Many researchers are now convinced that humanlike AI, or artificial general intelligence (AGI), will require more than mastering language and images. It will require AIs that can reason about space, causality, and the consequences of actions—especially if they are to control humanoid robots, operate factories, and explore other planets.

Few people have argued for this need more forcefully than AI pioneer Yann LeCun. “I joke that the smartest systems we have today are not as smart as a house cat,” he says. A cat can’t code like an LLM, but it can survive by its wits. The notion that simply scaling an LLM will get to AGI is “complete nonsense,” he says. “It’s like saying you’re going to get into orbit by scaling airplanes. There’s a very powerful delusion circulating in Silicon Valley that this is the case.”

LeCun left a top job at Meta to co-found one of a growing number of labs and startups developing “world models”—systems that build representations of how the world works—and agents that operate within them to learn or plan. Ultimately, these researchers hope that more closely mimicking how the human mind learns will give AI stunning new powers.

The gaps between humans and LLMs are not merely quantitative. In a 2024 study, LLMs that were trained on sequences of directions from New York City taxi rides could generate new routes reliably, suggesting they had turned those directions into an accurate map of the city. But when researchers looked under the hood to examine their internal representations, they found not a clean city grid, but an incoherent mess of tangled streets. LLMs “are so alien and so unhumanlike,” says Brenden Lake, a cognitive scientist at Princeton University.

Read it all.

Words vs. worlds: As building bigger and better chatbots gets harder, AI researchers turn to systems that learn to simulate the worldhttps://t.co/DC8Q7QNoWp via @SilverJacket pic.twitter.com/OoMXTX5ZAD

— Ash Paul (@pash22) June 26, 2026

Read it all.

Young working-class men are significantly less happy & hopeful than their college-educated peers:

✔️ 1/3 of that "hope gap" traces back to a single variable: the quality of their relationship with their father.

New @FamStudies: https://t.co/DBuVi51HBd pic.twitter.com/BkBt2hSGqd

— Brad Wilcox (@BradWilcoxIFS) June 23, 2026

The Golden Result is a corollary to the Golden Rule, which calls us to do to others as we would have them do to us. The Golden Result says that people will usually treat us as we treat them. If we blame others for a problem, they will usually blame in return. But if we say, “I was wrong,” it is amazing how often the response will be, “It was my fault too.” I have seen this result in hundreds of cases over the past twenty-one years. Whether the dispute involves a personal quarrel, divorce, lawsuit, or church division, people generally treat one another as they are being treated.

When one person attacks and accuses, so does the other. And when God moves one person to start getting the log out of his or her own eye, it is rare that the other side fails to do the same. The Golden Result occurs most often with people who understand and cherish the gospel. When we admit that our own sins are so serious that Jesus had to die for us, and remember that he has forgiven us for all our wrongs, we can let go of our illusion of self-righteousness and freely admit our failures. When we do this, we experience the wonderful gift of God’s forgiveness. And in many cases, he will be pleased to use our confessions to help others see the logs in their eyes.

Ken Sande, The Peacemaker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991)

Two centuries ago, most American magazine and newspaper editors professed Christian faith and wanted their publications to show it—but many lost their audiences when new publications offered street-level reporting that won more readers than literary essays.

That’s important history to understand, but you won’t read about it in Alex Wright’s new book Empire of Ink, a supposed history of American journalism through 1900. Wright amusingly describes antics of The Printers, Rogues, and Radicals Who Invented the American Newspaper, as the subtitle states, but he skips the Christians and in doing so misses the forest for trees, billions of which fell in the centuries when words on paper ruled. 

But just as Wright overlooks something important, so did I—until my research for a history of abortion led me to what Wright rightly calls “racy papers … bearing names like The Flash, The Whip, The Rake, and The Libertine,” bearing “headings like Lives of the Nymphs.” They published detailed and prurient profiles of prostitutes, listing their addresses as a service to readers eager (as one critic wrote) to “fill the paths to perdition.” 

Wright also describes how newspapers first celebrated Charles Dickens when the author came to the US in 1842, then called him “a literary bagman.” Dickens reciprocated, attacking “moral poison” and arguing that “the influence of the good, is powerless to counteract the moral poison of the bad.” My sense is that Wright overemphasizes the bad in early American journalism, but I may have underestimated it. 

Read it all.

(CT) Marvin Olasky–'[Alex] Wright amusingly describes antics of The Printers, Rogues, and Radicals Who Invented the American Newspaper, as the subtitle states, but he skips the Christians and in doing so misses the forest for trees, billions of which fell in the centuries when…

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) June 19, 2026

Is it ethical to alter the genetic makeup of children? Should we create children with three parents? What about creating sperm from female stem cells to the end of creating a child with two biological mothers? Is it ethical to incubate a growing baby in an artificial womb? Could a womb like that end the perceived need for abortion?  

These questions might seem like science fiction, and indeed they were when Aldous Huxley, an agnostic, published his dystopian novel Brave New World nearly one hundred years ago. Huxley wove a fictitious world in which progeny were designed and grown in laboratories, children were raised by the state rather than in families, promiscuity was encouraged and monogamy considered grotesque, and the government endorsed self-medication with a “harmless” drug that kept its users in a placated state. 

