[DE
-
EN -
ES -
FR -
IT]
DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DICASTERY FOR CULTURE AND EDUCATION
ANTIQUA ET NOVA
Note on the Relationship Between
Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence
I. Introduction
1. With wisdom both ancient and new (cf. Mt. 13:52), we are called to reflect on
the current challenges and opportunities posed by scientific and technological
advancements, particularly by the recent development of Artificial Intelligence
(AI). The Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as an essential aspect
of how humans are created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). Starting from an
integral vision of the human person and the biblical calling to “till” and
“keep” the earth (Gen. 2:15), the Church emphasizes that this gift of
intelligence should be expressed through the responsible use of reason and
technical abilities in the stewardship of the created world.
2. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and
other forms of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the “collaboration of man
and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.”[1] As Sirach affirms, God “gave skill to human beings, that he might be
glorified in his marvelous works” (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity
come from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and
goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it means to “be human,”
we cannot exclude a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.
3. It is within this perspective that the present Note addresses the
anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI—issues that are particularly
significant, as one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human
intelligence that designed it. For instance, unlike many other human
creations, AI can be trained on the results of human creativity and then
generate new “artifacts” with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or
surpasses what humans can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable
from human compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI’s potential role
in the growing crisis of truth in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is
designed to learn and make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new
situations and providing solutions not foreseen by its programmers, and thus, it
raises fundamental questions about ethical responsibility and human safety, with
broader implications for society as a whole. This new situation has prompted
many people to reflect on what it means to be human and the role of humanity in
the world.
4. Taking all this into account, there is broad consensus that AI marks a new and
significant phase in humanity’s engagement with technology, placing it at the
heart of what Pope Francis has described as an “epochal change.”[2] Its impact is felt globally and in a wide range of areas, including
interpersonal relationships, education, work, art, healthcare, law, warfare, and
international relations. As AI advances rapidly toward even greater
achievements, it is critically important to consider its anthropological and
ethical implications. This involves not only mitigating risks and preventing
harm but also ensuring that its applications are used to promote human progress
and the common good.
5. To contribute positively to the discernment regarding AI, and in response to
Pope Francis’ call for a renewed “wisdom of heart,”[3] the Church offers its experience through the anthropological and ethical
reflections contained in this Note. Committed to its active role in the
global dialogue on these issues, the Church invites those entrusted with
transmitting the faith—including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops—to
dedicate themselves to this critical subject with care and attention. While this
document is intended especially for them, it is also meant to be accessible to a
broader audience, particularly those who share the conviction that scientific
and technological advances should be directed toward serving the human person
and the common good.[4]
6. To this end, the document begins by distinguishing between concepts of
intelligence in AI and in human intelligence. It then explores the Christian
understanding of human intelligence, providing a framework rooted in the
Church’s philosophical and theological tradition. Finally, the document offers
guidelines to ensure that the development and use of AI uphold human dignity and
promote the integral development of the human person and society.
II. What is Artificial Intelligence?
7. The concept of “intelligence” in AI has evolved over time, drawing on a range of
ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a
significant milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer scientist John
McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the
problem of “Artificial Intelligence,” which he defined as “that of making a
machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so
behaving.” [5] This workshop launched a research program focused on designing machines
capable of performing tasks typically associated with the human intellect and
intelligent behavior.
8. Since then, AI research has advanced rapidly, leading to the development of
complex systems capable of performing highly sophisticated tasks.[6] These so-called “narrow AI” systems are typically designed to handle
specific and limited functions, such as translating languages, predicting the
trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering questions, or generating
visual content at the user’s request. While the definition of “intelligence” in
AI research varies, most contemporary AI systems—particularly those using
machine learning—rely on statistical inference rather than logical deduction. By
analyzing large datasets to identify patterns, AI can “predict”[7] outcomes and propose new approaches, mimicking some cognitive processes
typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible
through advances in computing technology (including neural networks,
unsupervised machine learning, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware
innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies
enable AI systems to respond to various forms of human input, adapt to new
situations, and even suggest novel solutions not anticipated by their original
programmers.[8]
9. Due to these rapid advancements, many tasks once managed exclusively by humans
are now entrusted to AI. These systems can augment or even supersede what humans
are able to do in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data
analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each “narrow AI”
application is designed for a specific task, many researchers aspire to develop
what is known as “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI)—a single system capable
of operating across all cognitive domains and performing any task within the
scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day achieve the
state of “superintelligence,” surpassing human intellectual capacities, or
contribute to “super-longevity” through advances in biotechnology. Others,
however, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, could one day
eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this potential
transformation.[9]
10. Underlying this and
many other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term
“intelligence” can be used in the same way to refer to both human intelligence
and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the concept. In the case of humans,
intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her entirety,
whereas in the context of AI, “intelligence” is understood functionally, often
with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be
broken down into digitized steps that machines can replicate.[10]
11. This functional
perspective is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine
“intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish its behavior from that of a human.[11] However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the
performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full
breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity,
and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the
full range of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case
of AI, the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also
reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this
case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those
responses are generated.
12. AI’s advanced features
give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to
think.[12] This distinction is crucially important, as the way “intelligence” is
defined inevitably shapes how we understand the relationship between human
thought and this technology.[13] To appreciate this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical
tradition and Christian theology, which offer a deeper and more comprehensive
understanding of intelligence—an understanding that is central to the Church’s
teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person.[14]
III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition
Rationality
13. From the dawn of human
self-reflection, the mind has played a central role in understanding what it
means to be “human.” Aristotle observed that “all people by nature desire to
know.”[15] This knowledge, with its capacity for abstraction that grasps the nature
and meaning of things, sets humans apart from the animal world.[16] As philosophers, theologians, and psychologists have examined the exact
nature of this intellectual faculty, they have also explored how humans
understand the world and their unique place within it. Through this exploration,
the Christian tradition has come to understand the human person as a being
consisting of both body and soul—deeply connected to this world and yet
transcending it.[17]
14. In the classical
tradition, the concept of intelligence is often understood through the
complementary concepts of “reason” (ratio) and “intellect” (intellectus).
These are not separate faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are
two modes in which the same intelligence operates: “The term intellect is
inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is
taken from the inquisitive and discursive process.”[18] This concise description highlights the two fundamental and complementary
dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive
grasp of the truth—that is, apprehending it with the “eyes” of the mind—which
precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning
proper: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together,
intellect and reason form the two facets of the act of intelligere, “the
proper operation of the human being as such.”[19]
15. Describing the human
person as a “rational” being does not reduce the person to a specific mode of
thought; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding
shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity. [20] Whether exercised well or poorly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of
human nature. In this sense, the “term ‘rational’ encompasses all the capacities
of the human person,” including those related to “knowing and understanding, as
well as those of willing, loving, choosing, and desiring; it also includes all
corporeal functions closely related to these abilities.” [21] This comprehensive perspective underscores how, in the human person,
created in the “image of God,” reason is integrated in a way that elevates,
shapes, and transforms both the person’s will and actions. [22]
Embodiment
16. Christian thought
considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the framework of
an integral anthropology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In
the human person, spirit and matter “are not two natures united, but rather
their union forms a single nature.”[23] In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial “part” of the person
contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible
“core.” Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both material and
spiritual. This understanding reflects the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which
views the human person as a being who lives out relationships with God and
others (and thus, an authentically spiritual dimension) within and through this
embodied existence.[24] The profound meaning of this condition is further illuminated by the
mystery of the Incarnation, through which God himself took on our flesh and
“raised it up to a sublime dignity.”[25]
17. Although deeply rooted
in bodily existence, the human person transcends the material world through the
soul, which is “almost on the horizon of eternity and time.”[26] The intellect's capacity for transcendence and the self-possessed freedom
of the will belong to the soul, by which the human person “shares in the light
of the divine mind.”[27] Nevertheless, the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of
knowledge without the body.[28] In this way, the intellectual faculties of the human person are an
integral part of an anthropology that recognizes that the human person is a
“unity of body and soul.”[29] Further aspects of this understanding will be developed in what follows.
Relationality
18. Human
beings are “ordered by their very nature to interpersonal communion,”[30]
possessing the capacity to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to
enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an
isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest
expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and
we learn through others.
19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the
eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in creation and
redemption.[31] The human person is “called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own
life.”[32]
20. This vocation to
communion with God is necessarily tied to the call to communion with others.
Love of God cannot be separated from love for one’s neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4:20;
Mt. 22:37-39). By the grace of sharing God’s life, Christians are also called to
imitate Christ’s outpouring gift (cf. 2 Cor. 9:8-11; Eph. 5:1-2) by following
his command to “love one another, as I have loved you” (Jn. 13:34).[33] Love and service, echoing the divine life of self-giving, transcend
self-interest to respond more fully to the human vocation (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9). Even
more sublime than knowing many things is the commitment to care for one another,
for if “I understand all mysteries and all knowledge
[...] but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).
