quality information for them to consider.

"The argument for adopting a strong health-based approach and moving away from the current largely punitive approach is supported by a range of robust research.

"Without minimising the harm that can be caused directly by drugs, it is undeniable that a significant proportion of drug-related harm is caused by our current approach to regulating them.

"Let's first agree that the current laws and approaches to drugs are not working and that they are disproportionately affecting some of our most vulnerable populations. Let's then agree to have a mature discussion about an alternative approach.

"Decriminalisation offers an alternative path for reforming our drug laws; for moving from a criminal-based approach to a health-based one focused on the reality of people's lives and a desire for individual, whanau and social flourishing as well as greater social cohesion.

"Whether or not there is a social licence for reform, it is about doing the right and the best thing, and that's what politicians are elected to do.

"Furthermore, from a Christian-Catholic perspective, and in line with Pope Francis' recent update to the Statutes which shape the way we do theology, it's also an expression of "intellectual charity" which recognises and prioritises the questions and needs of those "on the existential peripheries".

• John Kleinsman (PhD) is director of the Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics.

Now, this network spans more than a handful of states, with volunteers documenting and taking down illegally placed religious material on utility poles and overpasses across the country.

Known as the Atheist Street Pirates, the group formed in 2021 as a subset of the LA-based Atheists United, a nonprofit that's been in the city for 40 years and that seeks to "empower people to express secular values and promote separation of government and religion."

The street pirates' goal is to clear city streets of religious propaganda.

Evan Clark, the executive director for Atheists United, created a public Google map database where the street pirates upload photos and locations of the signage they encounter during commutes.

A year ago, the map showed about 70 signs across LA County, including material taken down by the pirates or others.

The map now includes about 1,000 markers for religious signage that has been reported, tracked, or removed in such states as Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois and Kentucky. Volunteers focus on religious signs on public land, not paid billboards or signage on church property.

The documented signs on the map include banners designed with American flags declaring "Prayer Changes Things" that were attached to chain link fences and wooden panels visible from Southern California freeways.

Bright yellow "JESUS SAVES" signs also appear quite commonly in North Carolina, according to the map.

Through this work, Clark, who identifies as an atheist and humanist, said he has recognized a "larger phenomenon happening, where Christian nationalists, evangelicals and other types of religious fanatics are using our public land illegally for their proselytizing."

On Sunday (April 23), Atheists United held an art exhibition in LA featuring signs and banners that volunteers have removed from across Southern California.

Clark said showcasing the signs this way helps show the magnitude of the issue.

Dozens of posters with the words "Jesus. The way. The truth. The life" were prominently showcased on a wall during the exhibit. These signs are the most commonly seen in LA along busy intersections, public parks and freeway off-ramps.

More than 130 have been removed, according to Atheists United.

Some of these signs are stapled and can be easily torn down, but many are placed atop telephone poles and attached with roofing nails. Volunteers have had to use a crowbar and ladder to remove some signs.

While it's largely unknown where the signs come from, Atheists United has learned of an effort led by street evangelist Brent Farley, a born-again Christian who produces the "JESUS SAVES" posters that have been largely spotted in the South.

In an interview with Axios last year, Farley said he used to be an atheist but eventually "found God" and decided to create and distribute the signs as a way of spreading his newfound faith. "I put signs up wherever I go," he said.

At the exhibit, Atheists United featured a dozen or so of Farley's signs that were taken down in the LA area. Clark said they have tracked around 250 of these signs on their map.

Ted Nunn, an atheist from Texas who learned about Atheist Street Pirates through a news article, manages the map. He marks the locations of religious signs reported by the pirates or by anyone familiar with their work.

He confirms the signs and location by looking through Google street view.

Nunn, who traveled from Texas for the exhibition, said he's not against religious people, but he has a problem with the "influence of religion in the public sphere."

Dan Barker, a Christian minister turned atheist, understands why people would feel compelled to place this kind of religious signage. He used to do the same, he said.

"I used to think Jesus is going to come any minute now, and it's either heaven or hell.

"So maybe there's some little laws that are broken, but what's more important than trying to get the message out?" said Barker, who is now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's board of directors.

"I think most of these signs are sincere. … The people who put them up really, really believe it, or they wouldn't go through all that trouble," added Barker, who attended the art exhibition.

Barker noted the right to free speech, but he said this kind of religious signage — without a permit — does not belong on the "public property that belongs to all of us."

• Alejandra Molina is a National Reporter at RNS covering Latinos and religion in the West Coast.
• First published in RNS
• Republished with permission

In reality, though, the head of the Catholic Church never wore that designer, Balenciaga-like jacket: The image was nothing more than a hyper-realistic A.I. generation.

Behind this work of forgery was Pablo Xavier, a construction worker in Chicago who asked media not to use his last name for fear of backlash, reports Chris Stokel-Walker for Buzzfeed News.

"I just thought it was funny to see the Pope in a funny jacket," Xavier tells the publication.

(The story and Xavier's interview were published before Pope Francis was hospitalized with a respiratory infection and will likely spend a few days there, though he does not have Covid-19. Since this announcement, his condition has been improving.)

Xavier's four pictures of a "dripped-out" pope were created using the popular A.I. tool Midjourney, which generates images based on text prompts.

However, like lots of computer-produced artwork, the photos of the pope are not perfect.

His smeared hand, misshapen glasses, and blurry cross necklace are all telltale signs of A.I. interference.

Nevertheless, the depictions tricked people, including model Chrissy Teigen.

"I thought the pope's puffer jacket was real and didn't give it a second thought. no way am I surviving the future of technology," tweeted Teigen on Friday.