Yet these are the questions up for debate in today’s public square, as evidenced by a recent debate hosted by The Free Press: “Is Designing Babies Unethical—Or a Moral Imperative?”  

All things considered, one has to wonder if Huxley wasn’t more a prophet than a novelist.  

Read it all.

https://t.co/vb0gflsCQ0 The elimination of suffering will not produce joy. If we seek to be truly free, we must acknowledge our responsibilities to one another. We will flourish to the extent that we all can flourish.

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) June 14, 2026

A proposal that would require ordained clergy to be monogamous is on the docket at the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s general assembly this summer.

The overture, CON-10, has generated strong reactions online but has not yet earned broad support from PCUSA groups. A separate proposal, highlighting the denomination’s commitment to the inclusion of different familial realities, asks for theological studies on gender and sexuality, life-giving relationships, and the Christian vocation of family. Together, these overtures show that as polyamory gains visibility in broader culture, it may have policy implications, especially in theologically progressive Christian denominations.

“I think it is the next big conversation that most mainline denominations will have,” said Claudia Aguilar Rubalcava, director of engagement for the LGBTQ-affirming nonprofit More Light Presbyterians.

The board and staff of More Light Presbyterians released a statement last month, saying the proposal on monogamy targets queer communities.

“It centers a single model of relationship as the only faithful expression of Christian life, ignoring both the breadth of biblical witness and the lived realities of many faithful people,” the statement says. “Scripture speaks richly about covenant, mutuality, justice, and love but does not prescribe one uniform relational structure across all contexts.”

Read it all.

(RNS) — A separate proposal calls for a broader theological framework on human relationships. https://t.co/EqBtKfvcmn

— RNS (@RNS) June 9, 2026

The Christian faith is by nature conservative—in a theological sense. The Scriptures are replete with verses pointing to the unchanging and enduring nature of God and the Bible. Revelation 1:8 says, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty’” (ESV throughout). Malachi 3:6 says, “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” Isaiah 40:8 says, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These verses do not mean that the biblical text cannot be distorted or manipulated by self-serving people, but it does mean that the Bible is not a party platform that gets updated every four years.

Thankfully, there are countless others who are faithfully preaching and teaching God’s word. These congregations are often small and do not receive any media attention. Many are led by pastors more concerned with preparing their members for eternity in heaven than getting souls to the polls on Election Day. Some of these churches have vibrant ministries for men, women, and families. They are committed to remaining faithful to biblical ethics regarding sex, sexuality, marriage, family, and the sanctity of life without any concern for whether elected Democrats—or Republicans—agree.

Liberation-minded pastors who reject the biblical definitions and descriptions of sex and marriage are incapable of doing the work needed to rebuild the Black family. They fashion themselves as brave prophets, but they make race and politics twin idols that draw their hearts—and pulpits—away from God.

Christians are often told to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. That is wise counsel, but what’s even more dangerous is a wolf in shepherd’s clothing. The former can devour a few sheep before the others scatter, but the latter can lead an entire flock over a cliff.

One ray of hope is the biblical theme of God’s mercy on those who turn from their wicked ways and trust him. The pattern in both the Old and New Testaments is quite familiar. God’s people rebel. He rebukes them. They reflect on their sin and repent. He restores them. This is my prayer because the Black family needs the church to function in its God-given role now more than ever.

Read it all.

“Instead, liberation theology has transformed the Black church from a religious institution dedicated to the pursuit of righteousness to the religious wing of the Democratic Party.”https://t.co/Bh1V8SBXWw

— TheQueenofLA 🇺🇸 (@Queenofla2) June 17, 2026

The idea that dementia prevention may hinge on what people do in their mid-30s to their 60s is rapidly reshaping the field. Scientists increasingly believe the disease is driven not only by changes in the aging brain, but also by years of metabolic stress, inflammation and vascular damage accumulating across the body.

Many researchers now think the biological process that leads to dementia begins 15 to 20 years before the first memory problems emerge. By the time symptoms become noticeable, the disease likely will already be well established.

Neuroscientists now see midlife as a critical window when the brain becomes especially vulnerable to aging — but also more responsive to intervention. The implications are profound: The ordinary habits of middle age may matter far more than scientists once realized, and cognitive decline may not be inevitable.

Read it all.

If you want to remain mentally sharp once you're in your 70s, 80s and beyond, there are steps you can take when you're much younger. Read @arianaeunjung to understand what scientists are now learning about the midlife brain, here: https://t.co/L0JnwnYGYl

— Juliet Eilperin (@eilperin) June 12, 2026

Safeguarding in the Church of England could be broadened to include anyone harmed or at risk of harm in a church context, after the C of E’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) launched a consultation.

The fresh approach is a result of recommendations from the Charity Commission, which has pointed out that the “Church does not treat allegations of abuse from an adult not assessed to be ‘vulnerable’ as a safeguarding allegation”. Its own guidance says that trustees “must take reasonable steps to protect from harm all people who come into contact with their charity”.