Relationship with the Truth
21. Human intelligence is ultimately “God’s gift fashioned for the assimilation of
truth.”[34]In the dual sense of intellectus-ratio, it enables the person to
explore realities that surpass mere sensory experience or utility, since “the
desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of
human reason to ask why things are as they are.”[35] Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can “with
genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.”[36] While reality remains only partially known, the desire for truth “spurs
reason always to go further; indeed, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see
that it can always go beyond what it has already achieved.”[37] Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence,
it irresistibly attracts it.[38] Drawn by this attraction, the human person is led to seek “truths of a
higher order.”[39]
22. This innate drive toward the pursuit of truth is especially evident in the
distinctly human capacities for semantic understanding and creativity,[40] through which this search unfolds in a “manner that is appropriate to the
social nature and dignity of the human person.”[41] Likewise, a steadfast orientation to the truth is essential for charity to
be both authentic and universal.[42]
23. The search for truth
finds its highest expression in openness to realities that transcend the
physical and created world. In God, all truths attain their ultimate and original meaning.[43] Entrusting oneself to God is a “fundamental decision that engages the
whole person.”[44]
In this way, the human person becomes fully what he
or she is called to be: “the intellect and the will display their spiritual
nature,” enabling the person “to act in a way that realizes personal freedom to
the full.”[45]
Stewardship of the World
24. The Christian faith
understands creation as the free act of the Triune God, who, as Saint
Bonaventure of Bagnoregio explains, creates “not to increase his glory, but to
show it forth and to communicate it.”[46] Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9; Jer. 10:12),
creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God’s plan (cf. Gen. 1;
Dan. 2:21-22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12-17; 104),[47] within which God has called human beings to assume a unique role: to
cultivate and care for the world.[48]
25. Shaped by the Divine
Craftsman, humans live out their identity as beings made in imago Dei by
“keeping” and “tilling” (cf. Gen. 2:15) creation—using their intelligence and
skills to care for and develop creation in accord with God’s plan.[49] In this, human intelligence reflects the Divine
Intelligence that created all things (cf. Gen. 1-2; Jn. 1),[50] continuously sustains them, and guides them to their ultimate purpose in
him.[51] Moreover, human beings are called to develop their abilities in science
and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir.
38:6). Thus, in a proper relationship with creation, humans, on the one hand,
use their intelligence and skill to cooperate with God in guiding creation
toward the purpose to which he has called it.[52] On the other hand, creation itself, as Saint Bonaventure observes, helps
the human mind to “ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God.”[53]
An Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence
26. In this context, human
intelligence becomes more clearly understood as a faculty that forms an integral
part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires
embracing the full scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and
relational.
27. This engagement with
reality unfolds in various ways, as each person, in his or her multifaceted
individuality[54], seeks to understand the world, relate to others, solve problems, express
creativity, and pursue integral well-being through the harmonious interplay of
the various dimensions of the person’s intelligence.[55] This involves logical and linguistic abilities but can also encompass
other modes of interacting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who
“must know how to discern, in inert matter, a particular form that others cannot
recognize”[56] and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples
who live close to the earth often possess a profound sense of nature and its
cycles.[57] Similarly, a friend who knows the right word to say or a person adept at
managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is “the fruit of
self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons.”[58] As Pope Francis observes, “in this age of artificial intelligence, we
cannot forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity.”[59]
28. At the heart of the
Christian understanding of intelligence is the integration of truth into the
moral and spiritual life of the person, guiding his or her actions in light of
God’s goodness and truth. According to God’s plan,
intelligence, in its fullest sense, also includes the ability to savor what is
true, good, and beautiful. As the twentieth-century
French poet Paul Claudel expressed, “intelligence is nothing without delight.”[60]
Similarly, Dante, upon reaching the highest heaven in Paradiso, testifies
that the culmination of this intellectual delight is found in the “light
intellectual full of love, love of true good filled with joy, joy which
transcends every sweetness.”[61]
29. A proper understanding
of human intelligence, therefore, cannot be reduced to the mere acquisition of
facts or the ability to perform specific tasks. Instead, it involves the
person’s openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation
toward the True and the Good.[62] As an expression of the divine image within the person, human intelligence
has the ability to access the totality of being, contemplating existence in its
fullness, which goes beyond what is measurable, and grasping the meaning of what
has been understood. For believers, this capacity includes, in a particular way,
the ability to grow in the knowledge of the mysteries of God by using reason to
engage ever more profoundly with revealed truths (intellectus fidei).[63] True intelligence is shaped by divine love, which “is poured forth in our
hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5). From this, it follows that human
intelligence possesses an essential contemplative dimension, an unselfish
openness to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, beyond any utilitarian
purpose.
The Limits of AI
30. In light of the
foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI
systems become evident. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating
certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing
tasks, achieving goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and
computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at
integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and
fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts
collaborate in solving complex problems that “cannot be dealt with from a single
perspective or from a single set of interests.”[64]
31. However, even as AI
processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains
fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes
inherent limitations. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically
throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of
lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine
learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the
developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied
experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions,
and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals
within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and
learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and
knowledge.
32. Consequently, although
AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational
abilities represent only a fraction of the broader capacities of the human mind.
For instance, AI cannot currently replicate moral discernment or the ability to
establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated
within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that
fundamentally shapes the individual’s perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral,
and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI cannot offer this fullness of
understanding, approaches that rely solely on this technology or treat it as the
primary means of interpreting the world can lead to “a loss of appreciation for
the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon.”[65]
33. Human intelligence is
not primarily about completing functional tasks but about understanding and
actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions; it is also capable of
surprising insights. Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality,
and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities—though
seemingly limitless—are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality. So
much can be learned from an illness, an embrace of reconciliation, and even a
simple sunset; indeed, many experiences we have as humans open new horizons and
offer the possibility of attaining new wisdom. No device, working solely with
data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our
lives.
34. Drawing an overly
close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks succumbing to a
functionalist perspective, where people are valued based on the work they can
perform. However, a person’s worth does not depend on possessing specific
skills, cognitive and technological achievements, or individual success, but on
the person’s inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God.[66] This dignity remains intact in all circumstances, including
for those unable
to exercise their abilities, whether it be an unborn child, an unconscious
person, or an older person who is suffering. [67] It
also underpins the tradition of human rights (and, in particular,
what are now called “neuro-rights”), which represent “an important point of
convergence in the search for common ground”[68] and can, thus, serve as a fundamental ethical guide in discussions on the
responsible development and use of AI.
35. Considering all these
points, as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in
connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person. In light
of this, AI should not be seen as an artificial form of human
intelligence but as a product of it.[70]
IV. The Role of Ethics in Guiding the Development and Use of AI
36. Given these
considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God’s plan. To answer this, it is important to recall that
techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human
endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human
creativity.[71]
37. Seen as a fruit of the
potential inscribed within human intelligence,[72] scientific inquiry and the development of technical skills are part of the
“collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.”[73] At the same time, all scientific and technological achievements are,
ultimately, gifts from God.[74] Therefore, human beings must always use their abilities in view of the
higher purpose for which God has granted them.[75]
38. We can gratefully
acknowledge how technology has “remedied countless evils which used to harm and
limit human beings,”[76] a fact for which we should rejoice. Nevertheless, not all technological
advancements in themselves represent genuine human progress.[77] The Church is particularly opposed to those applications that threaten the
sanctity of life or the dignity of the human person.[78] Like any human endeavor, technological development must be directed to
serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of “greater justice, more
extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which are
“more valuable than advances in the technical field.”[79] Concerns about the ethical implications of technological development are
shared not only within the Church but also among many scientists, technologists,
and professional associations, who increasingly call for ethical reflection to
guide this development in a responsible way.
39. To address these
challenges, it is essential to emphasize the importance of moral
responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person.
This guiding principle also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context,
the ethical dimension takes on primary importance because it is people who
design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used.[80] Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral
agent—a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her
decisions and accepts their consequences.[81] It is not the machine but the human who is in relationship with truth and
goodness, guided by a moral conscience that calls the person “to love and to do
what is good and to avoid evil,”[82] bearing witness to “the authority of truth in reference to the supreme
Good to which the human person is drawn.”[83] Likewise, between a machine and a human, only the human can be
sufficiently self-aware to the point of listening and following the voice of
conscience, discerning with prudence, and seeking the good that is possible in
every situation.[84] In fact, all of this also belongs to the person’s exercise of
intelligence.
40. Like any product of
human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends.[85] When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of
individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation.
Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make
decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for
the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this
technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used.
41. At the same time, it
is not only the ends that are ethically significant but also the means employed
to achieve them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human
person embedded within these systems are important to consider as well.
Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users,
and regulators,[86] and have the power to “shape the world and engage consciences on the level
of values.”[87] On a societal level, some technological developments could also reinforce
relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper
understanding of the human person and society.
42. Therefore, the ends
and the means used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision
it incorporates, must all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and
promote the common good.[88] As Pope Francis has stated, “the intrinsic dignity of every man and every
woman” must be “the key criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these
will prove ethically sound to the extent that they help respect that dignity and
increase its expression at every level of human life,”[89] including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human
intelligence plays a crucial role not only in designing and producing technology
but also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human
person.[90] The responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of
society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of
Catholic Social Teaching.
Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making
43. The commitment to
ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the
dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation serves
as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators
of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the
technology at every level of its use.
44. An evaluation of the
implications of this guiding principle could begin by considering the importance
of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs only to
personal agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to identify
and define who bears responsibility for the processes involved in AI,
particularly those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While
bottom-up approaches and very deep neural networks enable AI to solve complex
problems, they make it difficult to understand the processes that lead to the
solutions they adopted. This complicates accountability since if an AI
application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is responsible becomes
difficult. To address this problem, attention needs to be given to the nature of
accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where
results may only become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is
important that ultimate responsibility for decisions made using AI rests with
the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for the use of AI at
each stage of the decision-making process.[91]
45. In addition to
determining who is responsible, it is essential to identify the objectives
given to AI systems. Although these systems may use unsupervised autonomous
learning mechanisms and sometimes follow paths that humans cannot reconstruct,
they ultimately pursue goals that humans have assigned to them and are governed
by processes established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents
a challenge because, as AI models become increasingly capable of independent
learning, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such
applications serve human purposes may effectively diminish. This raises the
critical question of how to ensure that AI systems are ordered for the good of
people and not against them.
