From the joint work of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, with the date of the liturgical memory of St. Thomas Aquinas, January 28, “Antiqua et nova. Notes on the Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence.” The document is somewhat different in nature from the notes that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has accustomed us to receiving in recent decades. The purpose of the document is not, as it has been on various occasions, to clarify doctrinal errors, to review practices contrary to the Catholic faith, to reaffirm truths of faith and morals that the social and cultural context casts doubt on, hinders or simply overrides. Here is a text whose primary purpose is to orient believers and non-believers on what AI is and how it can be used to contribute to human progress while respecting the dignity of the human person.
The general framework of the Document is that of a Christian anthropology and a vision of technological progress according to biblical revelation; however, the reflections developed and the arguments there offered flow into a broadly shared ethic. This is shown, for example, by the striking similarity between several of the ethical principles proposed by the Document and the recommendations on AI developed in recent years by major international institutions, such as the Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, published by UNESCO in 2021 and 2023, respectively, or the reflections Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development, published by the United Nations General Assembly in March 2024. The essential lines developed by these two documents were already present in nuce in the concise Asilomar AI Principles, published in 2017.
The early interest of Francis' pontificate in artificial intelligence had not escaped anyone's notice. Although he favored social and environmental issues, he was also able to wisely address some specific scientific issues, knowing how to grasp their implications for the development of peoples, the care of the planet, the defense of the weakest, and peace. This same perspective is also evident in the present document of the two Dicasteries of the Holy See: since AI enhances and expands human action and, to some extent, is trained to increase its operational efficiency, it must be oriented towards truth, goodness and the development of all, like any other human moral action. In 2024 Pope Francis explicitly dedicated three major speeches to artificial intelligence. The first, delivered on January 1 on the occasion of the World Day of Peace, was entitled Artificial Intelligence and Peace. A few days later, on January 24, he dedicated the speech he gave on the occasion of the World Day of Social Communications to the same topic, with the very illustrative title Artificial Intelligence and the Wisdom of the Heart: for a fully human communication. Finally, his speech last June 14 in Borgo Egnazia, Puglia, for the G7 Meeting on Artificial Intelligence, where Francis had gone at the invitation of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, had received wide media coverage. Significant references to AI were also included in speeches given on March 27, 2023 to participants in the "Minerva dialogues" meeting sponsored by the Dicastery for Culture and Education; on February 28, 2020 to the plenary session of the Academy of Life; and finally in September 2019 to participants in the seminar "The Common Good in the Digital Age," sponsored by the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Development and the Pontifical Council for Culture.
The Note Antiqua et Nova builds on all these papal interventions and attempts to gather their contents in an organic way, reading them in the furrow of Pope Francis' concern for a development that leaves no one behind, already well traced in the encyclicals Laudato si' (2015) and Fratelli tutti (2020). If we wish to summarize in a few ideas the essential content of the Note (which does not preclude reading it in its entirety), we could distill it as follows.
AI and human intelligence are fundamentally different, and the former can never replace the latter; it is the human person and his or her free choices that are the moral agent of what AI accomplishes, causes, or implies: the latter does not pursue ends of its own, but carries out the intentional ends assigned to it by the human being, even if AI chooses for itself new ways to achieve them; like any other moral action, AI applications must be in accord with the dignity of the human person, his or her integral fulfillment, and for this reason be oriented toward truth and goodness. AI is an extraordinary means that enhances our cognitive and operational capacities, but it is still a means: it is the product of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God. From this perspective, efforts to design and wisely use AI systems are part of the task of improving the human condition: human beings have received a vocation from God to cooperate with the divine plan over creation, to lead creation toward its fulfillment through human labor. Scientific and technological progress also fully participates in this task and plan. Such progress involves everyone: AI, like any other human work, must contribute to the solidary and fraternal development of peoples, without creating divisions or discrimination, leaving no one behind, and favoring all, especially those most in need. In order to guide the correct use of AI in its many fields of application, the Catholic Church proposes common principles that are, for the most part, in line with the recommendations formulated in the field of ethics by important International Institutions. The vision of AI that emerges from this Document is therefore balanced, always referring to the human being, but attentive to distinguish AI from humans. The technology that gives rise to AI is placed in the context of man's task to improve society, to guide the history of the world towards the good and with respect for the truth.
So much for the Document’s guiding ideas. But what can we say about its structure and its judgments on the most debated issues? I will try to highlight, as far as I can, the elements that I consider most important.
The two chapters that immediately follow the Introduction (Ch. I), entitled "What is Artificial Intelligence?" (Ch.