The consultation, What is Safeguarding?, focuses on the code of practice Safeguarding in the Church, the subject of a consultation in April and May. Until now, it has been referred to as Safeguarding Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults. The change of title follows recommendations from the Commission that the NST review definitions of safeguarding and vulnerable adults.

“It is very important to note that this document is in the very early stages of thinking,” the NST says in a preface.

Read it all.

Church of England’s definition of safeguarding could be broadened https://t.co/rheEMJAw4y

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) June 11, 2026

Thirdly, this raises the question about the three descriptors that have been chosen in the motion and what they mean, especially if they are to include within their scope sexual relationships. 

A classic statement advocating same-sex unions (and later marriage) is that by Jeffrey John which was entitled Permanent, Faithful, Stable. These three terms are also in need of more careful definition but how significant is it that both “permanent” and “stable” are lacking here? What conclusions are to be drawn from the fact they have been replaced simply by “committed” with no explanation as to the nature or level of that commitment?

There has been a long concern about occasional and non-exclusive male same-sex sexual relationships being acceptable, including among gay Christians (see for example the 1997 work of Andrew Yip whose research with gay male Christian couples found “the majority of couples were expectationally and behaviourally non-exclusive; the recently deceased leading campaigner Malcolm Johnson expressed surprise in his Diary of a Gay Priest that “a third are physically faithful—or say they are!”). Leaving that question open is one reason the LGCM statement quoted above offered no criteria as to when expressing love fully in a sexual relationship was entirely compatible with the Christian faith (see Sean Gill, The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (Cassell, 1998), pp. 12-13).

In a world of rapidly changing sexual norms there is now much wider discussion and acceptance of “ethical non-monogamy” (ENM). As briefly explained in this “ethics explainer” from The Ethics Centre this is distinguished from “infidelity” and “cheating”. Here it is not unreasonable to ask whether those in such an ENM form of relationship might nevertheless still be able to be classed as in a “committed, faithful, intimate” form of relationship.

Read it all.

Helen King's motion for General Synod: a help or a hindrance? https://t.co/cIA8Evq875 via @psephizo

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) June 2, 2026

Things were different amongst Christians. The Early Church challenged the contemporary pagan culture by insisting on the same standard of sexual ethics for both men and woman. The first Christians believed, based on the teaching of Genesis 1 and 2, that marriage was to be between one man and one woman, that marriage was the only legitimate setting for sexual activity and that a single standard of sexual fidelity was required of both men and women.

That is why men are told to ‘abstain from unchastity’ (1 Thessalonians 4:4), why Paul forbids man having sex with prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:12-20) why a bishop has to be a ‘one woman man’ (1 Timothy 5:9) just as good wives were expected to be ‘a one man woman’ (1 Timothy 5:9).To quote Larry Hurtado:

‘The decisive step taken early Christian sexual teaching was to bring males under the same sort of behavioural requirements that in the larger cultural setting were expected of ‘honourable’ women. In the matter of marital fidelity in chastity, it seems that for early Christians what was good for the goose was also thought good for the gander!’[8]

In addition, the early Christians universally rejected abortion and infant exposure.

In the words of the second century Epistle to Diognetus, ‘They [Christians] marry like everyone else and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives.’[9]

Thus, far early Christianity was in line with Jewish tradition. However, it departed from the Jewish tradition by also holding that intentional singleness (known then as ‘virginity’), and the celibacy that went with it, was not only acceptable but, in fact, a more excellent form of Christian discipleship than being married….

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion https://t.co/F3so2u4TtA 'The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds… pic.twitter.com/LXTgMmiuOZ

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 16, 2026

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on assisted dying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambers.

Dr Hartley was on the House of Lords select committee that examined the Private Member’s Bill brought by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October 2024 (News, 18 October 2024), and spoke against it before it was defeated earlier this year in the Upper House (News, 1 May). She told the Church Times that the poll “confirms that the public does not support the suggestion of bypassing the House of Lords in order to force through an unsafe Bill”.

She said: “This would mean using a procedure never used for a Bill of this kind and acting against the advice of medical professionals, disability groups, and the concerns of all those who want to see legislation that is safe and workable.

“For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative.”

Read it all.

The Bishop of Newcastle has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on #assisteddying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambershttps://t.co/1fB16bi9sv

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 10, 2026

On June 3, a debate about the silent genocide of unborn children with Down syndrome exploded on social media. The unlikely catalyst was an X post by YouTube influencer Jesse “McJuggerNuggets” Ridgway. For months, the Ridgways had been producing and posting news of their pregnancy for a massive online audience, including their pregnancy announcement on March 29, a gender reveal (a boy), ultrasounds, and finally, a disturbingly personal video of the grief-stricken couple finding out their baby likely had Down syndrome. 

The journey culminated in Ridgway’s announcement that the couple had decided to abort the baby at twenty-one weeks. (Last year, a preemie born at twenty-one weeks in Iowa survived.) Ridgway listed the health problems his son might have suffered from—heart defects, hearing challenges, learning disabilities, decreased lifespan—and concluded: “Down syndrome isn’t a ‘blessing.’” He assured his “fans” with autism and Down syndrome that “we appreciate you,” but said that the abortion “will be beneficial for our family” and that “thankfully, we had a choice.”