While the pope wearing a perfectly tailored, arctic white puffer could command a laugh out of even the most stoic internet users, the portrayal of public figures in realistic, A.I.-generated art has real-world implications.

Though he created the images for fun, Xavier tells Buzzfeed he had instant regrets once they went viral. He saw posts criticizing the Catholic Church for unnecessary spending, citing his A.I. creations as evidence.

Beyond the images of the pope-looking fly, Midjourney-generated content has tricked the internet on other occasions.

The same program is responsible for recently circulated phony photographs of Donald Trump getting arrested and Queen Elizabeth doing her own laundry.

While many were quick to debunk the Trump arrest photos due to their political implications, some never questioned the image of the pope and just kept scrolling.

"If Trump has been publicly arrested, I'm asking myself, why am I seeing this image, but Twitter's trending topics, tweets and the national newspapers and networks are not reflecting that?"

Mike Caulfield, a researcher at the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public, tells the Atlantic's Charlie Warzel.

"But for the pope, your only available heuristic is would the pope wear a cool coat? Since almost all of us don't have any expertise there, we fall back on the style heuristic, and the answer we come up with is: maybe."

Creating fake images is not the only problem that users are having with A.I. programs.

For one, the models also have coded biases.

When prompted with words like "CEO" or "director", image generator DALL-E 2 churns out pictures of white men 97 percent of the time. Continue reading

It is already doing so in ways we can and cannot perceive.

As Facebook, Apple and Google pour billions into A.I. development, there is a fledgling branch of academic ethical study—influenced by Catholic social teaching and encompassing thinkers like the Jesuit scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin—that aims to study its moral consequences, contain the harm it might do and push tech firms to integrate social goods like privacy and fairness into their business plans.

"There are a lot of people suddenly interested in A.I. ethics because they realize they're playing with fire," says Brian Green, an A.I. ethicist at Santa Clara University. "And this is the biggest thing since fire."

The field of A.I. ethics includes two broad categories.

One is the philosophical and sometimes theological questioning about how artificial intelligence changes our destiny and role as humans in the universe; the other is a set of nuts-and-bolts questions about the impact of powerful A.I. consumer products, like smartphones, drones and social media algorithms.

The first is concerned with what is termed artificial general intelligence.

A.G.I. describes the kind of powerful artificial intelligence that not only simulates human reasoning but surpasses it by combining computational might with human qualities like learning from mistakes, self-doubt and curiosity about mysteries within and without.

A popular word—singularity—has been coined to describe the moment when machines become smarter, and maybe more powerful, than humans.

That moment, which would represent a clear break from traditional religious narratives about creation, has philosophical and theological implications that can make your head spin.

But before going all the way there—because it is not all that clear that this is ever going to happen—let us talk about the branch of A.I. ethics more concerned with practical problems, like if it is O.K. that your phone knows when to sell you a pizza.

"For now, the singularity is science fiction," Shannon Vallor, a philosophy professor who also teaches at Santa Clara, tells me. "There are enough ethical concerns in the short term."

The ‘Black Mirror' factor

While we ponder A.G.I., artificial narrow intelligence is already here: Google Maps suggesting the road less travelled, voice-activated programs like Siri answering trivia questions, Cambridge Analytica crunching private data to help swing an election, and military drones choosing how to kill people on the ground.

A.N.I. is what animates the androids in the HBO series "Westworld"—that is, until they develop A.G.I. and start making decisions on their own and posing human questions about existence, love and death.

Even without the singular, and unlikely, appearance of robot overlords, the possible outcomes of artificial narrow intelligence gone awry include plenty of apocalyptic scenarios, akin to the plots of the TV series "Black Mirror."

A temperature control system, for example, could kill all humans because that would be a rational way to cool down the planet, or a network of energy-efficient computers could take over nuclear plants so it will have enough power to operate on its own.

The more programmers push their machines to make smart decisions that surprise and delight us, the more they risk triggering something unexpected and awful.

The invention of the internet took most philosophers by surprise.

This time, A.I. ethicists view it as their job to keep up.

"There's a lack of awareness in Silicon Valley of moral questions, and churches and government don't know enough about the technology to contribute much for now," says Tae Wan Kim, an A.I. ethicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "We're trying to bridge that gap."

A.I. ethicists consult with schools, businesses and governments.

They train tech entrepreneurs to think about questions like the following.

• Should tech companies that collect and analyze DNA data be allowed to sell that data to pharmaceutical firms in order to save lives?
• Is it possible to write code that offers guidance on whether to approve life insurance or loan applications in an ethical way?
• Should the government ban realistic sex robots that could tempt vulnerable people into thinking they are in the equivalent of a human relationship?
• How much should we invest in technology that throws millions of people out of work?

Tech companies themselves are steering more resources into ethics, and tech leaders are thinking seriously about the impact of their inventions.

A recent survey of Silicon Valley parents found that many had prohibited their own children from using smartphones.

Mr. Kim frames his work as that of a public intellectual, reacting to the latest efforts by corporations to show they are taking A.I. ethics seriously.

In June, for example, Google, seeking to reassure the public and regulators, published a list of seven principles for guiding its A.I. applications.

It said that A.I. should be socially beneficial, avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias, be built and tested for safety, be accountable to people, incorporate privacy design principles, uphold high standards of scientific excellence, and be made available to uses that accord with these principles.

In response, Mr. Kim published a critical commentary on his blog.

The problem with promising social benefits, for example, is that "Google can take advantage of local norms," he wrote.

"If China allows, legally, Google to use AI in a way that violates human rights, Google will go for it." (At press time, Google had not responded to multiple requests for comment on this criticism.)

