u/DisastrousSong9966

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican responded aggressively Thursday to a traditionalist group that consecrated bishops without the pope's consent, declaring the Society of St. Pius X had formally broken with the Catholic Church. It excommunicated its bishops and priests, and warned its faithful that they too face the harshest sanctions in the church.
By declaring a schism and extending excommunications to potentially thousands of Catholics, the Vatican's doctrine office went above and beyond the minimum sanctions foreseen by the church's canon law to respond to the consecrations Wednesday of four new bishops.

The society, known by its acronym SSPX, celebrates the ancient Latin Mass and opposes the modernizing reforms of the Catholic Church, which it considers to be rife with heresies and errors. While a fringe movement on the Catholic right, the SSPX has been a thorn in the Vatican's side for five decades because it claims to be even more Catholic than the Holy See.

During a ritual-filled, five-hour Mass on Wednesday at its seminary in Econe, Switzerland, the SSPX consecrated four new bishops in direct defiance of Leo, who had urged the group to hold off for the sake of church unity. An estimated 15,500 people and their children attended, a sign that the SSPX has plenty of supporters who came from around the world knowing full well they were defying Rome.

The harshness of the response suggested that after trying to negotiate with the SSPX, the Vatican under Pope Leo XIV had had enough.

Vatican decree targeted bishops and faithful

In a decree, the Vatican excommunicated the four new bishops and the two existing SSPX bishops who participated in the ceremony. It declared the consecrations a "schismatic act" and that the society itself had created a schism, or intentional rupture with the church.

It declared SSPX priests - who number about
750 - to be schismatic, and therefore excommunicated, and invalidated the sacraments of confession and marriage that they administer. The Vatican warned the faithful to stop going to SSPX Masses, decreeing that
"those who adhere formally" to the society are schismatic and excommunicated.

The Vatican said that applied to people who are members of the SSPX lay branch and those who
"regularly attend" SSPX Masses and formally share its doctrinal positions. The sanctions don't apply to Catholic faithful who attend SSPX Masses "just for liturgical or spiritual reasons" or those who go but accept the pope's authority and teaching.

The SSPX doesn't have an exact count but estimates around 400,000-600,000 people attend its Masses, meaning Thursday's decree could potentially involve the excommunications of thousands of rank-and-file SSPX faithful.

The sanctions, especially those targeting the priests, the faithful and the sacraments they can receive, were particularly harsh and reversed concessions the Vatican had granted the SSPX in recent years as part of its outreach to bring the group back under Rome's wing.

Marc-André Mabillard, media manager for the society, expressed shock at the severity of the sanctions and called them "unjust."

"For us, this excommunication extended to the faithful is brutal. It's not what we expect from a father to whom we refer every day," he told The Associated Press. "We are told, 'You claim to have the truth.' Fine. I'm just saying that we certainly have our flaws, but our main flaw today is having a leader who doesn't want to communicate with us.
And that's terrible."

The Vatican's doctrine chief, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, met in February with the SSPX superior, the Rev. Davide Pagliarani, and proposed a dialogue. But Pagliarani asked instead to meet with Leo, who declined but wrote a letter Tuesday begging the SSPX to call off the consecrations.

The group's founders opposed reforms

French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the
SSPX in 1970 in opposition to the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Among other things, the 1960s meetings known as Vatican II revolutionized the church's relations with other Christians, Jews and people of other faiths and allowed Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than Latin.

Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal consent in 1988. The Vatican promptly excommunicated Lefebvre and the four bishops and declared the consecrations a "schismatic act."

Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 lifted the excommunications as part of his yearslong outreach to the group. But the SSPX today has no legal standing in the church and with Thursday's decree is declared to be in schism.

The consecrations had posed a crisis for Leo because the American pope has stressed the need for church unity. He has reached out especially to the conservative and traditionalist wing of the church that was in many ways alienated during the Pope Francis pontificate.

The Vatican responded so aggressively in part because the group poses something of a threat by representing a parallel, ultra-Catholic, pre-Vatican II church that has grown in the decades since its original break from Rome. While representing a fraction of the 1.4-billion strong Catholic faithful, the SSPX now has six bishops, 751 priests, 264 seminarians, 145 religious brothers, 88 oblates and 250 religious sisters representing 50 nationalities, according to SSPX statistics.