The post has been viewed over 24 million times and has garnered 18,000 mostly negative comments. Many were livid at Ridgway’s openly eugenic justification for having his unborn son destroyed; hundreds posted stories, photos, and videos of their loved ones with Down syndrome, expressing their gratitude for their love, lives, and contributions. The photos put faces to society’s most endangered population—as Ridgway pointed out in his post, around 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.

Read it all.

This is unspeakably evil, but I give the guy credit for speaking about it directly in public. Most of our eugenic killing simply goes on on the down low, which is how throwaway culture flourishes. When brought to light, they can be named for what they are. https://t.co/CLhEitDBTu

— Charlie Camosy (@CCamosy) June 4, 2026

Nineteen-year-old Olivia’s profile picture shows a demure and innocent-looking young woman with long blonde hair styled in beachy waves. She’s wearing a short, cleavage-exposing nightdress and her biography says she’s “deeply caring, supportive and attentive” and “sleeps on the floor… until you call her. Then silence. Obedience”.

While Olivia may appear to be an online dater looking for love, she isn’t real – not in the conventional sense of the term. This prospective love match is actually one of a growing trend of “AI girlfriends”: realistic-looking artificial intelligence “bots” created by “companion apps” – services that are being advertised on online games played by children and on platforms they watch, such as YouTube.

New research has revealed that one in five boys aged 12-16 is either in or knows of a boy their age who is in a romantic relationship with an AI companion. A report carried out by men’s organisation Male Allies UK and published last month spoke with more than 1,000 boys aged 12-16 in focus groups in 37 schools – public and state, grammar and comprehensive, and across a range of Ofsted ratings – up and down the country. Peer-to-peer focus groups were set up where boys could speak freely, with the aim of diving into their behaviour and attitudes, and it was the boys who wanted to talk about AI technologies. The findings make stark reading: eight in 10 boys (85 per cent) have had a conversation with a chatbot, with 43 per cent saying they talk to bots so they can ask questions without feeling embarrassed. More than a quarter (26 per cent) say they like the attention and connection over real-life equivalents, and (36 per cent) admitted that they prefer speaking to AI chatbots rather than to their family and friends at times.

Read it all (subscription).

🦔One in five boys aged 12 to 16 is in or knows someone in a romantic relationship with an AI chatbot, according to a Male Allies UK study of over 1,000 boys across 37 UK schools. 85% have talked to chatbots and 26% prefer the attention to human connections.
The top companion…

— Hedgie (@HedgieMarkets) June 8, 2026

Just over thirty years ago, Oregon became the first state to allow physicians to intentionally seek death as part of healthcare. At the time, discussions of Jack Kevorkian were all the rage, along with his slogan, “dying is not a crime.” However, questions about expanding assisted suicide and euthanasia are not merely a thing of the past. Recently, The Economist and The New York Times have each run in-depth articles sympathetic to euthanasia, and the states of Illinois and New York have legalized assisted suicide. 

After Oregon’s 1994 “Death with Dignity” law took effect, the Jesuit moral theologian James Keenan published an important article, “The Case for Physician-Assisted Suicide?” in which he asked what the representative case would be for physician-assisted suicide (PAS)—or as it goes by now, “medical aid in dying” (MAiD). In the article, Keenan asked whether the standard rhetorical example is actually a representative case that reflects the typical MAiD patient, and if not, what that means. He presented the familiar case of “Uncle Louis,” which I might summarize as: Uncle Louis is very old and has lived a full life. He is dying of a debilitating, incurable cancer that has no good pain management. Uncle Louis has had a conversation about MAiD with his long-time physician with whom he has a good relationship. They have tried everything else and as a last resort Uncle Louis (autonomously and freely) decides that he would like “medical aid in dying.” Why should we not affirm Uncle Louis’s choice to die early and on his own terms in order to avoid pain and preserve his “sense of self?” Why should he be left to suffer? 

Keenan’s conclusion is clear: Uncle Louis is not the representative case. Rather, he argued thirty years ago, the more probable average case was that of Mary X—a woman who had a progressive chronic condition, who feared dependence on her family and others, and who was depressed. Mary probably did not have proper medical coverage or access to counseling and thought MAiD was her only option. Mary’s case, Keenan starkly observes, “demonstrates not the lack of autonomy (autonomy is, after all, only for those with power), but rather the inequities in our country … Proponents for the case of Uncle Louis … are only interested in the autonomous person … [Ultimately,] the law that Uncle Louis wants invalidated is the same law that keeps the more common Mary X from being marginalized to death.” 

Throughout the last thirty years, however, those who have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide are always wrong and a public danger have been met with charges of being uncaring and promises that the implementation of such programs would be responsible, regulated, data-driven, and equitable. Indeed, after thirty years, we can ask whether Keenan was right when he argued that the more likely case once euthanasia is implemented would be a vulnerable Mary X rather than an autonomous Uncle Louis. Did the regulations bring about the intended results?  

Read it all.