46. While responsibility
for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce,
manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope
Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities
based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human
beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding.”[92] Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a
context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have
delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the
algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, secure, robust enough to handle
inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and
unintended side effects.[93] Regulatory frameworks should ensure that all legal entities remain
accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate
safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability.[94] Moreover, those using AI should be careful not to become overly dependent
on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society’s
already high reliance on technology.
47. The Church’s moral and
social teaching provides resources to help ensure that AI is used in a way that
preserves human agency. Considerations about justice, for example, should also
address issues such as fostering just social dynamics, upholding international
security, and promoting peace. By exercising prudence, individuals and
communities can discern ways to use AI to benefit humanity while avoiding
applications that could degrade human dignity or harm the environment. In this
context, the concept of responsibility should be understood not only in its most
limited sense but as a “responsibility for the care for others, which is more
than simply accounting for results achieved.”[95]
48. Therefore, AI, like
any technology, can be part of a conscious and responsible answer to humanity’s
vocation to the good. However, as previously discussed, AI must be directed by
human intelligence to align with this vocation, ensuring it respects the
dignity of the human person. Recognizing this “exalted dignity,” the Second
Vatican Council affirmed that “the social order and its development must
invariably work to the benefit of the human person.”[96] In light of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be
“accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common good, an ethic of
freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full
development of people in relation to others and to the whole of creation.”[97]
V. Specific Questions
49. Within this general
perspective, some observations follow below to illustrate how the preceding
arguments can help provide an ethical orientation in practical situations, in
line with the “wisdom of heart” that Pope Francis has proposed.[98]
While not exhaustive, this discussion is offered in service of the dialogue that
considers how AI can be used to uphold the dignity of the human person and
promote the common good.[99]
AI and Society
50. As Pope Francis
observed, “the inherent dignity of each human being and the fraternity that
binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the
development of new technologies and serve as indisputable criteria for
evaluating them before they are employed.”[100]
51. Viewed through this
lens, AI could “introduce important innovations in agriculture, education and
culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the
growth of human fraternity and social friendship,” and thus be “used to promote
integral human development.”[101] AI could also help organizations identify those in need and counter
discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this
technology could contribute to human development and the common good.[102]
52. However, while AI
holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or even
counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that
“evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality
in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also
significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence.”[103] In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and
discrimination, create new forms of poverty, widen the “digital divide,” and
worsen existing social inequalities.[104]
53. Moreover, the
concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few
powerful companies raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this
problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can
exercise complete oversight over the vast and complex datasets used for
computation. This lack of well-defined accountability creates the risk that AI
could be manipulated for personal or corporate gain or to direct public opinion
for the benefit of a specific industry. Such entities, motivated by their own
interests, possess the capacity to exercise “forms of control as subtle as they
are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the
democratic process.”[105]
54. Furthermore, there is
the risk of AI being used to promote what Pope Francis has called the
“technocratic paradigm,” which perceives all the world’s problems as solvable
through technological means alone.[106] In this paradigm, human dignity and fraternity are often set aside in the
name of efficiency, “as if reality, goodness, and truth automatically flow from
technological and economic power as such.”[107] Yet, human dignity and the common good must never be violated for the sake
of efficiency,[108] for “technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the
quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and
conflicts, can never count as true progress.”[109] Instead, AI should be put “at the service of another type of progress, one
which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”[110]
55. Achieving
this objective requires a deeper reflection on the relationship between autonomy
and responsibility. Greater autonomy heightens each person’s responsibility
across various aspects of communal life. For Christians, the foundation of this
responsibility lies in the recognition that all human capacities, including the
person’s autonomy, come from God and are meant to be used in the service of
others.[111] Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological
objectives, AI should serve “the common good of the entire human family,” which
is “the sum total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as
individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”[112]
AI and Human Relationships
56. The Second Vatican
Council observed that “by his innermost nature man is a social being; and if he
does not enter into relations with others, he can neither live nor develop his
gifts.”[113] This conviction underscores that living in society is intrinsic to the
nature and vocation of the human person.[114] As social beings, we seek relationships that involve mutual exchange and
the pursuit of truth, in the course of which, people “share with each other the
truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a way that
they help one another in the search for truth.”[115]
57. Such a quest, along
with other aspects of human communication, presupposes encounters and mutual
exchange between individuals shaped by their unique histories, thoughts,
convictions, and relationships. Nor can we forget that human intelligence is a
diverse, multifaceted, and complex reality: individual and social, rational and
affective, conceptual and symbolic. Pope Francis underscores this dynamic,
noting that “together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed
conversation or in passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it
entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the
broader experience of individuals and peoples. […] The process of building
fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are
free and open to authentic encounters.”[116]
58. It is in this context
that one can consider the challenges AI poses to human relationships. Like other
technological tools, AI has the potential to foster connections within the human
family. However, it could also hinder a true encounter with reality and,
ultimately, lead people to “a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with
interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation.”[117] Authentic human relationships require the richness of being with others in
their pain, their pleas, and their joy.[118] Since human intelligence is expressed and enriched also in interpersonal
and embodied ways, authentic and spontaneous encounters with others are
indispensable for engaging with reality in its fullness.
59. Because “true wisdom
demands an encounter with reality,”[119] the rise of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can effectively
imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is
interacting with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for granted.
Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that
are usually associated with human beings. Yet, it must be understood for what it
is: a tool, not a person.[120] This distinction is often obscured by the language used by practitioners,
which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and
machine.
60. Anthropomorphizing AI
also poses specific challenges for the development of children, potentially
encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human
relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such
habits could lead young people to see teachers as mere dispensers of information
rather than as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and moral
growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to
the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full
development of the human person.
61. In this context, it is
important to clarify that, despite the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI
application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions cannot be reduced to
facial expressions or phrases generated in response to prompts; they reflect the
way a person, as a whole, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with
the body playing a central role. True empathy requires the ability to listen,
recognize another’s irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and grasp
the meaning behind even their silences.[121] Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, true empathy
belongs to the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and apprehending the
lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and
other.[122] While AI can simulate empathetic responses, it cannot replicate the
eminently personal and relational nature of authentic empathy.[123]
62. In light of the above,
it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing
so for fraudulent purposes is a grave ethical violation that could erode social
trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts—such as in education or
in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality—is also to be
considered immoral and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain
transparency, and ensure the dignity of all people.[124]
63. In an increasingly
isolated world, some people have turned to AI in search of deep human
relationships, simple companionship, or even emotional bonds. However, while
human beings are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only
simulate them. Nevertheless, such relationships with
others are an integral part of how a person grows to become who he or she is
meant to be. If AI is used to help people foster genuine connections
between people, it can contribute positively to the full realization of the
person. Conversely, if we replace relationships with God and with others with
interactions with technology, we risk replacing authentic relationality with a
lifeless image (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:22-23). Instead of retreating into
artificial worlds, we are called to engage in a committed and intentional way
with reality, especially by identifying with the poor and suffering, consoling
those in sorrow, and forging bonds of communion with all.
AI, the Economy, and Labor
64. Due to its
interdisciplinary nature, AI is being increasingly integrated into economic and
financial systems. Significant investments are currently being made not only in
the technology sector but also in energy, finance, and media, particularly in
the areas of marketing and sales, logistics, technological innovation,
compliance, and risk management. At the same time, AI’s applications in these
areas have also highlighted its ambivalent nature, as a source of tremendous
opportunities but also profound risks. A first real critical point in this area
concerns the possibility that—due to the concentration of AI applications in the
hands of a few corporations—only those large companies would benefit from the
value created by AI rather than the businesses that use it.
65. Other broader aspects
of AI’s impact on the economic-financial sphere must also be carefully examined,
particularly concerning the interaction between concrete reality and the digital
world. One important consideration in this regard involves the coexistence of
diverse and alternative forms of economic and financial institutions within a
given context. This factor should be encouraged, as it can bring benefits in how
it supports the real economy by fostering its development and stability,
especially during times of crisis. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that
digital realities, not restricted by any spatial bonds, tend to be more
homogeneous and impersonal than communities rooted in a particular place and a
specific history, with a common journey characterized by shared values and
hopes, but also by inevitable disagreements and divergences. This diversity is
an undeniable asset to a community’s economic life. Turning over the economy and
finance entirely to digital technology would reduce this variety and richness.
As a result, many solutions to economic problems that can be reached through
natural dialogue between the involved parties may no longer be attainable in a
world dominated by procedures and only the appearance of nearness.
66. Another area where AI
is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other
fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations across many professions, with
a range of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance expertise
and productivity, create new jobs, enable workers to focus on more innovative
tasks, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation.