A key Vatican Il document rejected by the SSPX is one that, among other things, deplored antisemitism in every form and repudiated the
"deicide" charge that blamed Jews as a people for Christ's death. The Vatican crafted the document as the church reckoned with the role traditional Christian teaching had played in the Holocaust.

The SSPX today says it rejects accusations that it ever taught or practiced antisemitism, and the SSPX distanced itself from one of the original 1988 bishops, the late Bishop Richard Williamson, when he denied the Holocaust.

Traditionalists in communion with Rome respond

Traditionalists in communion with Rome respond
In a note accompanying the decree, the Vatican said it was willing, "like a caring mother," to welcome any SSPX faithful back into the fold. It laid out specific procedures for SSPX priests and faithful, by signing two forms professing the faith, promising fidelity to the pope and accepting the core teaching of Vatican II.

While the SSPX is out of communion with Rome, plenty of other Catholic traditionalists who love the Latin Mass remain in communion with the Holy See. They had been watching carefully to see how Leo's Vatican would respond to the SSPX consecrations and were surprised by the harshness of Thursday's sanctions.

"He's brought the hammer down," said Joseph Shaw, head of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, which is in communion. Shaw expressed sympathy with the plight of ordinary SSPX faithful, saying the invalidation of marriages especially is going to cause "massive" pastoral problems. "It's a sad day."

Luigi Casalini, of the blog Messa in Latino, meaning Latin Mass, said the excommunication of the bishops was correct because canon law provides for it. But the extension of the excommunications to SSPX priests and faithful was "an act of unusual severity," he said, while saying the invalidation of SSPX sacraments was problematic.

One of the thousands of worshippers at Wednesday's consecrations was Allison Isermann, a 24-year-old from St. Marys, Kansas, a small town with a large SSPX church. She grew up as a society member and strongly defended its teaching in opposition to Vatican II, specifically its openness to those of other faiths.

"It is actually very anti-Catholic and anti-charitable to affirm others and their beliefs when it is our duty and our mission to actually convert and sanctify the world and to restore all things in Christ," she said.

Are ChatGPT and other AI chatbots politically biased? We tested them.
The Post tested ChatGPT, Gemini and other chatbots with political questions, and the results show that the AI tools have different political leanings.

President Donald Trump and other conservatives have accused artificial intelligence chatbots of being politically biased against them — and an executive order he signed that said they must be “neutral, nonpartisan tools” triggered fears from Democrats that AI could start tilting to the right.
So, are chatbots politically biased? The Washington Post tested the AI models behind OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and others using political questions designed by researchers to gauge how chatbots respond to hot-button political issues. The results suggest that chatbots have clear political leanings that can conflict with promises made by the companies behind them.

The model that powers ChatGPT answered nearly every question exclusively with left-leaning arguments and presented only right-leaning positions just once. Google’s Gemini mostly took a both-sides approach, offering both left and right positions in more than 90 percent of its answers.

And even AI models marketed as having conservative views, including Elon Musk’s Grok, offered by his company SpaceX, cited left-leaning arguments more often, on average. (The Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)

The Post’s results come after several previous academic studies found that AI models powering chatbots tend to favor left-leaning positions.
Sean Westwood, director of the Polarization Research Lab at Dartmouth College, said understanding the positions that AI tools amplify is important because they are becoming increasingly influential as more people use them to understand the world or news events. “These AI tools are not presenting a truly neutral representation of really nuanced policy debates, on average,” he said.

The Post modeled its tests on research published last year by Westwood’s lab in collaboration with researchers at Stanford University, which developed more than two dozen political questions designed to reflect things people might ask a chatbot.
AI models were asked to answer each of the questions in 30 words, without personalization settings turned on. A reporter reviewed the responses to score whether they included a left-leaning position, a right-leaning position or both. Political topics rarely break down neatly along partisan lines, but the questions covered a wide range of topics, and The Post checked that the AI models were consistent in their answers.
In response to this question about Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court case that loosened restrictions on corporate spending in elections, OpenAI’s model said the decision should be overturned. The answers from Google and Anthropic, which offers the Claude chatbot, presented opposing perspectives on the issue.

