St. Peters Basilica, Italy. Image by Simone Savoldi via Unsplash.
Alexander Filipović is a German ethicist specialising in media and digital transformation. He is Professor of Social Ethics at the University of Vienna and a visiting scholar at the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Views are his own.
Antiqua et nova (Latin for "old and new") is a doctrinal note of the Catholic Church, jointly published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education in Rome in January 2025. It offers reflections on the ethical challenges posed by AI.
The subject of artificial intelligence (AI) has already been a topic of discussion for several years amongst the Pope and various Vatican authorities. The "Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence," published in January 2025 under the title Antiqua et nova, summarizes the various statements and presents an overall draft. It was sent by the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Culture and Education. This Note provides a thorough evaluation of the technology from a Christian-Catholic standpoint, though it is acknowledged that certain aspects may be lacking. Nonetheless, the paper can be regarded as beneficial and effective. The subsequent essay offers a commentary on the paper, emphasizing its salient points and providing a critical assessment.
Title, Structure, and Audience
The paper's title is derived from its assertion that it addresses artificial intelligence technologies "with wisdom both ancient and new" (paragraph no. 1). The philosophical and theological tradition is questioned in Chapter III with regard to the role of human intelligence as "old wisdom" and the appropriate ethical approach (in Chapter IV) as "new wisdom." The biblical passage used for the title (Mt 13:52) speaks first of the new (the message of Jesus) and then of the old (the Jewish-scriptural tradition), so the evangelist deliberately puts the new first. The present text, however, takes the traditional perspective as its point of departure, while the novel conditions are viewed through the lens of the past.
The paper's primary audience is identified as "those entrusted with transmitting the faith" (5), including parents, teachers, pastors, and bishops. However, the broader public is also targeted. The paper asserts its role as a contribution to the ongoing debate, and the style aligns with this objective.
Central Argument
The central argument of the paper is an examination of human intelligence in contrast to machine simulations of intelligence, culminating in an evaluation of AI. The paper sets out an integral and comprehensive anthropology, distancing itself from rationalistic, purely metaphysical, consciousness, philosophical, and individualistic reductions. Human existence is taken as the starting point in its entire spectrum: "spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational" (26). The concept of embodiment and relationality, intrinsic to the human condition, renders humans as the sole beings capable of comprehending and reflecting on reality in its totality (33). This assertion positions humans as beings of freedom, and consequently, as moral actors (39).
The extent to which the human being is delineated as a spiritual, physical, experiential, and relational entity is deemed successful in its avoidance of the aforementioned abbreviation. Consequently, it is subjected to critical scrutiny. Can bodies and relationships be considered independently of technologies? Are humans not always already intertwined with technologies that shape our understanding of reality? The paper is open to this view because it emphasizes the "openness of the human heart to truth and goodness," (33) as a decisive human characteristic, i.e. it perceives the encounter with reality as an experience-based process that is ordered towards truth. However, in its attempt to distinguish the human from the technical, the paper overlooks the fact that humans can only ever approach the true and the good with technologies and other tools of knowledge and cannot approach reality from a non-technical position.
Since the paper does not derive any hostility towards technology from its emphasis on the human, this is not particularly compelling, but one can gain a different perspective on artificial intelligence if one understands this technology as a means to pursue the true and the good. This perspective, if further elaborated, suggests that if truth possesses a relational character, then relationships with machines can facilitate our understanding of truth. While relationships with people can be categorized differently than relationships with machines, the reality is that our relationships with machines alter our perception of ourselves and the world. In this respect, ChatGPT represents only the beginning. If we adopt a relational concept of the human being (as outlined in Nos. 18-20), and this relationality has an effect on the human being and their view of themselves and the world, then the following questions must be addressed: which relations then play a role and in what way, and what design challenges follow from this? This question is currently being addressed in literature, film, and science and is a key question.
AI Reshapes our World
The text emphasizes that "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" (42). In this, the paper's position is correct: the central issue is the consequences of technology as it profoundly reshapes our world through the "overall vision" it embodies. It should be noted, however, that AI is also a tool that can be used in good and bad ways. This insight is not unique to AI, as it applies to other technological advances as well. The text calls for the establishment of governance mechanisms to regulate AI, emphasizing the responsibility of individuals and organizations at all levels of society to adhere to the principles of subsidiarity and the Church's social teaching. (42)
Regrettably, the text concludes here and fails to address the discourse on the global regulation of artificial intelligence, even in the section on "AI and Warfare" (98ff.). While the sections in the "Specific issues" portion, such as business and work, healthcare, education, disinformation, data protection, and ecology, are commendably clear and accessible, a political perspective and problematization of the transition from ethics to design are conspicuously absent. The text highlights "significant ethical concerns" regarding the current situation, noting that "the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises significant ethical concerns" (53). This observation is valid, yet the question remains: what actions can be taken to address this situation? How can we democratize AI and ensure its status as a public good? It is only through such measures that AI can genuinely contribute to the promotion of the common good on a global scale.
Conclusion
The paper is stimulating, employs a modern and sensitive anthropology for extended periods, and successfully navigates the intricacies of AI technologies. Primarily a socio-ethical paper, it merits extensive reading and discussion and can assist in formulating a judgment on AI. The Vatican's publication is indicative of its contemporary awareness and recognition of AI's profound future implications for all of humanity.
An abridged version of this article appeared on the website of the journal "Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift COMMUNIO" at https://www.herder.de/communio/gesellschaft/verdienste-und-grenzen-des-roemischen-schreibens-antiqua-et-nova-der-vatikan-aeussert-sich-ueber-kuenstliche-intelligenz/.