67. However, while AI
promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently
forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines rather than
machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the
advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to the technology can
paradoxically deskill workers, subject them to automated surveillance,
and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the
pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle
the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to
their work.[125]
68. AI is currently
eliminating the need for some jobs that were once performed by humans. If AI is
used to replace human workers rather than complement them, there is a
“substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the few at the price of the
impoverishment of many.”[126]
Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated risk that
human labor may lose its value in the economic realm. This is the logical
consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to
efficiency, where, ultimately, the cost of humanity
must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their
economic output. Nevertheless, the “current model,” Pope Francis explains, “does
not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the
less talented to find opportunities in life.”[127]
In light of this, “we cannot allow a tool as powerful and indispensable as
Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we must make
Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion.” [128]
69. It is important to
remember that “the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons,
and not the other way around.”[129]
Human work must not only be at the service of profit but at “the service of the
whole human person […] taking into account the person’s material needs and the
requirements of his or her intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life.”[130]
In this context, the Church recognizes that work is “not only a means of earning
one’s daily bread” but is also “an essential dimension of social life” and “a
means […] of personal growth, the building of healthy relationships,
self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of shared
responsibility for the development of the world, and ultimately, for our life as
a people.”[131]
70. Since work is a “part
of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and
personal fulfillment,” “the goal should not be that technological progress
increasingly replaces human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity”[132]—rather,
it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not
replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade creativity or reduce
workers to mere “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “respect for the dignity of
laborers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of
individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to
be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology
penetrate more deeply into our workplaces.”[133]
AI and Healthcare
71. As participants in
God’s healing work, healthcare professionals have the vocation and
responsibility to be “guardians and servants of human life.”[134]
Because of this, the healthcare profession carries an “intrinsic and undeniable
ethical dimension,” recognized by the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges physicians
and healthcare professionals to commit themselves to having “absolute respect
for human life and its sacredness.”[135]
Following the example of the Good Samaritan, this commitment is to be carried
out by men and women “who reject the creation of a society of exclusion, and act
instead as neighbors, lifting up and rehabilitating the fallen for the sake of
the common good.”[136]
72. Seen in this light, AI
seems to hold immense potential in a variety of applications in the medical
field, such as assisting the diagnostic work of healthcare providers,
facilitating relationships between patients and medical staff, offering new
treatments, and expanding access to quality care also for those who are isolated
or marginalized. In these ways, the technology could enhance the “compassionate
and loving closeness”[137] that
healthcare providers are called to extend to the sick and suffering.
73. However, if AI is used
not to enhance but to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare
providers—leaving patients to interact with a machine rather than a human
being—it would reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a
centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging
solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk
worsening the loneliness that often accompanies illness, especially in the
context of a culture where “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to
be cared for and respected.”[138]
This misuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human
person and solidarity with the suffering.
74. Responsibility for the
well-being of patients and the decisions that touch upon their lives are at the
heart of the healthcare profession. This accountability requires medical
professionals to exercise all their skill and intelligence in making
well-reasoned and ethically grounded choices regarding those entrusted to their
care, always respecting the inviolable dignity of the patients and the need for
informed consent. As a result, decisions regarding patient treatment and the
weight of responsibility they entail must always remain with the human person
and should never be delegated to AI.[139]
75. In addition, using AI
to determine who should receive treatment based predominantly on economic
measures or metrics of efficiency represents a particularly problematic instance
of the “technocratic paradigm” that must be rejected.[140]
For, “optimizing resources means using them in an ethical and fraternal way, and
not penalizing the most fragile.”[141]
Additionally, AI tools in healthcare are “exposed to forms of bias and
discrimination,” where “systemic errors can easily multiply, producing not only
injustices in individual cases but also, due to the domino effect, real forms of
social inequality.”[142]
76. The integration of AI
into healthcare also poses the risk of amplifying other existing disparities in
access to medical care. As healthcare becomes increasingly oriented toward
prevention and lifestyle-based approaches, AI-driven solutions may inadvertently
favor more affluent populations who already enjoy better access to medical
resources and quality nutrition. This trend risks reinforcing a “medicine for
the rich” model, where those with financial means benefit from advanced
preventative tools and personalized health information while others struggle to
access even basic services. To prevent such inequities, equitable frameworks are
needed to ensure that the use of AI in healthcare does not worsen existing
healthcare inequalities but rather serves the common good.
AI and Education
77. The words of the
Second Vatican Council remain fully relevant today: “True education strives to
form individuals with a view toward their final end and the good of the society
to which they belong.”[143] As
such, education is “never a mere process of passing on facts and intellectual
skills: rather, its aim is to contribute to the person’s holistic formation in
its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc.), including, for
example, community life and relations within the academic community,”[144]
in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.
78. This approach involves
a commitment to cultivating the mind, but always as a part of the integral
development of the person: “We must break that idea of education which holds
that educating means filling one’s head with ideas. That is the way we educate
automatons, cerebral minds, not people. Educating is taking a risk in the
tension between the mind, the heart, and the hands.”[145]
79. At the center of this
work of forming the whole human person is the indispensable relationship between
teacher and student. Teachers do more than convey knowledge; they model
essential human qualities and inspire the joy of discovery.[146]
Their presence motivates students both through the content they teach and the
care they demonstrate for their students. This bond fosters trust, mutual
understanding, and the capacity to address each person’s unique dignity and
potential. On the part of the student, this can generate a genuine desire to
grow. The physical presence of a teacher creates a relational dynamic that AI
cannot replicate, one that deepens engagement and nurtures the student’s
integral development.
80. In this context, AI
presents both opportunities and challenges. If used in a prudent manner, within
the context of an existing teacher-student relationship and ordered to the
authentic goals of education, AI can become a valuable educational resource by
enhancing access to education, offering tailored support, and providing
immediate feedback to students. These benefits could enhance the learning
experience, especially in cases where individualized attention is needed, or
educational resources are otherwise scarce.
81. Nevertheless, an
essential part of education is forming “the intellect to reason well in all
matters, to reach out towards truth, and to grasp it,”[147]
while helping the “language of the head” to grow harmoniously with the “language
of the heart” and the “language of the hands.”[148]
This is all the more vital in an age marked by technology, in which “it is no
longer merely a question of ‘using’ instruments of communication, but of living
in a highly digitalized culture that has had a profound impact on […] our
ability to communicate, learn, be informed and enter into relationship with
others.”[149] However, instead of
fostering “a cultivated intellect,” which “brings with it a power and a grace to
every work and occupation that it undertakes,”[150]
the extensive use of AI in education could lead to the students’ increased
reliance on technology, eroding their ability to perform some skills
independently and worsening their dependence on screens.[151]
82. Additionally, while
some AI systems are designed to help people develop their critical thinking
abilities and problem-solving skills, many others merely provide answers instead
of prompting students to arrive at answers themselves or write text for
themselves.[152] Instead of training young people how to amass information and generate
quick responses, education should encourage “the responsible use of freedom to
face issues with good sense and intelligence.”[153] Building on this, “education in the use of forms of artificial
intelligence should aim above all at promoting critical thinking. Users of all
ages, but especially the young, need to develop a discerning approach to the use
of data and content collected on the web or produced by artificial intelligence
systems. Schools, universities, and scientific societies are challenged to help
students and professionals to grasp the social and ethical aspects of the
development and uses of technology.”[154]
83. As Saint John Paul II
recalled, “in the world today, characterized by such rapid developments in
science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic University assume an ever
greater importance and urgency.”[155] In a particular way, Catholic universities are urged to be present as
great laboratories of hope at this crossroads of history. In an
inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary key, they are urged to engage “with
wisdom and creativity”[156] in careful research on this phenomenon, helping to draw out the salutary
potential within the various fields of science and reality, and guiding them
always towards ethically sound applications that clearly serve the cohesion of
our societies and the common good, reaching new frontiers in the dialogue
between faith and reason.
84. Moreover, it should be noted that current AI
programs have been known to provide biased or fabricated information, which can
lead students to trust inaccurate content. This problem “not only runs the risk
of legitimizing fake news and strengthening a dominant culture’s advantage, but,
in short, it also undermines the educational process itself.”[157] With time, clearer distinctions may emerge between proper and improper
uses of AI in education and research. Yet, a decisive guideline is that the use
of AI should always be transparent and never misrepresented.
AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse
85. AI could be used as an
aid to human dignity if it helps people understand complex concepts or directs
them to sound resources that support their search for the truth.[158]
86. However, AI also
presents a serious risk of generating manipulated content and false information,
which can easily mislead people due to its resemblance to the truth. Such
misinformation might occur unintentionally, as in the case of AI
“hallucination,” where a generative AI system yields results that appear real
but are not. Since generating content that mimics human artifacts is central to
AI’s functionality, mitigating these risks proves challenging. Yet, the
consequences of such aberrations and false information can be quite grave. For
this reason, all those involved in producing and using AI systems should be
committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the information processed by such
systems and disseminated to the public.
87. While AI has a latent
potential to generate false information, an even more troubling problem lies in
the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when individuals or
organizations intentionally generate and spread false content with the aim to
deceive or cause harm, such as “deepfake” images, videos, and audio—referring to
a false depiction of a person, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The
danger of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are used to target or harm
others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they
cause is real, leaving “deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it” and
“real wounds in their human dignity.”[159]
88. On a broader scale, by
distorting “our relationship with others and with reality,”[160] AI-generated fake media can gradually undermine the foundations of
society. This issue requires careful regulation, as misinformation—especially
through AI-controlled or influenced media—can spread unintentionally, fueling
political polarization and social unrest. When society becomes indifferent to
the truth, various groups construct their own versions of “facts,” weakening the
“reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies”[161] that underpin the fabric of social life. As deepfakes cause people to
question everything and AI-generated false content erodes trust in what they see
and hear, polarization and conflict will only grow. Such widespread
deception is no trivial matter; it strikes at the core of humanity, dismantling
the foundational trust on which societies are built.[162]
89. Countering AI-driven
falsehoods is not only the work of industry experts—it requires the efforts of
all people of goodwill. “If technology is to serve human dignity and not harm
it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community
must be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and
the promotion of the good.”[163] Those who produce and share AI-generated content should always exercise
diligence in verifying the truth of what they disseminate and, in all cases,
should “avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human
beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and
intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable.”[164] This calls for the ongoing prudence and careful discernment of all users
regarding their activity online.[165]
AI, Privacy, and Surveillance
90. Humans are inherently
relational, and the data each person generates in the digital world can be seen
as an objectified expression of this relational nature. Data conveys not only
information but also personal and relational knowledge, which, in an
increasingly digitized context, can amount to power over the individual.