A New Case for Medical-Aid-In-Dying? https://t.co/VIivnP9Qa0

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 26, 2026

here’s an expression that artificial intelligence developers in California use to refer to their work: “Building God.” In fact, one of them, Avital Balwit, the chief of staff to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, just did so in a May 22 essay for The Free Press. The use of the phrase, she wrote, is intended as a form of sardonic humor, acknowledging the awesome power and potential consequences of AI.

But is it a joke, really? The timing of Balwit’s piece was serendipitous, for only three days after it was published, Pope Leo XIV made headlines around the world for writing about artificial intelligence. On Monday, he issued his first encyclical—a major papal declaration on contemporary issues that is intended to guide the Catholic Church—titled Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.

AI, Leo writes, isn’t the first time people have tried to build something godlike. Indeed, he opens his encyclical with the biblical story from Genesis of the Tower of Babel, which was a human attempt to reach “to the heavens.” What was the builders’ motivation? By their own account, “so that we may make a name for ourselves.”

Lest you think his encyclical is a broadside against modern science and human ingenuity, the pope contrasts the tower with another biblical construction operation, the Wall of Jerusalem from the book of Nehemiah, which sought to serve and protect the people of God, who were vulnerable to their enemies. The difference was not in the engineering prowess each project required. It was in their goals. The tower, with its morally dubious purpose, is a cautionary tale of hubris leading to ruin. The wall, by contrast, is a story of promise leading to human flourishing.

Read it all.

For all the panic surrounding AI, Pope Leo offers a coherent philosophy for how individuals, leaders, and societies should actually live with it, writes Arthur Brooks. https://t.co/ngHpllpYEV

— The Free Press (@TheFP) May 28, 2026

Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision” and said that the concentration of immense digital power in the hands of a few private actors must be countered.

The pontiff’s encyclical letter—a text that is poised to define Leo’s papacy—reads like a sharp warning to Silicon Valley executives and humanity more broadly about the future of civilization as new technologies rapidly advance.

The risk, he said, is that humans will be reduced “to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.”

Leo used two biblical images to describe the choice humanity faces. 

“The primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem,” he wrote.

Read it all.

ICYMI: Pope Leo Compares AI Threat to Biblical ‘Tower of Babel’: The head of the Catholic Church is adding his moral suasion to a growing backlash against the impact of artificial intelligence – WSJ https://t.co/7lfkPN4W0D

— Steve Williams (@HISteveWilliams) May 27, 2026

Many of the founders and important researchers at Anthropic and OpenAI joined the earliest gatherings at A.G.I. House. Mr. [Jeremy] Nixon is now founder and chief executive of a start-up called the Infinity Artificial Intelligence Institute, which is trying to automate the creation of A.I.

Mr. Nixon said he has met a generation of scientists who shunned traditional religion in favor of technology. After growing up with books like “The God Delusion” — in which the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins painted God as a false belief contradicted by empirical evidence — he and his peers saw A.I. as an alternative that was more real and far more powerful.

A.I. has started to crack math problems that humans struggled with for decades, he said, and it will soon cure diseases in the same way. “Practically speaking, it will achieve the outcomes that many religions claim their deities would be able to achieve,” he said.

This is an increasingly common belief among researchers in Silicon Valley. They insist they are on their way to building a more powerful species — or even a new God.

Read it all.

At the Epicenter of A.I., Pope Leo’s Warnings Are Dismissed
Pope Leo XIV’s spiritual message on artificial intelligence arrived as Silicon Valley’s A.I. enthusiasts pursue their own spirituality through technology.https://t.co/FLBlOaknrL

— Emily Turrettini (@textually) May 27, 2026

1. Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” [1] In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.

2. Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. [2] Together with them, we seek to identify new paths for the common good and for promoting a dignified life for all. Indeed, openness to dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s vocation because, constituted in Christ as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race,” [3] she recognizes history as the place where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.

3. In this spirit, Pope Leo XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the 135 ^th anniversary of which we celebrate with deep gratitude this year. With that document, my beloved predecessor gave impetus to the reflection on society, the economy and politics, which is now known as the “Social Doctrine of the Church.” When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal life, Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people. [4] Many decades have passed since then, and the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and faithful have continued to reflect on social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the Church is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the world. It is not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth that safeguards and interprets humanity’s vocation to a full and just life. I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living tradition, invoking the help of the Spirit of wisdom, who has dwelt in the world since its beginning (cf. Prov 8:22-31).

Read it all.

"building for the common good means accepting the limits & weakness of humanity without considering them an error ..the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of technology that promises to free us from all weakness"

— Jennifer A. Frey (@jennfrey) May 25, 2026

As the historian Leszek Kołakowski observed, Marxism functioned for many as “the greatest fantasy of our century”—a promise that history itself would bring final justice.

G.K. Chesterton captured the problem: Marx simply replaces one abstraction with another. But abstractions such as “historical inevitability” can’t produce justice on their own, because justice depends on the moral character of the persons who act within those systems.

The deep question for our own moment is whether modern politics can resist the temptation to which Marxists surrender. Every generation is drawn to the hope that history itself will resolve its deepest conflicts. Marx gave that hope its most powerful modern expression by translating theological categories into the language of political economy. But as Eric Voegelin once warned, attempts to “immanentize the eschaton”—to force heaven into history—have repeatedly produced political disasters.