The biggest headache for A.I. ethicists is that a global internet makes it harder to enforce any universal principle like freedom of speech.

The corporations are, for the most part, in charge. That is especially true when it comes to deciding how much work we should let machines do. Continue reading

• John W. Miller is a Pittsburgh-based former Wall Street Journal staff reporter and co-director of the PBS film "Moundsville."

Health New Zealand will run an international recruitment service to ease immigration for health workers.

But New Zealand College of Nurses Executive Director, Jenny Carryer, told Heather du Plessis Allan "there's a 12 million-strong global shortage of nurses, and other countries may have greater need than us." Read more

The article was premised on an analysis of app data signals that the authors allege were "correlated to Burrill's mobile device."

The signals, they write, "suggest he was at the same time engaged in serial and illicit sexual activity."

Missing in the story by The Pillar and in a subsequent response to questions about the ethics of the piece is the name of the vendor that provided the data, details about who paid to purchase the data and how it was obtained by the outlet, as well as any information on how the investigation was conducted to determine the signals were transmitted from Burrill's mobile phone.

The story also lacked any confirmation of Burill's conduct beyond the location data.

The outlet has since published two subsequent articles alleging use of hookup apps within clerical residences in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, and in the Vatican.

Experts in journalistic ethics who spoke to NCR raised multiple concerns about The Pillar article.

"Ethically this is a softball. The article is scummy," Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University's Journalism School, told NCR via email.

"The hack using data tracking is illicit, indefensible, and all-around contrary to journalistic ethics."

"It's redolent of the depredations of [Rupert] Murdoch's News of the World busting into private phones," he added, referencing the enterprise's 2011 hacking scandal that led to the closure of the storied tabloid and millions of dollars of litigation after it was revealed that the publication hacked into the phones of politicians and celebrities.

Although The Pillar article said there was "no evidence" to imply the priest had contact with minors, it went on to suggest that his possible consensual sexual behaviour risked the possibility of clouding his judgment on the church's handling of the clergy sexual abuse crisis — another problematic leap, according to experts in journalistic ethics.

"The story casually links this case to others involving pedophile priests, but in fact, there is no evidence of that here," observed Bill Grueskin, a professor of professional practice at Columbia Journalism School.

"A good editor would have sussed out these issues, and likely eliminated the many references to unrelated cases that give the patina of criminal behaviour to a situation that lacks evidence of such conduct," Grueskin told NCR via email.

Gitlin agreed: "The sneering references to paedophilia are nothing short of vile and McCarthyite," he concluded. "Roy Cohn would be proud."

Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst for the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism school and research organization, told NCR, "The article raises a number of questions about cyber security and personal privacy and presents an alarming question of whether you can be tracked wherever you go."

Edmonds described the methods used by The Pillar as "unusual" and without any known journalistic precedent.

Flynn and Condon did not respond to NCR's requests for comment for this story.

(Editors of The Pillar have sought to compare their story to work by journalists at The New York Times to locate individuals for the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, although one of The New York Times reporters has noted that their reporting, on a criminal incident, only quoted the one individual who consented to being quoted.)

The outing of Burrill through questionable journalistic practices has sparked a contentious debate among many Catholics and for some, represents a stark departure from the "serious, responsible sober journalism about the Church, from the Church, and for the Church," that The Pillar pledged to provide when it launched on Jan. 4.

Yet while The Pillar's controversial reporting on Burrill has forced the new startup website into the national spotlight, a review of their past operations, connections of its top editors, along with undisclosed conflicts of interest and improper use of anonymous sources, reveals a history of questionable journalistic ethics.

Canon lawyers or journalists?

The Pillar was founded by its editor-in-chief J.D. Flynn and editor Ed Condon after the two resigned from EWTN-owned Catholic News Agency (CNA) in December.

At CNA, Flynn and Condon were at the helm of an agency that bills itself as being "one of the fastest-growing Catholic news providers in the world." During their tenure, the two would frequently boast of their independence from church hierarchy, their ability to uncover and report stories without fear or favor, and their accuracy and fair-mindedness in the process.

The two have also vowed to bring those same standards to their new operations. Yet while The Pillar has recently spilled considerable ink outlining allegations of sexual misconduct against one priest, including inferences of how his alleged behavior may have affected his judgment on matters related to sexual abuse of minors, their publications have not always disclosed their own professional involvement in clergy sexual abuse cases — not as journalists, but as legal advocates.

The left and right Catholic commentariat is lining up to say that @canonlawyered and I are "canon lawyers not journalists."

Meanwhile the two of us are breaking stories that make change while the chattering classes are pimping their increasingly irrelevant and partisan opinions.

— JD Flynn (@jdflynn) January 6, 2021

Both Flynn and Condon are canon lawyers. Continue reading

There are reasons to think it heralds a new and even uglier era in American Catholicism.

As Catholics were still reeling from Pope Francis' abrogation Friday (July 16) of his predecessor's guidance on the traditional Latin Mass, "Summorum Pontificum".

Indeed, while this author was struggling to finish an article about that event, The Pillar, a Catholic publication, released what it called "an investigation" in which data identifying Burrill's phone seemed to indicate he had frequently used Grindr, a popular dating app in the gay community, and that he had left geolocation tracks to and from gay clubs.

That is all we really learned from The Pillar's "investigation."

And, here is an important place to pause.

I am a sinner. So are you. So is Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill.

Not one of us has a personal life that would withstand the sort of scrutiny The Pillar has applied to Burrill.