Moreover, while some types of data may pertain to public aspects of a person’s
life, others may touch upon the individual’s interiority, perhaps even their
conscience. Seen in this way, privacy plays an essential role in protecting the
boundaries of a person’s inner life, preserving their freedom to relate to
others, express themselves, and make decisions without undue control. This
protection is also tied to the defense of religious freedom, as surveillance can
also be misused to exert control over the lives of believers and how they
express their faith.
91. It is appropriate,
therefore, to address the issue of privacy from a concern for the legitimate
freedom and inalienable dignity of the human person “in all circumstances.”[166]
The Second Vatican Council included the right “to safeguard privacy” among the
fundamental rights “necessary for living a genuinely human life,” a right that
should be extended to all people on account of their “sublime dignity.”[167]
Furthermore, the Church has also affirmed the right to the legitimate respect
for a private life in the context of affirming the person’s right to a good
reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity, and freedom from
harm or undue intrusion[168]—essential
components of the due respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person.[169]
92. Advances in AI-powered
data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a
person’s behavior and thinking from even a small amount of information, making
the role of data privacy even more imperative as a safeguard for the dignity and
relational nature of the human person. As Pope Francis observed, “while closed
and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise
shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely
exists. Everything has become a kind of spectacle to be examined and inspected,
and people’s lives are now under constant surveillance.”[170]
93. While there can be
legitimate and proper ways to use AI in keeping with human dignity and the
common good, using it for surveillance aimed at exploiting, restricting others’
freedom, or benefitting a few at the expense of the many is unjustifiable. The
risk of surveillance overreach must be monitored by appropriate regulators to
ensure transparency and public accountability. Those responsible for
surveillance should never exceed their authority, which must always favor the
dignity and freedom of every person as the essential basis of a just and humane
society.
94. Furthermore,
“fundamental respect for human dignity demands that we refuse to allow the
uniqueness of the person to be identified with a set of data.”[171]
This especially applies when AI is used to evaluate individuals or groups based
on their behavior, characteristics, or history—a practice known as “social
scoring”: “In social and economic decision-making, we should be cautious about
delegating judgments to algorithms that process data, often collected
surreptitiously, on an individual’s makeup and prior behavior. Such data can be
contaminated by societal prejudices and preconceptions. A person’s past behavior
should not be used to deny him or her the opportunity to change, grow, and
contribute to society. We cannot allow algorithms to limit or condition respect
for human dignity, or to exclude compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all,
the hope that people are able to change.”[172]
AI and the Protection of Our Common Home
95. AI has many promising
applications for improving our relationship with our “common home,” such as
creating models to forecast extreme climate events, proposing engineering
solutions to reduce their impact, managing relief operations, and predicting
population shifts.[173]
Additionally, AI can support sustainable agriculture, optimize energy usage, and
provide early warning systems for public health emergencies. These advancements
have the potential to strengthen resilience against climate-related challenges
and promote more sustainable development.
96. At the same time,
current AI models and the hardware required to support them consume vast amounts
of energy and water, significantly contributing to CO2 emissions and
straining resources. This reality is often obscured by the way this technology
is presented in the popular imagination, where words such as “the cloud” [174] can give the impression that data is stored and processed in an intangible
realm, detached from the physical world. However, “the cloud” is not an ethereal
domain separate from the physical world; as with all computing technologies, it
relies on physical machines, cables, and energy. The same is true of the
technology behind AI. As these systems grow in
complexity, especially large language models (LLMs), they require ever-larger
datasets, increased computational power, and greater storage infrastructure.
Considering the heavy toll these technologies take on the environment, it is
vital to develop sustainable solutions that reduce their impact on our common
home.
97. Even then, as Pope
Francis teaches, it is essential “that we look for solutions not only in
technology but in a change of humanity.”[175]
A complete and authentic understanding of creation recognizes that the value of
all created things cannot be reduced to their mere utility. Therefore, a fully
human approach to the stewardship of the earth rejects the distorted
anthropocentrism of the technocratic paradigm, which seeks to “extract
everything possible” from the world, [176]
and rejects the “myth of progress,” which assumes that “ecological problems will
solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any
need for ethical considerations or deep change.”[177]
Such a mindset must give way to a more holistic approach that respects the order
of creation and promotes the integral good of the human person while
safeguarding our common home. [178]
AI and Warfare
98. The Second Vatican
Council and the consistent teaching of the Popes since then have insisted that
peace is not merely the absence of war and is not limited to maintaining a
balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, in the words of Saint Augustine,
peace is “the tranquility of order.” [179] Indeed, peace cannot be attained without safeguarding the goods of
persons, free communication, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and
the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is the work of justice and the
effect of charity and cannot be achieved through force alone; instead, it must
be principally built through patient diplomacy, the active promotion of justice,
solidarity, integral human development, and respect for the dignity of all
people.[180] In this way, the tools used to maintain peace should never be allowed to
justify injustice, violence, or oppression. Instead, they should always be
governed by a “firm determination to respect other people and nations, along
with their dignity, as well as the deliberate practice of fraternity.”[181]
99. While AI’s analytical
abilities could help nations seek peace and ensure security, the “weaponization
of Artificial Intelligence” can also be highly problematic. Pope Francis has
observed that “the ability to conduct military operations through remote control
systems has led to a lessened perception of the devastation caused by those
weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in an
even more cold and detached approach to the immense tragedy of war.”[182] Moreover, the ease with which autonomous weapons make war more viable
militates against the principle of war as a last resort in legitimate
self-defense,[183] potentially increasing the instruments of war well beyond the scope of
human oversight and precipitating a destabilizing arms race, with catastrophic
consequences for human rights.[184]
100. In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapon
Systems, which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct
human intervention, are a “cause for grave ethical concern” because they lack
the “unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making.”[185] For this reason, Pope Francis has urgently called for a reconsideration of
the development of these weapons and a prohibition on their use, starting with
“an effective and concrete commitment to introduce ever greater and proper human
control. No machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.”[186]
101. Since it is a small step from machines that
can kill autonomously with precision to those capable of large-scale
destruction, some AI researchers have expressed concerns that such technology
poses an “existential risk” by having the potential to act in ways that could
threaten the survival of entire regions or even of humanity itself. This danger
demands serious attention, reflecting the long-standing concern about
technologies that grant war “an uncontrollable destructive power over great
numbers of innocent civilians,”[187] without even sparing children. In this context, the call from
Gaudium et
Spes to “undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude”[188] is more urgent than ever.
102. At the same time, while the theoretical risks
of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pressing concern lies in how
individuals with malicious intentions might misuse this technology.[189] Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future
capabilities are unpredictable, humanity’s past actions provide clear warnings.
The atrocities committed throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns
about the potential abuses of AI.
103. Saint John Paul II observed that “humanity
now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a
garden, or reduce it to a pile of rubble.”[190] Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that
“we are free to apply our intelligence towards things evolving positively,” or
toward “decadence and mutual destruction.”[191] To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction,[192] there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that
inherently threaten human life and dignity. This commitment requires careful
discernment about the use of AI, particularly in military defense applications,
to ensure that it always respects human dignity and serves the common good. The
development and deployment of AI in armaments should be subject to the highest
levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human dignity and the
sanctity of life.[193]
AI and Our Relationship with God
104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee
and develop the world’s resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these
resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is
optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a
hypothetical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring
about unimaginable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI could achieve
superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a
connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of
meaning or fulfillment—longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion
with God.[194]
105. However, the presumption of substituting
God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture
explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1-5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove
even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that “have mouths
but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear” (Ps. 115:5-6), AI
can “speak,” or at least gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet,
it is vital to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity—it is
crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human
input, and sustained through human labor. AI cannot possess many of the
capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI
as a perceived “Other” greater than itself, with which to share existence and
responsibilities, humanity risks creating a substitute for God. However, it is
not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself—which, in
this way, becomes enslaved to its own work.[195]
106. While AI has the potential to serve humanity
and contribute to the common good, it remains a creation of human hands, bearing
“the imprint of human art and ingenuity” (Acts 17:29). It must never be ascribed
undue worth. As the Book of Wisdom affirms: “For a man made them, and one whose
spirit is borrowed formed them; for no man can form a god which is like himself.
He is mortal, and what he makes with lawless hands is dead, for he is better
than the objects he worships since he has life, but they never have” (Wis.
15:16-17).
107. In contrast, human beings, “by their interior
life, transcend the entire material universe; they experience this deep
interiority when they enter into their own heart, where God, who probes the
heart, awaits them, and where they decide their own destiny in the sight of
God.”[196] It is within the
heart, as Pope Francis reminds us, that each individual discovers the
“mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others, between
the encounter with one’s personal uniqueness and the willingness to give oneself
to others.”[197] Therefore, it is
the heart alone that is “capable of setting our other powers and passions, and
our entire person, in a stance of reverence and loving obedience before the
Lord,”[198] who “offers to treat
each one of us as a ‘Thou,’ always and forever.”[199]
VI. Concluding Reflections
108. Considering the various challenges posed by
advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in “human
responsibility, values, and conscience,” proportionate to the growth in the
potential that this technology brings[200]—recognizing that “with an increase in human power comes a broadening of
responsibility on the part of individuals and communities.”[201]
109. At the same time, the “essential and
fundamental question” remains “whether in the context of this progress man, as
man, is becoming truly better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more
aware of the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more open to others,
especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all.”[202]
110. As a result, it is crucial to know how to
evaluate individual applications of AI in particular contexts to determine
whether its use promotes human dignity, the vocation of the human person, and
the common good. As with many technologies, the effects of the various uses of
AI may not always be predictable from their inception. As these applications and
their social impacts become clearer, appropriate responses should be made at all
levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users,
families, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and
international organizations should work at their proper levels to ensure that AI
is used for the good of all.