Marx didn’t abolish the Christian structure of redemption. He relocated it within history—and that relocation continues to shape the political imagination of the modern world.

Read it all.

Very interesting article. The central claim is that Karl Marx did not actually deny the redemption promised by religion, but rather relocated it in time. https://t.co/5LjYMR5YiV

— BajaTed (@bajated) May 21, 2026

Going back to 2015 isn’t enough.  

The cultural revolution is on pause. Gender ideology, in particular, is in retreat. The fight isn’t over, but the momentum has shifted, especially when it comes to children. But to finish the fight, we must understand how things came to this—how did our society accept the sexual mutilation of children on the superstitious grounds that a boy can be born in a girl’s body or vice versa? 

This question draws out the divisions between opponents of gender ideology. A movement that has lesbian feminists alongside conservative Christians was always going to be fractious, but the divisions escalate as we argue over how to win, and what winning means. Liberal elements of the coalition are especially upset by conservatives’ continued opposition to same-sex marriage, rather than just trying to roll things back to around 2015—yes to same-sex marriage, yes to the Sexual Revolution, but no to transitioning kids and no to letting men into women’s spaces, sports, and so on. In other words, LGB without the T. 

But the LGB led to the T. After winning on same-sex marriage, the gay-rights movement immediately pivoted to transgenderism. Same-sex marriage enabled gender ideology’s sudden onset, for if male and female don’t matter in marriage, then they don’t matter anywhere. Conversely, if men and women are real, then this matters for sexuality and family beyond mere personal sexual preferences. We cannot get male and female right while pretending that sex (in every sense) doesn’t matter in marriage. 

This is why warnings about the slippery slope have been more prophecy than fallacy—for another example, note that liberals are now fighting for polygamy, with the New York Times reporting that, “From big cities like Seattle and Portland, Ore., to small ones like Astoria, Ore., proponents of ‘nontraditional’ romantic relationships are making headway in getting legal recognition.” Remember when conservative Christians were called alarmist bigots for predicting this? 

Read it all.

What Binds Marriage Forever? https://t.co/E9t7nygCQC

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 6, 2026

It has been suggestively proposed that the book’s “presiding genius is Pascal.” Indeed, Pascal is cited or referenced fourteen times in the extant letters. One may note, in passing, that Clermont-Ferrand, the editor’s residence, is the birthplace of Pascal.

Perhaps, however, the archbishop’s vision owes even more to the second century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons. The dual manuscript tradition, the English and Spanish versions of the letters, present, according to Hermès, “no variant readings,” save in one important particular. The heading of the English recension echoes Athanasius and reads forthrightly: “Letters on the Incarnation.” The Spanish compilation, instead, adapts Irenaeus, with an added flourish: “Letters on the Detection and Overthrow of Reality Falsely So Called.” Assuredly, the archbishop is bent on calling out the simulacra of reality that grow ever more pervasive and controlling. 

Still, both renditions capture something essential about the spirit and scope of these letters. For they offer a penetrating and passionate refutation of a prevalent Gnosticism that abhors this body, this community, this Church, where true life is won, paradoxically, only at the price of this death. Thus, the letters constitute an uncompromising polemic against what the archbishop calls the “disincarnation” practiced by the “indefatigable Gnostics.”  

Read it all.

Against Excarnation https://t.co/BbePQPWchc

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 13, 2026

Workers who enjoy what they do each day rate their lives more than a full point higher on Gallup’s zero-to-10 life evaluation scale than those who don’t enjoy what they do, according to a new Gallup analysis of more than 350,000 employed adults across 149 countries from 2020 to 2025.

But the analysis also reveals that job choice and purpose play an outsized role among specific populations, including full-time employees, workers in their peak career-building years and those living in lower-income economies.

Data from the Gallup World Poll show that, of three aspects of the work experience measured globally, enjoyment of daily work has the strongest and most consistent relationship with broader wellbeing outcomes. This pattern holds across most countries, age groups and employment types — though the relative importance of purpose and choice varies by context.

Work occupies a central place in people’s lives, shaping not only economic outcomes but also how people experience and evaluate their lives overall. To better understand this connection at a global level, Gallup, in collaboration with the Wellbeing for Planet Earth (WPE) Foundation and Persol, measures three core aspects of workplace wellbeing: enjoyment, purpose and choice. These dimensions reflect how work is experienced on a daily basis, whether it is seen as improving the lives of others, and the degree of freedom people have in what they do. These dimensions are closely connected: Having greater choice in one’s work can shape both the enjoyment people experience day to day and the sense of purpose they derive from it.

Read it all.

Globally, workers who do enjoy their daily work rate their lives more than a full point higher on a zero-to-10 scale than those who don’t enjoy it. pic.twitter.com/od3kRncXlC

— Gallup (@Gallup) May 6, 2026

“This Easter, can we let Jesus teach us to be good stewards of our grief? This Easter, can we let Jesus teach us to be good stewards of our grief? That ought to strike you as odd.
That’s a very strange combination of words, stewardship and grief. I’ll let you in a little secret about ministers. We are not very easy to deal with.
Langley has my deep sympathy. But one of the things about our life is that we have to preach on a regular basis, and whenever we have to preach, we have to get something from the text. And the thing is, if I don’t hear from God, you can’t hear from me.
And part of the problem is, if it’s Thursday and I’m still wrestling, that’s a problem. Friday, I’m at the near panic stage. But you do not want to be at my house when I get to Saturday, and I still have nothing to say.”