Every single one of us has had a shameful moment we regret, and I suspect most of us must be caught up in cycles of sinfulness that we repeat less because we want to than because we are sinners and cannot help being sinners.

Like anyone else, Burrill's sins are between him and God.

Like any other priest, we can say his bishop belongs in that conversation too.

But unless there is some reason to think he has harmed someone else, I feel sure his sins are none of my business, as much as my sins are none of yours.

As a Catholic, I am bound to believe all of that.

I am not sure what the investigators at The Pillar believe.

I feel comfortably sure that before they embarked on their "investigation," they must not have thought about the Code of Canon Law, which states, "No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy." (Canon 220)

They must also not have thought about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, "everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favourable way" (Catechism 2478) because "detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity." (Catechism 2479).

I can see plainly they did not heed St. Paul, who pointed the finger at himself as a sinner (1 Timothy 1:15) before pointing to others.

Whatever we may say of their practice of Catholicism, The Pillar's investigators paid little heed also to the canons of ethics for journalists.

How did they get their story?

The Society for Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics encourages journalists to "avoid using undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information" and admonishes that "Pursuit of the news is not a license for … undue intrusiveness."

What story did they get here?

That Burrill might have broken his vow of chastity and (consensually) used other people for impersonal sex?

The Code of Ethics also tells journalists to "avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do." And perhaps more importantly, it says, "avoid stereotyping."

There we also need to pay some attention.

The Pillar has less gotten hold of a story than it has published an innuendo.

And, the innuendo should worry us.

The Pillar writes that the data it has from Burrill's phone "suggests that he was … engaged in serial and illicit sexual activity," at the same time he was coordinating responses to the sex abuse crisis for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Although Pillar acknowledges "there is no evidence to suggest that Burrill was in contact with minors through his use of Grindr," the article goes on in the same paragraph to say his use of the app presents a conflict of interest in his role responding to sex abuse because such apps are sometimes used to solicit or traffic minors.

A few paragraphs earlier the article quotes another priest seeming to make a similar leap regarding Burrill's behaviour: that "regularly and glaringly failing to live continence" can become "only a step away from sexual predation."

That equivalence is the ugliest part — conflating consensual sexual behaviour (if Burrill even was part of any, which we do not know) with sexual abuse.

This is the hook on which the "story" hangs, a long-discredited link between sexual abuse and homosexuality. It is hard to call that something other than a slur and a sin against the LGBTQ+ community.

Not to mention, the article's allegations, if true, "out" Burrill's sexuality without his consent — a widely condemned practice.

And, all of that is a bit much to take.

But I fear in fact there is something worse.

I agree with what Monsignor Kevin Irwin wrote today in the National Catholic Reporter, that Pope Francis last week unmasked "the silent schism that has taken place and continues in the American Catholic Church."

We Catholics have been at each other's throats for decades, mostly quietly and with some veneer of restraint.

The façade has been falling, and those days might be over.

Now, The Pillar has opened the way further with this no-holds-barred exposé.

I do not say this idly.

After mere hours, the comments on The Pillar's tweet of the story already see people enthused about going after "bishops … engaged in questionable activity," and asking "what the laity should be doing (to) shine a light into all these dark corners."

We saw centuries ago what Christians — unburdened by their Christianity — in their conflicts with other Christians can look like. I fear we are seeing it again.

That is what schism brings.

That is where the spirit of division leads.

Pope Francis was not wrong to unmask what already is underway, but The Pillar is wrong to push this spirit of division even further along with what I only can call the worst sort of tittle-tattle tabloid journalism.

And, I fear we have not yet seen the worst.

A long ugly season awaits American Catholics.

No one is safe and — it seems — all is permitted.

• Steven P. Millies is associate professor of public theology and director of The Bernardin Center, at Catholic Theological Union.
• First published by RNS.
• The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.

Caused by a virus, smallpox was a serious disease which killed about three in ten of the people who contracted it and left many others with severe scars.

Smallpox was mainly spread by direct, lengthy face-to-face contact between people.

Virus from an infected person spread to another when they coughed or sneezed. Over the centuries, smallpox killed literally millions of people.

Jenner observed that milkmaids who became infected with cowpox, did not subsequently contract smallpox.

In 1796, Jenner inoculated a young child with cowpox, and demonstrated that the child had developed immunity against smallpox.

It is said that through this discovery, Jenner saved more lives than anyone else has ever done.

Through ongoing vaccination programmes, smallpox was eradicated in 1979.

Vaccination has also greatly reduced the risk of infection for many other diseases for much of the world's population, including rubella, polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, mumps, chickenpox, measles, and tuberculosis.

Although these diseases are still present in some parts of the world, many parents today have the great gift of not worrying when the next outbreak might ravage their local neighbourhood and their children.

The COVID-19 pandemic

This year, 2020, on March 11, a pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation. There has not been such a world pandemic since the Spanish Flu just over one hundred years ago.

Coronavirus 19 or COVID-19 has caused havoc across the world. Infections and deaths are occurring at a disturbing rate.

COVID-19 belongs to a family of viruses which includes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus (as well as several bat coronaviruses).

The Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus, another coronavirus, appears more distantly related.

In the seventeen years since the SARS outbreak of 2003, no vaccine has become available.

COVID-19 is a highly infectious virus spreading between people when an infected person is in close contact with others.

Transmission can occur through saliva, respiratory secretions or secretion droplets, which can be released from the mouth or nose when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, or sings.

Uninfected people who are in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person can be infected with COVID-19 when those infectious droplets get into their mouth, nose or eyes.

Transmission can also occur through touching objects or surfaces contaminated with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic now poses a significant threat to global public health, economic stability and growth, food security and environmental issues.