II) and "Intelligence in the Philosophical and Theological Tradition" (Ch. III) lay the foundation on which Antiqua et Nova will develop its subsequent arguments. Emphasizing the difference between human intelligence and so-called artificial intelligence—an expression that the Note, echoing a statement by Francis, calls misleading (cf. no. 35)—is by no means superfluous. The intense pace of our lives, which constantly forces us to make quick and pragmatic choices, as well as our established habit of delegating many of our decisions to machines—which ultimately changes the way we deal with problems and evaluate (or fail to evaluate) their consequences—make it necessary today to clarify this distinction. "AI's advanced features," the Document says, "give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think. This distinction is crucially important, as the way ‘intelligence’ is defined inevitably shapes how we understand the relationship between human thought and this technology." (no. 12). Artificial intelligence is thus framed in terms of means, not ends. It is a tool with extraordinary capabilities, destined to grow considerably, but still a tool. From this point of view, the difference between human intelligence and so-called artificial intelligence remains one of substance, not of degree. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become clear.
“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.” (no. 30; cf. nos. 31-32). Performing certain tasks and analyses far better than humans—which AI already does and will increasingly do—does not overtake human intelligence rendering it obsolete, any more than a high-speed train that moves us much faster than we could move with our legs does render obsolete the need for someone to decide where the train should go and which cities it should connect. So, unlike ‘artificial’ intelligence, human intelligence is embodied intelligence. The growth of the human brain, and the intelligence that humans develop as a result, is shaped by embodied experiences, sensory inputs, emotional responses, and social interactions whose context is unique and unrepeatable: all of these experiences shape and form the individual in his or her personal history (cf. no. 31).
“A proper understanding of human intelligence,” we read in Antiqua et nova, “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. 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. [...].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.” (n. 29).
As the very title of this note, which is intended to be an in-depth study of the relationship between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, suggests, one of the positive results of the current debate on so-called AI is (and will be) precisely to bring out the specificity and uniqueness of human intelligence and, consequently, the uniqueness of the human creature in the landscape of creation and in the context of the technology that the human beings produce with their freedom and rationality.
“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.” (no. 33).
Once the differences to human intelligence have been clarified, Antiqua et Nova enters more specifically into the ‘ethical question,’ which is addressed in Ch. IV "The Role of Ethics in Guiding the Development and Use of AI." Because only human beings are subjects of freedom and self-determination, AI does not determine the ends of its operation; these are assigned to it by those who design, build, and develop it. This is true even when AI is programmed to learn from its environment or its mistakes, to explore new paths or offer novel solutions. “It is essential to emphasize-the Note immediately points out-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.” (no. 39).
Ethical principles apply to human behavior because that is what ultimately determines how machines should operate, even if they will make some decisions for themselves. The ethical dimension, then, concerns only the human operation, its intelligence, will, and freedom. Indeed, “technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users and regulators, and by their power they shape the world and engage consciences on the plane of values.” (no. 41). In line with what other international documents had already signaled, the Vatican Note also insists on accountability, that is, the ability to always associate with a human agent the specific path, executive or generative, that an AI system has taken. Every operation performed by an AI system must always be associated with accountability, not only in the sense of ‘accountability,’ but also in the sense that every operation requires ‘accountable use’ (cf. no. 48). Avoiding this responsibility, or allowing it to be unidentifiable, is already the result of a moral choice. “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.” (no. 44). Users of AI systems must also exercise their specific responsibility: “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.” (no. 46).
It is then possible to define a guiding principle for the use of AI. It could be formulated as follows: AI must always support and promote the supreme value of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation; this criterion concerns developers, owners, operators and regulators, as well as end users, and remains valid for any use of the technology at all levels of application (cf. no. 43). In essence, it requires that both “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.” (no. 42).
Chapter V, entitled “Specific Questions,” applies the previous ethical guidelines to some specific areas, which are offered in scanning. These cover virtually all areas in which human agency, both individual and community, is called upon to make decisions. The terrains range from the impact of AI on social life and interpersonal relationships (cf. nos. 50-63), to the significant influence of such technologies have on the economy and human work (cf. nos. 64-70); from the opportunities that AI makes possible today in the areas of public health (cf. nos. 71-76) to those that are being generated today in the fields of education and training (cf. nos. 77-84), both of which are presented by the Note in conjunction with important clarifications and appropriate distinctions. It then examines the use of AI in the media (nos. 85-89), in social security and the right to privacy (cf. nos. 90-94), and in our care for creation (cf. nos. 95-97).