“And this past week, that’s exactly where I was. And past the near panic stage. And I was thinking as I was sitting there in my office yesterday, I was talking to the woman who cuts my hair in Summerville, who’s a Christian, and I was thinking, there have been millions of sermons.
Think of that, millions of sermons in the history of the church preached on this passage. Next year will be my 40th year. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve preached on the passage, probably 15 or something.
So I’ve got to get something fresh out of it. So I said, Lord, come on, this is not working. And I’m sitting there and I’m praying and I’m looking.
And I mean, I’ve read this thing, I don’t know how many times, and all of a sudden, click. And what the New Testament says about preaching, by the way, is rightly dividing the word of truth. And the thing is, it’s like cutting a diamond.”

“You can sit there and look at the text on Monday and Tuesday and not see it, and Friday you still don’t see it. And all of a sudden, the Holy Spirit shows up and boom. And then it just opens like magic.
Well, there I was sitting, and it all of a sudden came open. Now, let me tell you how important this passage is before I get into this. I was reading JC.
Ryle, the late great bishop of Liverpool in the 19th century, and he said something really fascinating about this passage that I want to start with. This is one of the great bishops in the whole history of the church. Listen to what he says about this story.

He says this, the history contained in these verses is not found in any other gospel, but only that of Luke. Of all the 11 appearances of Christ after his resurrection, none is perhaps so interesting as the one described in this passage. And I completely agree with him.

And one of the things that’s got to bother all of us is, it sticks out like a sore thumb, it’s unlike any of the others. What is it“doing in there? And there’s all sorts of reasons.

I mean, they are great resurrection stories, post resurrection narratives, all through all the gospels. But this one is unique. And so if you think about it and ask the question why it’s in there, there’s all sorts of answers.

But what came to me yesterday, which I never noticed before, is there’s one really, really, really important reason why it’s in there. And that is, it’s the only one that really shows how Jesus deals with the depth of people in incredible grief. This is a story about grief, not general grief, not superficial grief.
This is the story about people whose lives have been dashed on the rocks of reality. This is a story about people who are disappointed, dejected and nearly in despair and desperate. They’ve not just lost motivation, they’ve lost all hope.

And the question that we have to ask ourselves is, why are they there and how does Jesus bring them out of it? So those are my two questions. Why are they there and how does Jesus bring them (and by extension, us) out of it?”

You may listen directly here:

Or you may download it there.

Rembrandt van Rijn
Supper at Emmaus pic.twitter.com/B11NtKd3rg

— Marysia (@marysia_cc) April 19, 2026

“Without Easter, Good Friday would have no meaning. Without Easter, there would be no hope that suffering and abandonment might be tolerable. But with Easter, a way out becomes visible for human sorrows, an absolute future: more than a hope, a divine expectation.”

–Hans Urs von Balthasar To the Heart of the Mystery of Redemption (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), p.39

The Emmaus Disciples (1822), by Abraham Bloemart pic.twitter.com/B3qAjO7Htl

— Richies Place (@lastdays58) August 21, 2020

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, was among the speakers who last week expressed further doubts over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it was debated in the House of Lords.

Bishop Chessun raised the prospect of “pressure on all sorts of ancillary staff” who could be “co-opted, either directly or indirectly, into what becomes the final procedure, when the conscience of such an ancillary participant tells them that they should have nothing to do with such a procedure”.

The Bishop pointed out that, when it comes to assisted dying, “matters of acute conscience are not restricted to the immediate preparation of a lethal dosage or the medical oversight of the procedure.”

He went on to ask: “Is it right that they should face sanction or inhibition of their careers, or even dismissal? I suggest not.”

Read it all.

The Bishop of #Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, was among the speakers who last week expressed further doubts over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it was debated in the #HouseofLords ⚖️#Assisteddying #churchhouse #churchnews https://t.co/F3cCOzkoxB

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 31, 2026

But why does God care who we sleep with? Let me give you three reasons

1. He cares because he created us

To understand the purpose and limits of sex, we have to refer to the creator of sex: 

God himself. Yes, as one writer puts it, “sex was God’s idea, not ours. It’s not something we discovered behind God’s back…. His first command to humanity in the Bible involves and necessitates sex!” Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply!” So, if you are married, have sex and feel free to have it often!

2. He cares because he loves us

God is all about love. He love us, and he longs for us to love him too. We’re designed to live lives of love. Ultimate reality isn’t grounded in cold submission to an authoritarian deity but in heartfelt response to the God who wants his universe pulsating with love. God cares who we sleep with because he cares that we really do love each other well, and that might mean loving in a different way to how we feel. Christopher Yuan, author of the excellent,

“Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”, (and a man who wrestles with same-sex attraction but who’s chosen the biblical call to chastity), puts it this way,  “Human emotions can’t be the determining factor for any gift from God.” No,  Jeremiah 17:9 says: “the heart is deceitful above all things”. And as Ashley Null says, summarizing the theology of Anglican reformer Thomas Cranmer, “What the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” So be careful when people say “Listen to your heart.”