As seen so far, the pandemic has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives with the potential to claim many more.

It is placing, and will continue to place, an enormous strain on global health care systems.

Social distancing and different levels of lockdown can help to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, these measures come at enormous social and economic costs to all aspects of society.

Human cell lines are one type of cell line that supports the growth of COVID-19.

One of the sources used for these cell cultures is tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

This can pose a significant moral quandary for Catholics and others. Catholic teaching upholds the principle of the inviolability of human life and forbids direct abortion.

Some of the major challenges of this pandemic are the lack of a safe and effective vaccine and a lack of treatments in lieu of a vaccine.

Scientific knowledge is growing daily to understand more fully the transmission of infection, including the potential for transmission by asymptomatic infected people, the disease trajectory, who is more susceptible to infection, and the longer-term health implications of a COVID-19 infection.

The long-term protection provided by the immune response either from a COVID-19 infection or potential vaccine is still unknown.

The requirement for boosters if a vaccine is developed is yet to be determined.

Vaccination is considered one of the best exit strategies for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, and a race has begun to develop an effective vaccine.

As of 10th August 2020, there are 28 candidate vaccines in clinical evaluation, and 139 in pre-clinical development.

The origin and development of vaccines

Vaccines can be produced by growing the virus in a cell line or another substrate.

They can also be developed through replicating viral vectors, subunit vaccines, mRNA and DNA techniques, as well as through the production of a non-replicating viral vector.

Companies in the race to develop a vaccine are utilising one or more of these techniques. (It should be noted that no commercial vaccine has yet been licensed utilising mRNA, DNA or non-replicating viral vector techniques. COVID-19 may be the first.)

Human cell lines are one type of cell line that supports the growth of COVID-19.

One of the sources used for these cell cultures is tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

This can pose a significant moral quandary for Catholics and others. Catholic teaching upholds the principle of the inviolability of human life and forbids direct abortion.

What is more, Catholic teaching opposes the use of tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

On this matter, it is also worth noting that the use in medical research of human foetal tissue from elective abortions was restricted in the United States last year.

Vaccines which have been produced using cell lines from deliberately aborted foetuses are often known as ethically compromised vaccines.

...someone who refused an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine could catch the virus, have the potential to be asymptomatic, and infect others, who could become seriously ill with the possibility that they may die. By refusing a vaccine when available, one could therefore perhaps be directly responsible for the death of another.

Two cells lines derived from elective abortions are PER.C6 and HEK-293.

Both these cell lines are being utilised by a small number of research facilities who are in the process of developing a COVID-19 vaccine.

HEK-293 is a kidney cell line widely used in research and industry. The foetus was aborted in about 1972. PER.C6 was developed from retinal cells from an 18-week-old foetus aborted in 1985.

The cells used today in the potential vaccine manufacture are cells that are descended from the cells that were originally sourced from the foetal material. Thus, while their lineage can be traced back to the foetuses, the cells in use today are not the cells from the aborted foetus.

Further, if a COVID-19 vaccine is produced through the use of these cell lines, the vaccine will not contain cells or DNA pieces that are recognisably human. The cells are killed as the virus grows in them, usually bursting the cell membrane. The process of vaccine purification removes cell debris as well as any growth reagents.

Catholic teaching and ethically compromised vaccines

The Vatican has issued a number of documents to guide Catholics in their response to ethically compromised vaccines.

In 2005, the Pontifical Academy for Life issued Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses.

The issue of ethically compromised cells is also considered in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions.

The Pontifical Academy for Life dealt with this issue again in its 2017 Note on Italian vaccine issue.

All these documents apply a Catholic principle called the principle of cooperation to the issue of the production and utilisation of ethically compromised vaccines.

The Catholic Church is not dismissive of the problem of ethically compromised vaccines.

To the contrary, the Church has a clear and consistent position which includes three important points:

• First, when a choice exists between an ethically compromised, we have a grave responsibility (all other things being equal) to use the latter vaccine.
• Second, when only ethically compromised vaccines are available, we should make known our moral objection to these vaccines, lobbying governments and healthcare systems to prepare and make available vaccines that are not ethically compromised.
• Third, until ethically uncompromised vaccines are developed, we can and should use ethically compromised vaccines to prevent serious health risks both for ourselves and for everyone. The Pontifical Academy for Life stated this third point very clearly in 2017. It said that "we believe all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience ... the moral responsibility to vaccinate is reiterated in order to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population."

The 2005 document from the Pontifical Academy for Life contained a noteworthy footnote.

It noted that rubella can cause "grave congenital malformations in the foetus when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunised and are carriers of the virus.

In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they are discovered to be malformed."

Parents in this situation are of course only indirectly responsible for these abortions.

Ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccines and moral responsibility

However, someone who refused an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine could catch the virus, have the potential to be asymptomatic, and infect others, who could become seriously ill with the possibility that they may die.

By refusing a vaccine when available, one could therefore perhaps be directly responsible for the death of another. If only an ethically compromised vaccine is available, the truly pro-life decision is to vaccinate with that vaccine, not infect others, and save lives.

The World Health Organisation in 2019 listed "Vaccine Hesitancy" as one of the ten major global threats.

If someone chooses not to be vaccinated, they are instead reliant on others to be immunised so that a society can reach a sustainable level of herd immunity through which transmission is interrupted. In this situation, an unimmunised person may be protected against COVID-19 through the acceptance of vaccination by others.

However, there are both practical and ethical problems with this. John Grabenstein reported that sociologists refer to those who do not vaccinate as "free-riders" or "free-loaders."