There has been no shortage of reflection on the issues raised by AI in the context of warfare, conflict, and the use of weapons. Lethal autonomous weapons systems, it is argued, capable of identifying and attacking targets without direct human intervention, raise serious concerns because they lack the unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making. The horrific acts committed throughout human history are enough to raise deep concerns about the potential for the misuse of AI. In order to protect humanity from self-destruction, the Church, rooted in a commitment to peace, responsibility and the protection of innocent life, takes a firm stand against all applications of technology that threaten human existence and calls for careful discernment in the use of AI in defense applications in order to respect human dignity and the common good (cf. nos. 98-103).
Finally, of considerable interest are the reflections on how AI can also enter into the relationship between us and God the Creator, how AI systems can foster this relationship, hinder it, or even try to replace it (cf. nos. 104-107). Interesting in this regard is the decision in which the Document warns that the use of AI systems should not become an idolatry. “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). [...] 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.” (n. 105).
I think that one element of great interest in Antiqua et nova is the overall vision of technology that the note suggests. While not shying away from the risks and concerns that an inappropriate use of AI entails, the basic perspective with which the Document presents scientific-technological activity is undoubtedly positive. In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which had intelligently thematized the role of human activity and technological progress within the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, nos. 33-39), Antiqua et Nova has no difficulty in recognizing techno-scientific activity as a fruit of the spiritual dimension of the human being, an expression of the potentialities inscribed by God in human intelligence (cf. no. 37). This judgment is even expressed, with surprising clarity, in the Introduction: “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 [...]. 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.” (no. 2).
At the same time, the Church recognizes that not all technological progress is ipso facto human progress. The Church encourages the men and women of our time to develop technology that respects the transcendent dignity of human life and recalls that the design, implementation and use of AI systems, like all other human activities, must be ordered to the human person, aiming at greater justice, greater fraternity and a more humane order of social relations. In fact, Document's concern about the ethical implications of technological development is not limited to the Church, but is shared by many, including scientists, technologists and professional associations, who share the conviction that ethical reflection is necessary to guide progress in a responsible manner. (cf. no. 38). “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.” (no. 48).
Having chosen the option of a balanced view of technology as an expression of the spiritual dimension of man, of his mission to serve the community and to care for creation, it is not surprising that the Note of the two Dicasteries dwells on the many benefits of a wise and enlightened use of AI, and not only mentions its risks..
“AI—the Document states at no. 51, quoting former speeches delivered by Francis—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. 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.”
This does not exclude the need for vigilant attention of the part of all, especially those responsible for guiding
socio-political organization and transmitting education to others, so that the risks of the misuse of technology, which can lead to the marginalization of entire social classes or establish processes detrimental to the dignity of the human person, his or her security and full realization, are known, carefully evaluated and responsibly avoided. Such risks are evident to all in the field of information dissemination and in the field of relations between humans and AI artifacts, precisely because of the inherent characteristic of AI to mimic human intelligence, making the difference between human and non-human increasingly blurred. The need for such vigilance is made particularly explicit in No. 59 of the Document: “Because true wisdom demands an encounter with reality, 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. 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.”
We are at an important moment in our history, Antiqua et nova concludes. The questions raised by AI today force us to think critically about our relationship with technology (cf. no. 108). They also force us to rediscover the relational and communal dimension of human society, its interconnections, the mutual implications between the parts and the whole (cf. no. 110). Again, AI and its potentialities lead us to better reflect on what human intelligence is, its true nature and the richness of its dimensions, beyond any reductionism. Quoting Berdjaev and Bernanos, this leads to a better understanding of what it means for human beings to be created in the image and likeness of God, and of dignity and responsibility that this privilege entails (cf. nos. 111-112). Finally, in its conclusions, entitled “True Wisdom”, the Note states, once again quoting Pope Francis, that the human person is called to face this epochal change with an authentic wisdom of the heart: “Since a person's perfection is measured not by the information or knowledge they possess, but by the depth of their charity, 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. 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.” (no. 116).
There is a phrase that, in my opinion, could well sum up the clarifications and recommendations of the Nota Antiqua et nova on which I have briefly commented on here. It is the motto that Blessed Francesco Faà di Bruno (1825-1888)—a scientist, innovator, promoter of social works and Catholic priest, whose second centenary of birth falls this year—chose as his life program: “God, science, the poor.” Francis helped us understand that these three concepts can and should go well together. Recognizing their intimate relationship is a sign of human dignity; not separating them is a guarantee of authentic development.
G. Tanzella-Nitti
© 2025 Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.
