Spiritual Quote of the Day (Pope Leo XIV, on ‘Standards for Discernment’ in Evaluating AI)

“We cannot condone naive enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices.”—Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), https://www.vatican.va/, released May 15, 2026

In my post two weeks ago on Pope Leo’s apology for the Church’s stand on slavery over the centuries, I promised to discuss his much-anticipated encyclical, or formal papal pastoral letter, on artificial intelligence. That time has arrived.

When you consider the upcoming stakes for AI (one analyst I heard this past said it had greater potential to affect humanity than space exploration), there has been precious little time devoted to how to ensure it serves rather than degrades humanity.

By reminding tech lords, legislators, and ordinary citizens of that basic principle, Leo’s examination of this new force in our lives can potentially kick-start and even frame the debates that should be taking place now in the public square.

Fully cognizant of AI’s potential benefits, Leo is anything but a technological Cassandra. (Though predictably, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has turned up its nose at the pope’s urging to install brakes on the runaway technology, with op-ed contributor Louise Perry snidely asking, “Does the Pope Use Air Conditioning”?)

At the other end of the political spectrum, some have written that Leo has not gone far enough in denouncing the ills now becoming apparent in AI.

But his caution only enhances his case that this new technology cannot develop without safeguards that rest on human morality, and in particular on the Catholic Church’s notions on the market economy, technology, and social justice dating back to the groundbreaking encyclical of his predecessor and namesake Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891).

Leo XIV has called for measures ensure the dignity of work in the face of AI, including regulating private companies’ AI development and retraining workers whose jobs are threatened. He has also advocated for critical thinking education about the technology.

It’s not just the danger to livelihoods that concerns the Vatican, however, but also AI’s potential misuse for modern warfare:

“The growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control. This violates the principle that armed force should be used only as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defense. For this reason, the development and use of AI in warfare must be subject to the most rigorous ethical constraints, to guarantee respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life and to avoid a race to develop such arms.”

In addition, the encyclical raises the alarm about transhumanism, or enhancing human beings through technologies, and posthumanism, which, imagines “a hybrid of human beings, machines and the environment.”

The ultimate impact of these two forces, according to the encyclical, could be to make it “easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy…placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species.”

As Fordham Univ. papal expert David Gibson’s op-ed last month in The New York Times observed, Magnifica Humanitas has arrived at a “propitious moment,” when “The disruptions of the post-liberal world and the threats posed by A.I. have led many cultural conservatives to make economic justice a priority.”

Even President Trump, who early in his second term likened placing limits on high tech to restricting the growth of a baby, felt compelled to sign an executive order early this month calling for AI companies to voluntarily provide the federal government access to “covered frontier models” for a cybersecurity review up to 30 days before their planned release to “other trusted partners.” It came amid sudden alarm that some powerful AI models autonomously identify and exploit hidden vulnerabilities in real-world software.

It will be up to the tech barons whether they will enter into dialogue with the pope and other advocates for a more deliberate, regulated AI pace or if they will continue to proceed with no guardrails. But Leo has spelled out the moral stakes in no uncertain terms.

Quote of the Day (Philip Roth, on Loneliness)

“There is no protest to be lodged against loneliness—not all the bombing campaigns in history have made a dent in it. The most lethal of manmade explosives can't touch it.”— Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist Philip Roth (1933-2018), American Pastoral (1997)

TV Quote of the Day (‘Bewitched,’ Milking the Mother-In-Law-As-Witch Bit for All It’s Worth)

Endora [played by Agnes Moorehead]: [casting a spell over humorless son-in-law Darrin Stephens]: “To avoid the shock of sudden wit,/ we'll start from scratch—bit by bit!/ A chime will cause your brain to whirl,/ your jokes will cause their hair to curl!”— Bewitched, Season 5, Episode 27, “Laugh, Clown, Laugh,” original air date Apr. 15, 1971, teleplay by Ed Jurist, directed by William Asher

It’s true that Bewitched got tons of comic mileage at out of recurring characters like Doctor Bombay, Uncle Arthur, Samantha’s father Maurice, Mrs. Kravitz, and Aunt Clara.

But the old reliable standby, as far as I’m concerned, was Samantha’s mom Endora. 

The show’s writers (including future Same Time, Next Year playwright Bernard Slade) must have had a great deal of fun not only concocting her bon mots at the expense of what she regarded as her witless, antagonistic mortal son-in-law, but also rhyming spells like the above that she would continually use to torture him.

Agnes Moorehead received six Emmy nominations, along with a reliable paycheck for the eight seasons that Bewitched was on the air. She made no bones to interviewers that she had an accomplished career before she signed up for the sitcom, including Oscar nominations for The Magnificent Ambersons, Mrs. Parkington, Johnny Belinda, and Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte. The impression left was that this role as the acid-tongued witch mother was beneath her.

Was Bewitched formulaic? You bet. But Ms. Moorehead furnished much joy over the years to its fans. I wish she could have enjoyed that aspect of her job a bit more.