He added that such behaviour is "inequitable and uncharitable".

Further, "if enough people ‘free-load', then the community's collective immunity dissipates and disease outbreaks resume."

To refuse a COVID-19 vaccine would therefore be "a morally wrong act contrary to the common good".

The World Health Organisation in 2019 listed "Vaccine Hesitancy" as one of the ten major global threats.

First, when a choice exists between an ethically compromised vaccine and another vaccine which is not

Dr Helen Watt, a senior research fellow with the Anscombe Endnotes Bioethics Centre in Oxford wrote a briefing paper in April 2020.

The paper admits that there is "no absolute duty" to boycott a COVID-19 vaccine developed using a cell line derived from an aborted foetus.

However, it argues that "some will feel, whether rightly or wrongly, called to a boycott [of such a vaccine] even if no alternative vaccine is available to them."

We believe that this comment is not pro-life and potentially dangerous as it may encourage people not to vaccinate.

While Dr Watt may be pressuring vaccine companies to utilise ethical methods for vaccine production, encouraging the boycotting of an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine is quite dangerous.

In this pandemic, could Catholic researchers or a Catholic research institution use ethically compromised cell lines for development of a COVID-19 vaccine?

There may indeed be proportional reasons for doing so. Some compromised vaccines have been used effectively for many years.

Researchers may be very familiar with these cell lines, know the techniques of using them, and know the outcomes which are most likely.

In this crisis, they may reasonably decide that they do not have either the time or the financial resources to develop and adequately characterise ethically uncompromised cell lines or to utilise other techniques to develop a vaccine.

They may also belong to an international consortium in which they have little influence on the cell line used for vaccine development. They should not forget about the need to develop uncompromised cell lines, but they may reasonably not seek to do so during this time of crisis.

If they do use ethically compromised cell lines, they should recognise the ethical problems with them, and also state their proportional reason for using them during the pandemic. As the Code of ethical standards for Catholic health and aged care services in Australia states, we minimise the risk of scandal by "explaining clearly ... the reasons for one's cooperation [i.e. in this case, the use of a cell line derived from an historical abortion] and why the ... cooperation is permissible according to Catholic principles."

Conclusion

Developing ethically uncompromised cell lines and vaccines is important.

In the crisis of this pandemic, developing and using an effective vaccine to save lives is even more important.

If a COVID-19 vaccine is developed using a cell line derived from an aborted foetus, the Catholic Church would surely permit the use of this vaccine, and Catholics should not hesitate to use it. Saving lives was just what Edward Jenner set out to do, and saving lives is still very important.

• Kevin McGovern is a Catholic priest. He is a former Director of the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics in Melbourne, Australia. He is an adjunct lecturer at both Australian Catholic University, and Catholic Theological College within the University of Divinity.
• Kerri Anne Brussen has worked as a medical scientist and is a former Researcher at the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics.
• First published in The Nathaniel Report. Republished with permission.

But a Newshub article says her record shows some surprising votes for socially liberal policies.

Same-gender marriage
In 2004, Collins voted against the Civil Union Bill, "not because of any sort of homophobic views" but because it created "a parallel form of marriage."

She voted for the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill in 2005, which would have defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. This failed in its first reading.

In 2013 she voted in favour of the Bill allowing same-sex marriage.

Abortion

In 2019, Collins voted in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill which removed abortion from the Crimes Act.

Euthanasia

Collins had voted against the 2003 Death with Dignity Bill.

She also voted against the End of Life Choice Bill in its first reading.

But in the debate on the third reading of the Bill last year, she held back tears as she gave an emotional speech about her father, who died from terminal bone cancer.

Collins said she used to be opposed to assisted dying, but now believes giving people the choice to die with dignity is the right thing to do.

Cannabis

National has up until recently declined to commit to enacting the result of the non-binding cannabis referendum, which will be voted on in September as part of the 2020 election.

But former National leader Todd Muller said his party will likely support the legalisation of cannabis if New Zealand votes "yes" in the upcoming referendum.

Collins has not expressed a view. The AM Show in October 2018, she declined to say whether she'd be likely to vote in favour of legalising recreational use of marijuana.

She acknowledged that personal use will "probably" end up legalised soon.

Sex work

In 2003 the Prostitution Reform Act decriminalised sex work in New Zealand.

Collins voted against the Bill - in the second reading saying: "In my opinion, prostitution is rape accompanied by payment - if the prostitute is lucky."

Source

• newshub.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: thegardian.com

Ethical investors often don't want to invest in companies that test on animals. But many of these same people (including me) will willingly take an effective Covid-19 vaccine knowing it will have been tested on animals.

Is this hypocritical?

I say not.

Medicines are not like cosmetics where cruelty-free alternatives exist.

If the law requires a potentially life-saving treatment to be tested on animals, nothing is gained by boycotting.

This reflects the reality of ethical challenges where things are rarely clear cut.

Ethical investors aim for good returns and the world we want, not good returns and the world we have.

The vaccine dilemma is not an isolated case.

It's the same as ethical investors not investing in companies that extract fossil fuels and at the same time accepting that fossil fuels remain fundamental to building our civilisation.

We can avoid investing in fossil fuels and still catch a fossil fuel-powered bus to work every day.

Our law recognises animal rights as minimum welfare standards. But these minimum welfare standards can be overridden in the case of research, testing and teaching.

Rejecting animal testing for cosmetics is easy to understand. It's widely accepted that the testing is unnecessary and the suffering is cruel (both New Zealand and the European Union ban animal testing on cosmetics products). A Covid-19 vaccine is at the other extreme, the law requires it to be first tested on animals.

