Mathew Schmalz, College of the Holy Cross Pope Francis, the Catholic Church’s first Latin American pontiff, has died, the Vatican announced on April 21, 2025. He was 88. Francis had served as pope for 12 eventful years, after being elected on March 13, 2013 after the surprise resignation of Benedict XVI. Prior to becoming pope, he was Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, and was the first person from the Americas to be elected to the papacy. He was also the first pope to choose Francis as his name, thus honoring St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th-century mystic whose love for nature and the poor have inspired Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Pope Francis chose not to wear the elaborate clothing, like red shoes or silk vestments, associated with other popes. As a scholar of global Catholicism, however, I would argue that the changes Francis brought to the papacy were more than skin deep. He opened the church to the outside world in ways none of his predecessors had done before.

Care for the marginalized

Pope Francis reached out personally to the poor. For example, he turned a Vatican plaza into a refuge for the homeless, whom he called “nobles of the street.”

He washed the feet of migrants and prisoners during the traditional foot-washing ceremony on the Thursday before Easter. In an unprecedented act for a pope, he also washed the feet of non-Christians. He encouraged a more welcoming attitude toward gay and lesbian Catholics and invited transgender people to meet with him at the Vatican. On other contentious issues, Francis reaffirmed official Catholic positions. He labeled homosexual behavior a “sin,” although he also stated that it should not be considered a crime. Francis criticized gender theory for “blurring” differences between men and women.

While he maintained the church’s position that all priests should be male, he made far-reaching changes that opened various leadership roles to women. Francis was the first pope to appoint a woman to head an administrative office at the Vatican. Also for the first time, women were included in the 70-member body that selects bishops and the 15-member council that oversees Vatican finances. He appointed an Italian nun, Sister Raffaella Petrini, as President of the Vatican City.

Not shy of controversy

Some of Francis’ positions led to opposition in some Catholic circles. One such issue was related to Francis’ embrace of religious diversity. Delivering an address at the Seventh Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Kazakhstan in 2022, he said that members of the world’s different religions were “children of the same heaven.” While in Morocco, he spoke out against conversion as a mission, saying to the Catholic community that they should live “in brotherhood with other faiths.” To some of his critics, however, such statements undermined the unique truth of Christianity. During his tenure, the pope called for “synodality,” a more democratic approach to decision making. For example, synod meetings in November 2023 included laypeople and women as voting members. But the synod was resisted by some bishops who feared it would lessen the importance of priests as teachers and leaders. In a significant move that will influence the choosing of his successor, Pope Francis appointed more cardinals from the Global South. But not all Catholic leaders in the Global South followed his lead on doctrine. For example, African bishops publicly criticized Pope Francis’ December 2023 ruling that allowed blessings of individuals in same sex couples. His most controversial move was limiting the celebration of the Mass in the older form that uses Latin. This reversed a decision made by Benedict XVI that allowed the Latin Mass to be more widely practiced. Traditionalists argued that the Latin Mass was an important – and beautiful – part of the Catholic tradition. But Francis believed that it had divided Catholics into separate groups who worshiped differently. This concern for Catholic unity also led him to discipline two American critics of his reforms, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, and Cardinal Raymond Burke. Most significantly, Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican ambassador, or nuncio, to the United States was excommunicated during Francis’ tenure for promoting “schism.” Recently, Pope Francis also criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to deport migrants. In a letter to US Bishops, he recalled that Jesus, Mary and Joseph had been emigrants and refugees in Egypt. Pope Francis also argued that migrants who enter a country illegally should not be treated as criminals because they are in need and have dignity as human beings.

Writings on ‘the common good’

In his official papal letters, called encyclicals, Francis echoed his public actions by emphasizing the “common good,” or the rights and responsibilities necessary for human flourishing.

His first encyclical in 2013, Lumen Fidei, or “The Light of Faith,” sets out to show how faith can unite people everywhere. In his next encyclical, Laudato Si’, or “Praise Be to You,” Francis addressed the environmental crisis, including pollution and climate change. He also called attention to unequal distribution of wealth and called for an “integral ecology” that respects both human beings and the environment. His third encyclical in 2020, Fratelli Tutti, or “Brothers All,” criticized a “throwaway culture” that discards human beings, especially the poor, the unborn and the elderly. In a significant act for the head of the Catholic Church, Francis concluded by speaking of non-Catholics who have inspired him: Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu and Mahatma Gandhi. In his last encyclical, Dilexit Nos, or “He Loved Us,” he reflected on God’s Love through meditating on the symbol of the Sacred Heart that depicts flames of love coming from Jesus’ wounded heart that was pierced during the crucifixion. Francis also proclaimed a special “year of mercy” in 2015-16. The pope consistently argued for a culture of mercy that reflects the love of Jesus Christ, calling him “the face of God’s mercy.”