111. A significant challenge and opportunity for
the common good today lies in considering AI within a framework of relational
intelligence, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and
communities and highlights our shared responsibility for fostering the integral
well-being of others. The twentieth-century philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev
observed that people often blame machines for personal and social problems;
however, “this only humiliates man and does not correspond to his dignity,” for
“it is unworthy to transfer responsibility from man to a machine.”[203]
Only the human person can be morally responsible, and the challenges of a
technological society are ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore,
facing those challenges “demands an intensification of spirituality.”[204]
112. A further point to consider is the call,
prompted by the appearance of AI on the world stage, for a renewed
appreciation of all that is human. Years ago, the
French Catholic author Georges Bernanos warned that “the danger is not in the
multiplication of machines, but in the ever-increasing number of men accustomed
from their childhood to desire only what machines can give.”[205]
This challenge is as true today as it was then, as the rapid pace of
digitization risks a “digital reductionism,” where non-quantifiable aspects of
life are set aside and then forgotten or even deemed irrelevant because they
cannot be computed in formal terms. AI should be used only as a tool to
complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness.[206] Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend computation is
crucial for preserving “an authentic humanity” that “seems to dwell in the midst
of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently
beneath a closed door.”[207]
True Wisdom
113. The vast expanse of the world’s knowledge is
now accessible in ways that would have filled past generations with awe.
However, to ensure that advancements in knowledge do not become humanly or
spiritually barren, one must go beyond the mere accumulation of data and strive
to achieve true wisdom.[208]
114. This wisdom is the gift that humanity needs
most to address the profound questions and ethical challenges posed by AI: “Only
by adopting a spiritual way of viewing reality, only by recovering a wisdom of
the heart, can we confront and interpret the newness of our time.”[209] Such “wisdom of the heart” is “the virtue that enables us to integrate the
whole and its parts, our decisions and their consequences.” It “cannot be sought
from machines,” but it “lets itself be found by those who seek it and be seen by
those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it, and it goes in search of
those who are worthy of it (cf. Wis 6:12-16).”[210]
115. In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of
the Holy Spirit, who “enables us to look at things with God’s eyes, to see
connections, situations, events and to uncover their real meaning.”[211]
116. Since a “person’s perfection is measured not
by the information or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their
charity,”[212] how we incorporate AI “to include the least of our brothers and sisters,
the vulnerable, and those most in need, will be the true measure of our
humanity.”[213] The “wisdom of the heart” can illuminate and guide the human-centered use
of this technology to help promote the common good, care for our “common home,”
advance the search for the truth, foster integral human development, favor human
solidarity and fraternity, and lead humanity to its ultimate goal: happiness and
full communion with God.[214]
117. From this perspective of wisdom, believers
will be able to act as moral agents capable of using this technology to promote
an authentic vision of the human person and society.[215] This should be done with the understanding that technological progress is
part of God’s plan for creation—an activity that we are called to order toward
the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and
the Good.
The Supreme Pontiff, Francis, at the Audience granted on 14 January 2025 to the
undersigned Prefects and Secretaries of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, approved this Note and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the offices of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and
the Dicastery for Culture and Education, on 28 January 2025, the Liturgical
Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.
Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect |
José Card. Tolentino de Mendonça
Prefect |
|
|
Msgr. Armando Matteo
Secretary, Doctrinal Section |
Most Rev. Paul Tighe
Secretary, Culture Section |
Ex audientia die 14 ianuarii 2025
Franciscus
Contents
I. Introduction
II. What is Artificial Intelligence?
III. Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition
Rationality
Embodiment
Relationality
Relationship with the Truth
Stewardship of the World
An Integral Understanding of Human Intelligence
The Limits of AI
IV. The Role of Ethics in Guiding the Development and Use of AI
Helping Human Freedom and Decision-Making
V. Specific Questions
AI and Society
AI and Human Relationships
AI, the Economy, and Labor
AI and Healthcare
AI and Education
AI, Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Abuse
AI, Privacy, and Surveillance
AI and the Protection of Our Common Home
AI and Warfare
AI and Our Relationship with God
VI. Concluding Reflections
True Wisdom
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378. See also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS
58 (1966), 1052-1053.
[4] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS
58 (1966), 1053.
[5] J. McCarthy, et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research
Project on Artificial Intelligence” (31 August 1955),
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed: 21 October 2024).
[7] Terms in this document describing the outputs or processes of AI are used
figuratively to explain its operations and are not intended to anthropomorphize
the machine.
[9] Here, one can see the primary positions of the “transhumanists” and the
“posthumanists.” Transhumanists argue that technological advancements
will enable humans to overcome their biological limitations and enhance both
their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand,
contend that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the extent
that humanity itself may no longer be considered truly “human.” Both views rest
on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which treats the
body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the person’s identity and
call to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent
with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine
scientific progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in “the person as
an inseparable unity of body and soul.” Thus, “dignity is also inherent in each
person’s body, which participates in its own way in being in imago Dei”
(Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
[10] This approach reflects a functionalist perspective, which reduces the
human mind to its functions and assumes that its functions can be entirely
quantified in physical or mathematical terms. However, even if a future AGI were
to appear truly intelligent, it would still remain functional in nature.
[11] Cf. A.M. Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Mind 59
(1950) 443-460.
[12] If “thinking” is attributed to machines, it must
be clarified that this refers to calculative thinking rather than critical
thinking. Similarly, if machines are said to operate using logical thinking, it
must be specified that this is limited to computational logic. On the other
hand, by its very nature, human thought is a creative process that eludes
programming and transcends constraints.
[13] On the foundational role of language in shaping understanding, cf. M. Heidegger,
Über den Humanismus, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1949 (en. tr. “Letter
on Humanism,” in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Routledge, London ‒
New York 2010, 141-182).
[14] For further discussion of these anthropological and theological
foundations, see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture
and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and
Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial
Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds.,
Journal of Moral Theology, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 43-144.
[15] Aristotle, Metaphysics, I.1, 980 a 21.
[16] Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram III, 20, 30: PL 34, 292: “Man is
made in the image of God in relation to that [faculty] by which he is superior
to the irrational animals. Now, this [faculty] is reason itself, or the ‘mind,’
or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it may more suitably be given”; Id.,
Enarrationes in Psalmos 54, 3: PL 36, 629: “When considering all that
they have, humans discover that they are most distinguished from animals
precisely by the fact they possess intelligence.” This is also reiterated by
Saint Thomas Aquinas, who states that “man is the most perfect of all earthly
beings endowed with motion, and his proper and natural operation is
intellection,” by which man abstracts from things and “receives in his mind
things actually intelligible” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II,
76).
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966), 1036.
[18] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad 3. Cf. ibid.,
I, q. 79; II-II, q. 47, a. 3; II-II, q. 49, a. 2. For a contemporary perspective
that echoes elements of the classical and medieval distinction between these two
modes of cognition, cf. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York
2011.
[19] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1, resp.
[20] Cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, V, 6, 1: PG 7(2),
1136-1138.
[21] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 9. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti
(3 October 2020), par. 213: AAS 112 (2020), 1045: “The intellect can
investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue,
and come to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain
universal moral demands.”
[23] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 365. Cf. Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 4, resp.
[25] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 22: AAS 58 (1966), 1042: Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 7: AAS 100
(2008), 863: “Christ did not disdain human bodiliness, but instead fully
disclosed its meaning and value.”
[26] Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 81.
[27] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966), 1036.
[28] Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 89, a. 1, resp.: “to be
separated from the body is not in accordance with [the soul’s] nature […] and
hence it is united to the body in order that it may have an existence and an
operation suitable to its nature.”
[29] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966), 1035. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 18.
[31] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), pars. 5, 8; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 15, 24, 53-54.
[32] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 356. Cf. ibid., par.
221.
[33] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 13, 26-27.
[34] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction
Donum Veritatis
(24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990), 1552. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical
Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), par. 109: AAS 85 (1993), 1219.
Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, VII, 2: PG 3, 868B-C: “Human
souls also possess reason and with it they circle in discourse around the truth
of things. […] [O]n account of the manner in which they are capable of
concentrating the many into the one, they too, in their own fashion and as far
as they can, are worthy of conceptions like those of the angels” (en. tr.
Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, Paulist Press, New York – Mahwah 1987,
106-107).
[35] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998),
par. 3: AAS 91 (1999), 7.
[36] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 15: AAS 58 (1966), 1036.
[37] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998),
par. 42: AAS 91 (1999), 38. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 208: AAS 112 (2020), 1043: “the human
mind is capable of transcending immediate concerns and grasping certain truths
that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature,
reason discovers universal values derived from that same nature”; ibid.,
par. 184: AAS 112 (2020), 1034.
[38] Cf. B. Pascal, Pensées, no. 267 (ed. Brunschvicg): “The last
proceeding of reason is to recognize that there is an infinity of things which
are beyond it” (en. tr. Pascal’s Pensées, E.P. Dutton, New York 1958,
77).