Many argue from a science-based perspective that animal testing of medicines is not a reliable predictor of human safety. There are growing voices asking why animal testing is legally required if there are question marks around its efficacy.

Some animal testing is plainly outdated but still tolerated.

One of the worst examples is the ‘forced swim test', inflicted on mice to test the effectiveness of anti-depressant drugs.

The premise is that if you put mice in a container of water from which they have no chance of escaping, the more depressed mice will give up swimming sooner and those that have been given human anti-depressants will hopefully swim for longer. Continue reading

Manual tracing is resource-intensive and ineffective. A number of countries, including Singapore and Australia, have adopted smartphone apps using Bluetooth.

New Zealand seems likely to follow a similar path.

These apps vary in detail but all work along more or less the following lines:

• Users download the app onto their smartphone and enable Bluetooth.
• Identifying information is required but converted into an anonymised ID.
• When a phone with the app installed comes within a specified distance, for a specified time, of another phone with the app, encrypted contact information is exchanged.

The exchanged information remains on users' phones for the period someone with the virus might have transmitted it to others.

At the end of that period - probably 14 to 21 days - the information is automatically deleted.

If one of the users is diagnosed with Covid-19, a health professional will give them a code which automatically sends a signal to all contacts on the app and the user's app may change colour, perhaps turning red.

When users receive such a signal (their app may also change colour, perhaps turning orange) they will be required to self-isolate or be tested. If they isolate, their app will return to its default colour (say, green) at the end of the specified isolation.

If they opt for a test, a health professional will give them a code which will turn their app green if negative, and red if positive.

As with all potentially intrusive technological initiatives, these apps raise important ethical issues addressed in the following guidelines.

Benefits must outweigh risks

Ultimately, the ethical justification of tracing apps rests upon their capacity to deliver significant benefits to communities and individuals in ways which respect legitimate concerns about consent, privacy, and fairness.

This means there is an obligation to identify benefits and risks. Risks must be recognised and accepted, mitigated as far as possible and outweighed by countervailing benefits.

Use must be voluntary

One significant difference between approaches to contact tracing is the extent to which they require user consent.

Australia and Singapore encourage but do not require citizens to use their apps and New Zealand seems certain to take a similar approach. The app will work on a person's phone only if they download it, enable Bluetooth and carry their phones with them.

The voluntary approach carries some risks, with uptake the most obvious barrier.

Estimates of uptake levels required to deliver the benefits of the app vary between 40 and 60 percent.

Below those levels, too many contacts of confirmed cases will not be registered and won't be contacted automatically.

Concerns about uptake have led some governments - Israel, Poland, South Korea - to set aside individual consent. But consent is the most obvious way we show respect for the moral agency of others and we should not set it aside lightly.

More practically, regulations that lose common support are rarely successful: compulsion is usually not very effective.

So consent is crucial: Those downloading and enabling such apps must explicitly consent to their functions, and must have access to clear and understandable information about how it works, and what they need to do if they receive a positive diagnosis or a signal indicating they have been in contact with an infected person.

To ensure consent is informed, there must be as much transparency as possible about how the apps work and about the processes they set in train.

Apps must not be used beyond Covid-19

There is a predictable and reasonable concern that such apps might be used for purposes other than Covid control.

For example, just who has this suspected drug dealer been in contact with in the past fortnight?

Guarantees must be provided such apps will be used only for Covid-19 management, and they must have a use-by date after which they will cease to function.

Ethical concerns

There are a cluster of related ethical concerns around privacy, confidentiality, and security. The apps and processes around their use must:

• be designed and implemented to minimise the impact on privacy, with guarantees around limited use;
• minimise the use of identifiable information and protect any identifiable information which is used;
• be designed and implemented in ways that prevent unauthorised access to information and misuse of the app or its processes.

Equity issues

The impacts of Covid-19 have not been felt equally across the community.

Tracing apps could exacerbate legitimate concerns for fairness and equity. For instance, socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and groups are less likely to have access to smartphones, but the benefits and burdens of these apps should be delivered equitably across the community.

Efforts must be made to identify and address likely inequities in the uptake and use of tracing apps to address social and economic disadvantage. Continue reading

He's not alone in his concern. Tech leaders like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are also taking a second look and reporting their concerns.

Speaking at a Vatican conference on technology last week, Francis told his audience to make sure they consider both theory and morality in their work.

Technologies like as artificial intelligence (AI) could lead to a new "form of barbarism". In this, the law of the strongest prevails over the common good, he says.

Francis urged the audience to work together to establish a unified ethical framework to guide those in the tech industry and globalised world.

His audience included executives from Facebook, Mozilla and Western Digital, Nobel laureates, Catholic ethicists, government regulators, internet entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists -

"The remarkable developments in the field of technology, in particular those dealing with AI, raise increasingly significant implications in all areas of human activity," Francis told them.

It can be used in a number of negative ways.

Artificial intelligence has the ability to circulate biased opinions and and false data.

It can "even manipulate the opinions of millions of people, to the point of endangering the very institutions that guarantee peaceful civil coexistence," Francis pointed out.

"If mankind's so-called technological progress were to become an enemy of the common good, this would lead to an unfortunate regression to a form of barbarism dictated by the law of the strongest," he said.

SpaceX and Telsa CEO Elon Musk's recent tweets echo Francis's concerns.

He's saying it won't be long until AI technology manipulates social media.

Sites should watch closely to see if bot swarms are evolving faster, as this could be a dead giveaway of a robot takeover, he suggests.