Yes, sex matters to God because people do. He cares because misusing sex can cause profound hurt and damage. He cares because He regards us as worthy of His care. 

And, in fact, that care is not only seen in telling us how we should use sex, but also in how He makes forgiveness and healing available to us when we mess this up.

3. He knows what’s best for us

This is a hard one for many of us to accept. But, Jesus is for you, and even his difficult directives are for your good….

Read it all.

A young Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross on the set of The Legacy in 1978, the film where they met and fell in love. They've been together ever since. pic.twitter.com/y84yc97LhM

— History Defined (@historydefined) September 21, 2025

In a statement suggesting the enormity of Canterbury’s failure to be a focus for unity, the former archbishop Rowan Williams recently admitted: “I honestly don’t know whether the communion will survive.” Such a statement from a former leader of the Church of England reflects the gravity of the current crisis. It is not merely a matter of internal disagreement but a question about the very future of Anglicanism.

A significant turning point came in 2023 when the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) issued what became known as the Ash Wednesday Statement. In this declaration, the GSFA announced that it would no longer recognize the archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares and the head of the Anglican Communion. This decision marked a historic shift: The symbolic center of Anglican unity was effectively withdrawn by churches representing the majority of Anglicans worldwide.

The roots of this shift are not only historical but also theological and structural. The traditional configuration of the Anglican Communion emerged during the era of the British Empire. During that time, the Church of England functioned naturally as a coordinating center for Anglican churches established through missionary and colonial expansion. However, the global context has changed dramatically. The demographic center of Anglicanism has moved decisively to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Today, the vast majority of Anglicans live in what is commonly called the Global South.

The departure of several western provinces from the traditional Anglican faith inevitably raises questions about unity, governance, and authority.

Read it all.

Canterbury and the Collapse of Anglican Unity
by Mouneer Anis @bishopmouneer https://t.co/5oNTQIwrz3 pic.twitter.com/LVjAFzbJjP

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) March 31, 2026

The Anglican Church in North America has chosen to retain Lathrop GPM to conduct a restricted and nontransparent review of the Title IV proceedings surrounding Bishop Stewart Ruch, and in that choice the truth of the matter is already disclosed, not at the end of the process but at its beginning. The terms will not be released. The findings are not promised to the light. The scope has been drawn with a care that ensures the most decisive questions will never quite arrive where they must be answered. One need not wait for conclusions. The arrangement itself speaks with sufficient clarity.

What presents itself as sober inquiry carries the unmistakable grammar of preemption. There will be interviews, reports, careful language, and the appearance of discipline, yet all of it unfolds within limits that have already been secured against the possibility that the truth might actually do what truth does, which is to judge, to expose, and to reorder. The structure is not neutral. It is already an answer. It ensures that whatever is said will be said in a way that does not require the institution to become something other than what it presently is.

The choice of Lathrop GPM makes this plain in a way that no further argument can improve. A firm known for defending institutions against claims of abuse has been entrusted with examining an institution under precisely such a shadow. One might search for a more transparent declaration of intent and fail to find it. This is not a tension to be resolved. It is a coherence to be recognized. The task is not to discover a truth that might unsettle the body under examination but to render events intelligible within a horizon that preserves that body’s continuity. While the conclusion has not been written in detail, its boundaries have been drawn with precision.

Even the most modest traditions of law would find this intolerable. The idea that judgment must be free from the control of those who stand to be implicated is not an advanced refinement. It is the bare minimum required for justice to exist at all. 

Read it all.

Re: Ruch trial aftermath: The Ex. Committee has appointed a subcommittee to "oversee a third-party review of the provincial administration" of the Ruch matter. They have not yet determined the scope of the review but will "retain a qualified firm or individual to complete it." pic.twitter.com/U1CXTUnENM

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) January 17, 2026

In a surprising move, the Scottish Parliament this week voted to reject assisted suicide. And it wasn’t even close – 57 for and 69 against, with every party except the Lib Dems and the Greens having a majority voting against. Why did this happen? Especially when at the first two stages of the bill it comfortably passed. 

And therein lies the answer. As MSPs got to look more closely at what was involved, they realised that the bill itself was badly worded and had insurmountable difficulties – like compelling staff and organisations who did not want to participate in ‘mercy killing’ to do so.  

Like the threat of people feeling coerced. The bill would have made the treatment available to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been given less than six months to live – but opponents said there were not enough protections against coercion.  

Like the government admitting that money would have to be taken from other frontline NHS services to provide for assisted suicide.  The irony of taking money from the sick in order to kill people was not lost on some MSPs. 

Read it all.

The Scottish parliament has rejected a bill that would have seen the country introduce assisted suicide, in what is the latest victory for the vulnerable the world over in recent weeks, writes JASON OSBORNEhttps://t.co/PdDInXhp1z

— gript (@griptmedia) March 19, 2026