This Day in Art History (John Constable, Masterful English Landscape Painter, Born)

June 11, 1776— John Constable, who labored for more than a quarter-century before the British art establishment and buyers recognized the uncommon sensitivity and beauty of his landscape paintings, was born at East Bergholt in Suffolk, England.

The contrast with the other great English landscape painter, J.M.W. Turner (only a year older), could hardly be starker:

* Constable, not elected to the Royal Academy till age 52, found considerable favor in his last decade; Turner, the youngest Academician when elected 25 years earlier, polarized the public with his late works.

*Constable was deeply devoted to his sickly wife Maria Bickness and their seven children; Turner was a perfectionist who often shunted aside those closest to him.

*Constable held traditional beliefs in the Anglican Church; Turner was a thoroughgoing iconoclast.

*Constable, according to art critic John Ruskin, was “an industrious and innocent amateur blundering his way to a superficial expression of one or two popular aspects of common nature,” while this influential Victorian not only bought works from Turner but watched him create in his studio.

(To understand how Constable and Turner became bitter rivals—including a pivotal 1831 incident involving placement of their paintings in the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition—see this fine 2018 blog post by art historian and an independent lecturer Cindy Polemis.)

For the longest time, though several documentaries were made about him, Constable didn’t possess the kind of cantankerous, eccentric personality that attracted feature film creators, as his contemporary and rival did when Mike Leigh made his 2014 biographical drama Mr. Turner. He still hasn’t had an extended cinema treatment.

But in 2024, “The Painters,” a segment of the regionally distributed movie Once Upon a Time in Suffolk, dealt with Constable’s friendship with John Dunthorne, with whom he competed to impress a young lady in need of a new portrait.

In one sense, the personalities of Constable and Turner were expressed through their subject matter. The turbulent Turner was fascinated by stormy weather, as in his 1824 watercolor Brighthelmston, Sussex. Constable looked to the tranquil, lush English countryside, reflecting his belief, as noted in Robert Cumming’s Art: A Visual History, that “nature, with its freshness, sunlight, trees, shadows, streams, and so forth, was full of moral and spiritual goodness.”

For a nation plunging in earnest into the Industrial Revolution, such Constable paintings as The Hay Wain and Study of the Trunk of an Elm Tree (1821), as well as The Leaping Horse (1825) depicted an exquisite but fragile natural landscape in danger of being lost.

Quote of the Day (Lord Bertrand Russell, on the Three Great Passions of His Life)

“Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.” — British philosopher, mathematician, social critic, and Nobel Literature laureate Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1956)

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ on a Looming Financial Scandal)

[The investment bank Phillips Berenson has collapsed, and rumors circulate in “The City,” London’s central business district and financial center, that it’s due to financial chicanery. Another bank, the more venerable Bartlett's, is also in trouble, having lent it so much money. Its chair, Sir Desmond Glazebrook, confers with Prime Minister James Hacker about a government bailout for his institution.]

James Hacker [played by Paul Eddington]: “What do you know about Phillips Berenson?”

Sir Desmond Glazebrook [played by Richard Vernon]: “What do you know about Phillips Berenson?”

Hacker: “Well, uh... only what I read in the papers.”

Glazebrook: “Oh, good. Yes, well, they're in a bit of trouble, that's all. They lent a bit of money to the wrong chaps. Could happen to anyone.”

Dorothy Wainwright [Hacker’s political adviser] [[played by Deborah Norton]: “So you haven't heard any rumors?”

Glazebrook: “Oh well, there are always rumors.”

Dorothy: “Of bribery, embezzlement, misappropriation, insider dealing?”

Glazebrook: “Oh, come, come, dear lady, those are strong words.”

Dorothy: “So they're not true?”

Glazebrook: “Well, there's... there are different uh, different ways of looking at things.”

Dorothy: “What's a different way of looking at embezzlement?”

Glazebrook: “Oh, well, of course, if a chap embezzles, you have to do something about it.”

Hacker: “Have a serious word with him?”

Glazebrook: “Absolutely. Usually it's just a chap who's advanced himself a short-term, unauthorised, unsecured, temporary loan from the company's account, and, uh, invested it unluckily. You know, horse falls at the first fence, that sort of thing.”— Yes, Prime Minister, Season 2, Episode 4, “A Conflict of Interest,” original air date Dec. 31, 1987, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

You can keep your Benny Hills. When it comes to British TV humor, Yes, Minister, and its equally waggish follow-up, Yes, Prime Minister, are the shows for me. These UK political satires aired in the Eighties, and the closest we’ve had stateside has been the more potty-mouthed Veep. I wish they would be broadcast as often this side of the Atlantic as The Honeymooners.

The government bailouts of risk-happy financial institutions at the heart of the above dialogue is something that has rightly enraged American taxpayers, with the Bush I-era savings and loan scandal and the Global Financial Crisis of the “oughts.” But something else intrigued me about this episode: that title, “A Conflict of Interest.”