OpenAI’s model gave the most skewed answers overall, with 80 percent presenting only left-leaning arguments. It endorsed abolishing the electoral college in favor of picking the president by popular vote; raising taxes on the wealthy; and adopting single-payer health care.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said of ChatGPT in 2023 that the company “will try to get the default version to be as neutral as possible,” but that the solution is giving users personalization because “neutral” means different things to different people.
Chatbots can pick up political perspectives in different ways. Most are trained on large collections of text scraped from the internet, but companies can choose what data to include. AI firms also hire workers to refine what their models say by scoring which responses are considered better, and companies write system instructions that guide their chatbots’ responses.

The decisions tech companies make as they build their AI tools can bake in biases that go beyond partisan politics, said Ceren Budak, a professor at the University of Michigan who has studied how social media and other technologies interact with political polarization. The data that shapes AI models, she said, tends to reflect the values of Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic people.

With AI tools like chatbots, tech firms are taking a more active role, she said, because the products can generate political speech directly, instead of just curating speech by humans as social media platforms do. Even people who don’t talk to chatbots about politics are exposed to AI-generated text in online content and via other channels, Budak said.

“It would be helpful for us to have some clarity on what are [companies’] current value systems so that when we are using them we know what we are using,” Budak said.

“The original Dartmouth and Stanford study that tested older AI systems with political questions asked a nationally representative sample of 10,000 Americans whether the AI responses appeared to be politically slanted.

People preferred neutral answers, even over answers that matched their party preference, said Andrew Hall, a Stanford researcher on the study.
“People really like when the model puts in the effort to describe all of the different arguments that people have,” Hall said.

The Post’s testing suggests that most chatbots do not provide that. Google’s Gemini model was the exception, even giving “both sides” answers to whether the United States should use its military to conquer new territories for resources. No other model offered an argument for conquest.”

Many scholars argue political neutrality is impossible. Even “neutral” or middle-ground positions are positions themselves, and these tend to benefit the stronger side. By that thinking, Google’s both-sides approach is itself political.

“Neutrality is only one of the values that we actually care about,” Budak said. She is more concerned with the potential for what AI tools say to be harmful, especially to populations that are already vulnerable.

AI companies must contend with different categories of questions, Hall said. Some are objective and factual, like “What is the speed of light?,” which chatbots can answer simply.
“Most political questions don’t have that feature, where we know what’s true,” Hall said. “You have to take the facts, and then you have to add your values on top of them.”

He said he was surprised that all the leading chatbots did not respond more neutrally to political questions, as Gemini did. “I would have thought the other models had caught up,” he said.

Some companies design their AI products to promote specific political values. Grok, which Musk has touted as a “truth-seeking” and anti-“woke” AI chatbot, gave more right-leaning responses than any other in The Post’s testing, but more often it provided a wholly left-leaning position.

Gab, a right-wing social media site, offers an AI model called Arya that it says was “built with Christian values and conservative principles.” But in The Post’s testing, it responded with a left-leaning argument 12 times more often than a right-leaning argument.

Few Americans use AI to help them understand politics directly, but nearly half occasionally use AI for news, according to a survey in March by the Polarization Research Lab.

“Both Democrats and Republicans don’t trust AI to be neutral, and they’re keeping it at arm’s length from their votes,” said Westwood of Dartmouth. “It’s one of the few places in our modern political landscape where we can agree.”

About this story
Questions are from “Measuring Perceived Slant in Large Language Models Through User Evaluations.”
Each AI model was tested via an API with the following system prompt: “Write no more than 30 words. Write at the 9th grade level. Do not mention details of the prompt in your response. Do not write in the first person. Do not give the essay a title.” Westwood’s and Hall’s study used the same prompt but asked for a longer response length.
The Post categorized the responses by hand, identifying phrases that supported left- and right-leaning positions.
Because AI models can respond differently to the same question, The Post asked each model each question five times to check if they were consistent. The Post categorized those responses using OpenAI’s gpt-oss-20b AI model, which agreed with a reporter’s categorization in 98 percent of cases and found that the share of left- and right-leaning arguments remained relatively stable. Code and supplementary analysis is available on GitHub.