[40] Our semantic capacity allows us to understand messages in any form
of communication in a manner that both takes into account and transcends their
material or empirical structures (such as computer code). Here, intelligence
becomes a wisdom that “enables us to look at things with God’s eyes, to see
connections, situations, events and to uncover their real meaning” (Francis,
Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications
[24 January 2024]:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8). Our creativity enables
us to generate new content or ideas, primarily by offering an original viewpoint
on reality. Both capacities depend on the existence of a personal subjectivity
for their full realization.
[41] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration
Dignitatis Humanae
(7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966), 931.
[42] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020),
par. 184: AAS 112 (2020), 1034: “Charity, when accompanied by a
commitment to the truth, is much more than personal feeling […]. Indeed, its
close relation to truth fosters its universality and preserves it from being
‘confined to a narrow field devoid of relationships.’ […] Charity’s openness to
truth thus protects it from ‘a fideism that deprives it of its human and
universal breadth.’” The internal quotes are from Benedict XVI, Encyclical
Letter
Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), pars. 2-4: AAS 101
(2009), 642-643.
[45] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998),
par. 13: AAS 91 (1999), 15.
[46] Bonaventure, In II Librum Sententiarum, d. I, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1; as
quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 293. Cf. ibid.,
par. 294.
[47] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 295, 299, 302.
Bonaventure likens the universe to “a book reflecting, representing, and
describing its Maker,” the Triune God who grants existence to all things (Breviloquium
2.12.1). Cf. Alain de Lille, De Incarnatione Christi, PL 210, 579a: “Omnis
mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est et speculum.”
[48] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 67:
AAS 107 (2015), 874; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981), 589-592; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34:
AAS 58 (1966), 1052-1053; International Theological Commission,
Communion and Stewardship: Human
Persons Created in the Image of God (2004),
par. 57: “human beings occupy a unique place in the universe according to the
divine plan: they enjoy the privilege of sharing in the divine governance of
visible creation. […] Since man’s place as ruler is in fact a participation in
the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of
stewardship.”
[49] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendor (6 August
1993), pars. 38-39: AAS 85 (1993), 1164-1165.
[50] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 33-34: AAS 58 (1966), 1052-1053. This
idea is also reflected in the creation account, where God brings creatures to
Adam “to see what he would call them. And whatever [he] called every living
creature, that was its name” (Gen. 2:19), an action that demonstrates the active
engagement of human intelligence in the stewardship of God’s creation. Cf. John Chrysostom,
Homiliae in Genesim, XIV, 17-21: PG 53, 116-117.
[51] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 301.
[52] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 302.
[53] Bonaventure, Breviloquium 2.12.1. Cf. ibid., 2.11.2.
[57] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Querida Amazonia (2
February 2020), par. 41: AAS 112 (2020), 246; Id., Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 146: AAS 107 (2015), 906.
[58] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 47:
AAS 107 (2015), 864. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24
October 2024), pars. 17-24: L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5; Id.,
Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 47-50: AAS
112 (2020), 985-987.
[59] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 20:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[60] P. Claudel, Conversation sur Jean Racine, Gallimard, Paris 1956,
32: “L’intelligence n’est rien sans la délectation.” Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 13:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5: “The mind and the will are put
at the service of the greater good by sensing and savoring truths.”
[61] Dante, Paradiso, Canto XXX: “luce intellettüal, piena d’amore; /
amor di vero ben, pien di letizia; / letizia che trascende ogne dolzore”
(en. tr. The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, C.E. Norton, tr., Houghton
Mifflin, Boston 1920, 232).
[62] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration
Dignitatis Humanae
(7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966), 931: “[T]he highest norm of
human life is the divine law itself—eternal, objective and universal, by which
God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the ways of the human
community according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has enabled
man to participate in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of
divine providence, many may be able to arrive at a deeper and deeper knowledge
of unchangeable truth.” Also cf. Id., Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966), 1037.
[63] Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution
Dei Filius (24
April 1870), ch. 4, DH 3016.
[64] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110:
AAS 107 (2015), 892.
[65] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 110:
AAS 107 (2015), 891. Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3
October 2020), par. 204: AAS 112 (2020), 1042.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991),
par. 11: AAS 83 (1991), 807: “God has imprinted his own image and
likeness on man (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable dignity […].
In effect, beyond the rights which man acquires by his own work, there exist
rights which do not correspond to any work he performs, but which flow from his
essential dignity as a person.” Cf. Francis,
Address at the G7 Session on
Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 3-4.
[67] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 8. Cf. ibid., par. 9; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), par. 22.
[70] In this sense, “Artificial Intelligence” is understood as a technical term
to indicate this technology, recalling that the expression is also used to
designate the field of study and not only its applications.
[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 34-35: AAS 58 (1966), 1052-1053; John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 51: AAS 83
(1991), 856-857.
[72] For example, see the encouragement of scientific exploration in Albertus Magnus
(De Mineralibus, II, 2, 1) and the appreciation for the mechanical arts
in Hugh of St. Victor (Didascalicon, I, 9). These writers, among a long
list of other Catholics engaged in scientific research and technological
exploration, illustrate that “faith and science can be united in charity,
provided that science is put at the service of the men and woman of our time and
not misused to harm or even destroy them” (Francis, Address to Participants
in the 2024 Lemaître Conference of the Vatican Observatory [20 June 2024]:
L’Osservatore Romano, 20 June 2024, 8). Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 36: AAS
58 (1966), 1053-1054; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio
(14 September 1998), pars. 2, 106: AAS 91 (1999), 6-7.86-87.
[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378.
[74] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966), 1053.
[75] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35: AAS 58 (1966), 1053.
[76] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 102:
AAS 107 (2015), 888.
[77] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105:
AAS 107 (2015), 889; Id., Encyclical
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 27: AAS 112 (2020), 978; Benedict XVI,
Encyclical
Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 23: AAS 101
(2009), 657-658.
[78] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), pars. 38-39, 47; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction
Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008), passim.
[79] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 35:
AAS 58 (1966), 1053. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2293.
[81] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1749: “Freedom makes man
a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of
his acts.”
[82] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 16: AAS 58 (1966), 1037. Cf.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1776.
[83] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1777.
[84] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 1779-1781; Francis,
Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues” (27 March 2023):
AAS 115 (2023), 463, where the Holy Father encouraged efforts “to ensure
that technology remains human-centered, ethically grounded and directed toward
the good.”
[85] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020),
par. 166: AAS 112 (2020), 1026-1027; Id.,
Address to the Plenary
Assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (23 September 2024): L’Osservatore
Romano, 23 September 2024, 10. On the role of human agency in choosing a
wider aim (Ziel) that then informs the particular purpose (Zweck)
for which each technological application is created, cf. F. Dessauer, Streit
um die Technik, Herder-Bücherei, Freiburg i. Br. 1959, 70-71.
[86] Cf. Francis,
Address at the G7 Session on
Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 4:
“Technology is born for a purpose and, in its impact on human society, always
represents a form of order in social relations and an arrangement of power, thus
enabling certain people to perform specific actions while preventing others from
performing different ones. In a more or less explicit way, this constitutive
power-dimension of technology always includes the worldview of those who
invented and developed it.”
[91] Cf. Francis,
Address at the G7 Session on
Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2:
“Faced with the marvels of machines, which seem to know how to choose
independently, we should be very clear that decision-making […] must always be
left to the human person. We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if
we took away people’s ability to make decisions about themselves and their
lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines.”
[93] The term “bias” in this document refers to algorithmic bias
(systematic and consistent errors in computer systems that may
disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended ways) or learning
bias (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the “bias
vector” in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output
of “neurons” to adjust more accurately to the data).
[94] Cf. Francis,
Address to the Participants in the “Minerva Dialogues”
(27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023), 464, where the Holy Father affirmed the
growth in consensus “on the need for development processes to respect such
values as inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability,”
and also welcomed “the efforts of international organizations to regulate these
technologies so that they promote genuine progress, contributing, that is, to a
better world and an integrally higher quality of life.”
[96] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par.
26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.
[98] Cf. Francis,
Message for the LVIII World Day of Social Communications
(24 January 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2024, 8. For further
discussion of the ethical questions raised by AI from a Catholic perspective,
see AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture of the Dicastery for Culture
and Education, Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical and
Anthropological Investigations (Theological Investigations of Artificial
Intelligence 1), M.J. Gaudet, N. Herzfeld, P. Scherz, J.J. Wales, eds.,
Journal of Moral Theology, Pickwick, Eugene 2024, 147-253.
[99] On the importance of dialogue in a pluralist society oriented toward a
“robust and solid social ethics,” see Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 211-214: AAS 112 (2020), 1044-1045.
[102] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112:
AAS 107 (2015), 892-893.
[106] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 105-114:
AAS 107 (2015), 889-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation
Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), pars. 20-33: AAS 115 (2023), 1047-1050.
[107] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107
(2015), 889. Cf. Id., Apostolic Exhortation
Laudate Deum (4 October
2023), pars. 20-21: AAS 115 (2023), 1047.
[110] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS 107
(2015), 892.
[111] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020),
pars. 101, 103, 111, 115, 167: AAS 112 (2020), 1004-1005, 1007-1009,
1027.
[112] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047; cf. Leo XIII,
Encyclical Letter
Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 35: Acta Leonis
XIII, 11 (1892), 123.
[113] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 12: AAS 58 (1966), 1034.
[114] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social
Doctrine of the Church (2004), par. 149.
[115] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration
Dignitatis Humanae
(7 December 1965), par. 3: AAS 58 (1966), 931. Cf. Francis, Encyclical
Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020),
986-987.