That concept has been a part of American life since the founding of the republic, including the establishment of the First National Bank and, more starkly, slaveowning lawmakers who passed legislation benefiting themselves at the expense of other human beings.

But these ethically questionable interactions of government and business have ramped up, to an unprecedented degree, under the current administration.

President Trump, his family, and his Cabinet have profited so abundantly and shamelessly from such transactions—and following their trail has been so complex—that many, if not most, Americans have given up trying to keep track of it all. It’s much easier to follow the Epstein files (though, truth be told, financial interests are an often-overlooked part of this still unresolved scandal).

The outcome is what you might expect. None of the departments in the executive branch make even a pretense now at the relatively gentle coaxing of the truth from Sir Desmond employed by PM Hacker and his aide Dorothy. The regulatory agencies that could have raised alarms were emasculated by Trump and Elon Musk’s Orwellian-titled Department of Government Efficiency.

The path was paved for this through three Supreme Court decisions that gave the Trump Administration virtual carte blanche to transform the government into an endless slot machine for themselves and their allies:

*In Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Trump v. District of Columbia) (2021), the justice vacated lower courts’ rulings involving allegations that, as president, Trump benefited from the hotels and restaurants that he owns, violating two anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution known as the emoluments clauses.  

* In Trump v. United States (2024), the GOP-appointed majority ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers, and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts—a decision opening the door to Trump lawlessness in his return to power.

* In Murphy V. NCAA (2018), the court invalidated a federal ban on states legalizing sports gambling—opening the way to, as Drew Hutchinson’s May Bloomberg Law article noted, is opening companies to “questions about insider trading, reputational and legal risk, and whether internal policies address this new environment.” And what do you know—Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to Kalshi, one of the two major prediction market platforms, and a major investor in another, Polymarket.

As Financial Times columnist Gillian Tett noted, “If Trump dictates how prediction markets develop, while his family profits, it will make Washington look (even more) like a corrupt casino. So, too, if insider trading goes unchecked.”

Over the last 560 days, the Trump family has taken in an estimated $2.7 billion, according to “Trump’s Take,” a real-time financial tracker documenting the cash and gifts that the President and his family have received by selling the presidency.

All the money-making schemes—ventures that would have been certainly regarded as undignified under all his predecessors, and even unconstitutional—have just kept coming: Trump Bibles, fragrances, gold cell phones; the $TRUMP Meme Coin; "America's 250th Anniversary" hats; and a luxury resort proposal by son-in-law Jared Kushner in Albania that has drawn more than a week’s worth of protest in that nation over the potential environmental damage it may cause.

Then there is the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) scheduled for the White House South Lawn on June 14—not so coincidentally, Trump’s birthday.

Leave aside whether this tacky $60 million spectacle would have been better staged in the Roman Coliseum under an ancient emperor’s gaze, or even whether the event offers Trump ally and UFC chief executive Dana White direct access to the White House for a prime marketing opportunity.

Lost in all of this is that Trump bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in the parent company of UFC, TKO Holding Group—a little more than two weeks after he began promoting the event.

Conflict of interest, anyone? Well, as Sir Desmond might say, there are “different ways of looking at things.”

Though they will never be able to overtake their lord and master when it comes to quantity and audacity, the Trump Cabinet is doing its best to do well financially at the country’s expense. This online resource from the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) itemizes all the ways that each Trump Cabinet member has engaged in conflicts of interest. They are worth exploring in depth, but I’ll just highlight some of the more egregious ones:

*Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (who, after his evasive talk about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, should change his surname to “No-Good-Nick”) is now coming under scrutiny for his relationship with Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin issuer.

* Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned around $2.5 million in referral fees from 2022 through September 2025 from Wisner Baum, a law firm suing Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine Gardasil—putting RFK Jr.’s vaccine skepticism in an ever worse light, if that’s possible.

* Education Secretary Linda McMahon was required to divest from financial holdings that posed possible conflicts of interest, but does not appear to have done so as of July of last year, according to a complaint filed with the Office of Government Ethics by the CLC.

In keeping with PM Hacker’s question—“Have a serious word with him?”—if the “him” in question is Trump, I say “Yes.” And let that word, as soon as mathematically and electorally possible, be “impeachment.”

Quote of the Day (Jayne Anne Phillips, on How ‘Writers Defy Time’)

“Do writers hate to write? I don’t think so. The sense of difficulty arises from the fact that writers defy time, writing words against the erasure of things and lives. We stand in an avalanche of forgetfulness, resisting the sway of disappearance. Faced with mortality, we mourn what we might have understood and communicated, not in opinion or advice but in the delivery of an invented world we might have saved. Writing, we cross the divide between self and others word by word. In the very act of completing the work, we are separated from it. One way or another, the writer loses writing: the writer loses the book. Opposing oblivion, we begin to understand: language is the way in and the way out.”—American Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist and short story writer Jayne Anne Phillips, Small Town Girls: A Writer’s Memoir (2026)

The image accompanying this post, of Jayne Anne Phillips reading at the 2024 Gaithersburg Book Festival, was taken May 18, 2024, by Frypie.