He thinks AI is our "biggest existential threat" and likens its development to "summoning the demon".

Super intelligent machines could use humans as pets, he says.

Other experts are afraid AI could "go rogue".

Although not predicting any AI takeover any time soon, Hawking is reported as having said it is a "near certainty" that a major technological disaster will threaten humanity in the next 1,000 to 10,000 years.

On a practical level, many people fear the effect robots will have on their jobs and their ability to work.

Source

• Daily Mail
• Reuters
• Image: Study Finds

The volunteer allegedly told the primary school age children that what they had been taught about why the children were removed was false.

The real reason the children were removed from their families was because of lazy parenting, he told them.

Four of the six pupils the volunteer was teaching complained about his views.

"The complaint involved stereotyping and the ethics teacher is alleged to have voiced racist opinions," said a spokeswoman for the organisation that runs Special Ethics Education, Primary Ethics.

"We commend these students for speaking up and the principal for proactively addressing the matter," the spokeswoman said.

After getting her mother's permission, an 11-year old complainant spoke to reporters about the incident.

"[The teacher said] we should only listen to him because he was 75 and had lived in Townsville for 10 years."

The 11-year old then said the teacher became increasingly agitated when the students argued back.

Her mother said the incident left her concerned about the regulation and vetting of volunteers who were allowed into the public school system to teach both Special Ethics Education and Special Religious Education.

"I'd always seen ethics as quite a good alternative to scripture," she said.

"But it's almost part of the problem because it's the same issue - these people are unregulated. Imagine if a teacher had responded like that? I would expect them to have pretty serious disciplinary action."

A spokesman for the NSW Department of Education said the volunteer's comments "were unacceptable".

An investigation into the incident is ongoing.

Special Ethics Education is due to be trialled in New South Wales' high schools next year.

Source

• Daily Mail
• Stuff
• Image: Daily Mail

A detailed submission, arguing that risks including infertility and lifelong regret outweigh the ­benefits to trans children and teenagers, was sent yesterday to Health Minister Greg Hunt and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

The first national figures, ­obtained under freedom of information legislation from major hospitals in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, show 2415 children were referred for gender treatment between 2014 and last year, with a 41 per cent increase in ­Victoria. Girls as young as nine are ­believed to be put on ­"puberty blocker" drugs, and boys from about 11. Read more

He also discussed ways to bridge the digital divide between rich and poor nations. Read more

The document addresses a number of matters, including highly competitive children's sports, putting political and economic pressures on athletes to win "at all costs", playing sport on Sundays and unsportsmanlike or violent behaviour.

The document, which speaks out about sports-related corruption, over-commercialisation, manipulation and abuse, says organisations and institutions sponsoring sports programmes need expert-guided child protection policies.

E-sports - video game competitions and tournaments that award large cash prizes and draw huge numbers of spectators - are also mentioned.

Bishops, parishes and lay Catholics are called on to help "humanise" sports.

The timing of sports is mentioned in the context of Mass attendance.

The document says playing sports on Sundays is alright, as a means of bringing families and communities together in joy and celebration.

However, it notes these events should not be used as an excuse to miss Mass.

The document was released by the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life.

Pope Francis, who is a football supporter, says sport is "a very rich source of values and virtues that help us to become better people.

"We need to deepen the close connection that exists between sport and life, which can enlighten one another," he says.

Specific concerns the document raises include:

• Parental responsibility to show children they are loved for who they are, not for their successes, appearance or physical abilities
• Sports that inevitably cause serious harm to the human body cannot be ethically justified
• People are not machines
• Parents, coaches and communities must avoid objectifying players, particularly with expectations that they receive medals, scholarships, wealth or break records
• Dignity and freedom that must be protected in sports is protection against abuse
• The Church should develop and promote an "apostolate for sports" showing its commitment to the integral well-being and development of the human person in sports and to directly initiate sports-related activities at the local level.

Source

• Catholic Herald
• Catholic News Service
• Image: Concord Monitor

The rescue ship was steaming south in the Mediterranean Sea in a race to reach a deflating rubber dinghy packed with migrants.

Italy's coast guard had transmitted the coordinates, along with a warning the makeshift craft could soon sink.

A voice crackling across the radio told of another emergency.

A lone West African man plucked from the sea by a nearby vessel was grievously ill with a soaring fever and convulsions. "He is unconscious and not responding," the radio voice said.

Dr. Vallentine and the crew of the Golfo Azzurro had a decision to make. They could help the stricken man, which would delay their mission to find the dinghy.

Crew members knew from experience what happens when inflatable crafts fail. Seawater and fuel pool in the middle, weighing boats down into the sea.

The liquids form a corrosive mixture that eats away at the flesh of those stuck in the crowded boat. Panic erupts and people drown.

The other option would be to continue on their course. They didn't know the dinghy's exact condition or whether another ship could rescue it.

And without immediate medical care, the man on the boat a half-hour west would almost certainly die.

As a professor of medical ethics back home in Australia, Dr. Vallentine delighted in challenging students with the kinds of complex moral questions that can make the practice of medicine uncomfortable.

Those often centered on issues of privacy and social responsibility, such as whether doctors should warn police about a mentally ill patient who owns guns.

In the chaos of a humanitarian disaster, such as when thousands of African and Middle Eastern migrants try to cross the Mediterranean in flimsy vessels, there are few rules about whom to help and in what order.

"It's all about finite resources in a world of infinite need," said Dr. Vallentine, who is 70 years old. "Do I look after this one, that 10, this 600?" Continue reading

Sources

• The Wall Street Journal, article by Drew Hinshaw, West Africa reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
• Image: Daily Mail