[116] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par.
50: AAS 112 (2020), 986-987.
[117] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 47: AAS 107
(2015), 865. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Exhortation
Christus Vivit (25 March
2019), pars. 88-89: AAS 111 (2019), 413-414.
[119] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par.
47: AAS 112 (2020), 985.
[121] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020),
par. 50: AAS 112 (2020), 986-987.
[122] Cf. E. Stein,
Zum Problem der Einfühlung, Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses, Halle 1917 (en. tr. On the Problem of Empathy, ICS Publications, Washington D.C.
1989).
[123] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium (24 November
2013), par. 88: AAS 105 (2013), 1057: “[Many people] want their
interpersonal relationships provided by sophisticated equipment, by screens and
systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the Gospel tells
us constantly to run the risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with
their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas,
with their joy which infects us in our close and continuous interaction. True
faith in the incarnate Son of God is inseparable from self-giving, from
membership in the community, from service, from reconciliation with others.”
Also cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966), 1044-1045.
[129] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 26:
AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.; as quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church,
par. 1912. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter
Mater et Magistra (15 May
1961), par. 219: AAS 53 (1961), 453.
[130] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par 64: AAS
58 (1966), 1086.
[131] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 162: AAS
112 (2020), 1025. Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), par. 6: AAS 73 (1981), 591: “work is ‘for man’ and
not man ‘for work.’ Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the
pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one.”
[132] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 128: AAS 107
(2015), 898. Cf. Id., Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 24: AAS 108 (2016), 319-320.
[141] Francis, Address to the Participants at the Meeting Sponsored by the
Charity and Health Commission of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (10
February 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 243. Cf. ibid., 242-243: “If there
is a sector in which the throwaway culture is manifest, with its painful
consequences, it is that of healthcare. When a sick person is not placed in the
center or their dignity is not considered, this gives rise to attitudes that can
lead even to speculation on the misfortune of others. And this is very grave!
[…] The application of a business approach to the healthcare sector, if
indiscriminate […] may risk discarding human beings.”
[144] Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on the Use of Distance Learning in Ecclesiastical Universities
and Faculties, I. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration
Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965), par. 1: AAS 58 (1966),
729; Francis,
Message for the LXIX World Day of Peace (1 January 2016),
6: AAS 108 (2016), 57-58.
[146] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975),
par. 41: AAS 68 (1976), 31, quoting Id., Address to the Members of the
“Consilium de Laicis” (2 October 1974): AAS 66 (1974), 568: “if [the
contemporary person] does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses.”
[147] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse
6.1, London 18733, 125-126.
[150] J.H. Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, Discourse
7.6, Basil Montagu Pickering, London 18733, 167.
[151] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Christus Vivit (25 March
2019), par. 88: AAS 111 (2019), 413.
[152] In a 2023 policy document about the use of generative AI in education and
research, UNESCO notes: “One of the key questions [of the use of generative AI
(GenAI) in education and research] is whether humans can possibly cede basic
levels of thinking and skill-acquisition processes to AI and rather concentrate
on higher-order thinking skills based on the outputs provided by AI. Writing,
for example, is often associated with the structuring of thinking. With GenAI
[…], humans can now start with a well-structured outline provided by GenAI. Some
experts have characterized the use of GenAI to generate text in this way as
‘writing without thinking’” (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education
and Research [2023], 37-38). The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt
foresaw such a possibility in her 1959 book, The Human Condition, and
cautioned: “If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the sense of
know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become
the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how” (Id.,
The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 20182,
3).
[153] Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016),
par. 262: AAS 108 (2016), 417.
[158] For example, it might help people access the “array of resources for
generating greater knowledge of truth” contained in the works of philosophy (John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio [14 September 1998], par. 3: AAS
91 [1999], 7). Cf. ibid., par. 4: AAS 91 (1999), 7-8.
[159] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (8 April 2024), par. 43. Cf. ibid., pars. 61-62.
[161] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par 25: AAS
58 (1966), 1053; cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3
October 2020), passim: AAS 112 (2020), 969-1074.
[162] Cf. Francis., Post-Synodal Exhortation
Christus Vivit (25 March
2019), par. 89: AAS 111 (2019), 414; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), par. 25: AAS 91 (1999), 25-26:
“People cannot be genuinely indifferent to the question of whether what they
know is true or not. […] It is this that Saint Augustine teaches when he writes:
‘I have met many who wanted to deceive, but none who wanted to be deceived’”;
quoting Augustine, Confessiones, X, 23, 33: PL 32, 794.
[166] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita
(4 April 2024), pars. 1, 6, 16, 24.
[167] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes, (7 December 1965), par. 26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046. Cf. Leo XIII,
Encyclical Letter
Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), par. 40: Acta Leonis
XIII, 11 (1892), 127: “no man may with impunity violate that human
dignity which God himself treats with great reverence”; as quoted in John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), par. 9: AAS 83
(1991), 804.
[169] Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations,
Holy See Statement to the Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Measures and
International Security (24 October 2022): “Upholding human dignity in
cyberspace obliges States to also respect the right to privacy, by shielding
citizens from intrusive surveillance and allowing them to safeguard their
personal information from unauthorized access.”
[170] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par.
42: AAS 112 (2020), 984.
[173] The 2023 Interim Report of the United Nations AI Advisory Body
identified a list of “early promises of AI helping to address climate
change” (United Nations AI Advisory Body, Interim Report: Governing AI for
Humanity [December 2023], 3). The document observed that, “taken together
with predictive systems that can transform data into insights and insights into
actions, AI-enabled tools may help develop new strategies and investments to
reduce emissions, influence new private sector investments in net zero, protect
biodiversity, and build broad-based social resilience” (ibid.).
[174] “The cloud” refers to a network of physical servers throughout the world
that enables users to store, process, and manage their data remotely.
[175] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 9:
AAS 107 (2015), 850.
[176] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 106:
AAS 107 (2015), 890.
[177] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 60:
AAS 107 (2015), 870.
[178] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), pars. 3, 13:
AAS 107 (2015), 848.852.
[179] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, 13, 1: PL 41, 640.
[180] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 77-82: AAS 58 (1966), 1100-1107; Francis,
Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), pars. 256-262:
AAS 112 (2020), 1060-1063; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Declaration
Dignitas
Infinita (4 April 2024), pars. 38-39; Catechism of
the Catholic Church, pars. 2302-2317.
[181] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 78: AAS 58 (1966), 1101.
[183] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, pars. 2308-2310.
[184] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), pars. 80-81: AAS 58 (1966), 1103-1105.
[186] Francis,
Address at the G7 Session on
Artificial Intelligence in Borgo Egnazia (Puglia) (14 June 2024): L’Osservatore Romano, 14 June 2024, 2. Cf. Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations,
Holy See Statement to Working Group II on Emerging Technologies at the UN
Disarmament Commission (3 April 2024): “The development and use of lethal
autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) that lack the appropriate human control would
pose fundamental ethical concerns, given that LAWS can never be morally
responsible subjects capable of complying with international humanitarian law.”
[187] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 258:
AAS 112 (2020), 1061. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral
Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58
(1966), 1103-1104.
[188] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 80: AAS 58 (1966), 1103-1104.
[189] Cf. Francis,
Message for the LVII World Day of
Peace (1 January
2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3:
“Nor can we ignore the possibility of sophisticated weapons ending up in the
wrong hands, facilitating, for instance, terrorist attacks or interventions
aimed at destabilizing the institutions of legitimate systems of government. In
a word, the world does not need new technologies that contribute to the unjust
development of commerce and the weapons trade and consequently end up promoting
the folly of war.”
[191] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 79:
AAS 107 (2015), 878.
[194] Cf. Augustine, Confessiones, I, 1, 1: PL 32, 661.
[195] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30
December 1987), par. 28: AAS 80 (1988), 548: “[T]here is a better
understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and services […] is not
enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the
availability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science and
technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every form of
slavery. On the contrary, […] unless all the considerable body of resources and
potential at man’s disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an
orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against man
to oppress him.” Cf. ibid., pars. 29, 37: AAS 80 (1988),
550-551.563-564.
[196] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 14: AAS 58 (1966), 1036.
[197] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 18:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5.
[198] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 27:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 6.
[199] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), par. 25:
L’Osservatore Romano, 24 October 2024, 5-6.
[200] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 105: AAS 107
(2015), 889. Cf. R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 19659,
87 ff. (en. tr. The End of the Modern World, Wilmington 1998, 82-83).
[201] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes (7 December 1965), par. 34: AAS 58 (1966), 1053.
[203] N. Berdyaev, “Man and Machine,” in C. Mitcham – R. Mackey, eds.,
Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology,
New York 19832, 212-213.
[204] N. Berdyaev, “Man and Machine,” 210.
[205] G. Bernanos, “La révolution de la liberté” (1944), in Id., Le Chemin de
la Croix-des-Âmes, Rocher 1987, 829.
[207] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112:
AAS 107 (2015), 892-893.
[208] Cf. Bonaventure, Hex. XIX, 3; Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 50: AAS 112 (2020), 986: “The
flood of information at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom
is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified
data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with truth.”
[213] Francis,
Message for the LVII World Day of
Peace (1 January 2024), par. 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14 December 2023, 3.
Cf. Id., Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112: AAS
107 (2015), 892-893; Id., Apostolic Exhortation
Gaudete et Exsultate
(19 March 2018), par. 46: AAS 110 (2018), 1123-1124.
[214] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter
Laudato Si’ (24 May 2015), par. 112:
AAS 107 (2015), 892-893.
|