A historic papacy

Francis’ papacy has been historic. He embraced the marginalized in ways that no pope had done before. He not only deepened the Catholic Church’s commitment to the poor in its religious life but also expanded who is included in its decision making. The pope did have his critics who thought he went too far, too fast. And whether his reforms take root depends on his successor. Among many things, Francis will be remembered for how his pontificate represented a shift in power in the Catholic Church away from Western Europe to the Global South, where the majority of Catholics now live. Mathew Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

David Shiffman, Arizona State University The single greatest threat to the diversity of life in our oceans over the past 50 years, more than climate change or plastic pollution, has been unsustainable fishing practices. In much of the ocean, there is little to no regulation or oversight of commercial fishing or other human activities. That’s part of the reason about a tenth of marine plant and animal species are considered threatened or at risk. It’s also why countries around the world have been creating marine protected areas. These protected areas, covering over 11.6 million square miles (30 million square kilometers) in 16,000 locations, offer refuge away from human activities for a wide variety of living creatures, from corals to sea turtles and whales. They give fish stocks a place to thrive, and those fish spread out into the surrounding waters, which helps fishing industries and local economies. In the U.S., however, marine protection is being dismantled by President Donald Trump.

Trump issued a proclamation on April 17, 2025, titled “Unleashing American commercial fishing in the Pacific,” ordering the removal of key protections to allow commercial fishing in parts of a nearly-500,000-square-mile marine protected area called the Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument. He also called for a review of all other marine national monuments to decide if they should be opened to commercial fishing too. In addition, the Trump administration is proposing to redefine “harm” under the Endangered Species Act in a way that would allow for more damage to these species’ habitats. I’m a marine biologist and scuba diver, and it’s no accident that all my favorite dive sites are within marine protected areas. I’ve found what scientific studies from across the world show: Protected areas have much healthier marine life populations and healthier ecosystems.

What’s at risk in the Pacific

The Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument, about 750 miles west of Hawaii, is dotted by coral reefs and atolls, with species of fish, marine mammals and birds rarely found anywhere else. It is home to protected and endangered species, including turtles, whales and Hawaiian monk seals. Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, both within the area, are considered among the most pristine coral reefs in the world, each providing habitats for a wide range of fish and other species. These marine species are able to thrive there and spread out into the surrounding waters because their habitats have been protected.

President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, created this protected area in 2009, restricting fishing there, and President Barack Obama later expanded it. Trump, whose administration has made no secret of its aim to strip away environmental protections across the country’s land and waters, is now reopening much of the marine protected area to industrial-scale fishing.

The risks from industrial fishing

When too many fish are killed and too few young fish are left to replace them, it’s considered overfishing, and this has become a growing problem around the world. In 1974, about 10% of the world’s fish stocks were overfished. By 2021, that number had risen to 37.7%, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s annual State of Fisheries and Aquaculture Report.

Modern industrial-scale fishing practices can also harm other species. Bycatch, or catching animals that fishermen don’t want but are inadvertently caught up in nets and other gear, is a threat to many endangered species. Many seabirds, sea turtles and whales die this way each year. Some types of fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges that drag along the sea floor to scoop up sea life, can destroy ocean habitat itself. Without regulations or protected areas, fishing can turn into a competitive free-for-all that can deplete fish stocks.

How marine protected areas protect species

Marine protected areas are designed to safeguard parts of the ocean from human impacts, including offshore oil and gas extraction and industrial fishing practices. Studies have found that these areas can produce many benefits for both marine life and fishermen by allowing overfished species to recover and ensuring their health for the future. A decade after Mexico established the Cabo Pulmo protected area, for example, fish biomass increased by nearly 500%.

Successful marine protected areas tend to have healthier habitats, more fish, more species of fish, and bigger fish than otherwise-similar unprotected areas. Studies have found the average size of organisms to be 28% bigger in these areas than in fished areas with no protections. How many babies a fish has is directly related to the size of the mother. All of this helps create jobs through ecotourism and support local fishing communities outside the marine protected area. Marine protected areas also have a “spillover effect” – the offspring of healthy fish populations that spawn inside these areas often spread beyond them, helping fish populations outside the boundaries thrive as well. Ultimately, the fishing industry benefits from a continuing supply. And all of this happens at little cost.

A need for more protected areas, not fewer

Claims by the Trump administration that marine protected areas are a heavy-handed restriction on the U.S. fishing industry do not hold water. As science and my own experience show, these refuges for sea life can instead help local economies and the industry by allowing fish populations to thrive. For the future of the planet’s whales, sea turtles, coral reefs and the health of fishing itself, scientists like me recommend creating more marine protected areas to help species thrive, not dismantling them. David Shiffman, Faculty Research Associate in Marine Biology, Arizona State University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nicole M. Bennett, Indiana University A whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board reported an unusual spike in potentially sensitive data flowing out of the agency’s network in early March 2025 when staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, which goes by DOGE, were granted access to the agency’s databases. On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security gained access to Internal Revenue Service tax data. These seemingly unrelated events are examples of recent developments in the transformation of the structure and purpose of federal government data repositories. I am a researcher who studies the intersection of migration, data governance and digital technologies. I’m tracking how data that people provide to U.S. government agencies for public services such as tax filing, health care enrollment, unemployment assistance and education support is increasingly being redirected toward surveillance and law enforcement. Originally collected to facilitate health care, eligibility for services and the administration of public services, this information is now shared across government agencies and with private companies, reshaping the infrastructure of public services into a mechanism of control. Once confined to separate bureaucracies, data now flows freely through a network of interagency agreements, outsourcing contracts and commercial partnerships built up in recent decades. These data-sharing arrangements often take place outside public scrutiny, driven by national security justifications, fraud prevention initiatives and digital modernization efforts. The result is that the structure of government is quietly transforming into an integrated surveillance apparatus, capable of monitoring, predicting and flagging behavior at an unprecedented scale. Executive orders signed by President Donald Trump aim to remove remaining institutional and legal barriers to completing this massive surveillance system.

DOGE and the private sector

Central to this transformation is DOGE, which is tasked via an executive order to “promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” An additional executive order calls for the federal government to eliminate its information silos. By building interoperable systems, DOGE can enable real-time, cross-agency access to sensitive information and create a centralized database on people within the U.S. These developments are framed as administrative streamlining but lay the groundwork for mass surveillance. Key to this data repurposing are public-private partnerships. The DHS and other agencies have turned to third-party contractors and data brokers to bypass direct restrictions. These intermediaries also consolidate data from social media, utility companies, supermarkets and many other sources, enabling enforcement agencies to construct detailed digital profiles of people without explicit consent or judicial oversight. Palantir, a private data firm and prominent federal contractor, supplies investigative platforms to agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Internal Revenue Service. These platforms aggregate data from various sources – driver’s license photos, social services, financial information, educational data – and present it in centralized dashboards designed for predictive policing and algorithmic profiling. These tools extend government reach in ways that challenge existing norms of privacy and consent.

The role of AI

Artificial intelligence has further accelerated this shift. Predictive algorithms now scan vast amounts of data to generate risk scores, detect anomalies and flag potential threats. These systems ingest data from school enrollment records, housing applications, utility usage and even social media, all made available through contracts with data brokers and tech companies. Because these systems rely on machine learning, their inner workings are often proprietary, unexplainable and beyond meaningful public accountability.

Sometimes the results are inaccurate, generated by AI hallucinations – responses AI systems produce that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. Minor data discrepancies can lead to major consequences: job loss, denial of benefits and wrongful targeting in law enforcement operations. Once flagged, individuals rarely have a clear pathway to contest the system’s conclusions.

Digital profiling

Participation in civic life, applying for a loan, seeking disaster relief and requesting student aid now contribute to a person’s digital footprint. Government entities could later interpret that data in ways that allow them to deny access to assistance. Data collected under the banner of care could be mined for evidence to justify placing someone under surveillance. And with growing dependence on private contractors, the boundaries between public governance and corporate surveillance continue to erode. Artificial intelligence, facial recognition systems and predictive profiling systems lack oversight. They also disproportionately affect low-income individuals, immigrants and people of color, who are more frequently flagged as risks. Initially built for benefits verification or crisis response, these data systems now feed into broader surveillance networks. The implications are profound. What began as a system targeting noncitizens and fraud suspects could easily be generalized to everyone in the country.

Eyes on everyone

This is not merely a question of data privacy. It is a broader transformation in the logic of governance. Systems once designed for administration have become tools for tracking and predicting people’s behavior. In this new paradigm, oversight is sparse and accountability is minimal. AI allows for the interpretation of behavioral patterns at scale without direct interrogation or verification. Inferences replace facts. Correlations replace testimony. The risk extends to everyone. While these technologies are often first deployed at the margins of society – against migrants, welfare recipients or those deemed “high risk” – there’s little to limit their scope. As the infrastructure expands, so does its reach into the lives of all citizens. With every form submitted, interaction logged and device used, a digital profile deepens, often out of sight. The infrastructure for pervasive surveillance is in place. What remains uncertain is how far it will be allowed to go. Nicole M. Bennett, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography and Assistant Director at the Center for Refugee Studies, Indiana University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.