I also posed the following to it:
You state: "Let me know if you’d like to dive deeper into any of these aspects—or explore the Vatican’s guidance or existing Catholic AI initiatives further!" The real seeming dilemma for traditional minded Catholics is that they see Vatican II and its aftermath as turning the institutional Church and her praxis or pastoral approach absolutely upside down and all for the worse -- in ultimate terms for the faith and the salvation of souls. It wants to remain faithful to the Church, but to a Church that remains faithful to the faith! What are your thoughts?
ChatGPT said:That’s a very perceptive way of framing the tension. You’re touching on what’s probably the
core dilemma for traditional-minded Catholics when it comes to projects like a “Catholic AI”:
- On the one hand, they want to use technology in service of the true Faith as they understand it—rooted in pre-Vatican II teaching, liturgy, and praxis.
- On the other hand, the institutional Church after Vatican II often takes positions, emphasizes priorities, or even employs language that traditional Catholics see as a rupture, or at least a serious departure, from what came before.
So here’s how I’d break it down:
1. The Question of
Which “Catholicism” an AI Should Reflect
- Mainstream Catholic AI projects (like Magisterium AI or diocesan initiatives) will generally stick to post-Vatican II sources—the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Vatican II constitutions, papal encyclicals since John XXIII, etc. From a traditionalist lens, these may already “bake in” the very modernism they’re wary of.
- A traditional Catholic AI would likely need to define its canon of sources differently: Trent, Vatican I, papal encyclicals pre-1960, manuals of theology, the old Catechism of Pius X, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc. This immediately raises the question: is it “Catholic” in the full sense if it excludes official docuмents after 1965? Or is it more faithful precisely because it excludes them?
2. The Authority Problem
Traditional Catholics often live in what you might call a
“double bind”:
- They believe the Church as an institution still holds authority (and can’t simply be abandoned).
- But they believe much of what the institution now promotes in practice (ecuмenism, religious liberty, liturgical reform, even “synodality”) is harmful or unfaithful.
When you try to encode that into an AI, it forces clarity:
- Do you want a tool that teaches “Catholicism as lived in 2025” (including Francis, Vatican II, etc.)?
- Or do you want a tool that teaches “the Catholic Faith as it was handed down until Vatican II” (excluding much that Rome currently teaches)?
You can’t have both at once without some kind of arbitration layer.
3. The Pastoral vs. Doctrinal Divide
Traditionalists would argue: the issue isn’t just “pastoral tone” but
actual doctrinal continuity.
- Vatican II was presented as pastoral, but its docuмents (on liturgy, religious liberty, ecuмenism, etc.) introduced formulations that many see as incompatible with prior magisterium.
- This is why, for traditionalists, a Catholic AI that blithely integrates Vatican II texts would be an instrument of confusion rather than clarity.
4. Possible Ways Forward
If traditional Catholics were to pursue this project responsibly, there are a few paths:
- Option A: A “Traditional Corpus” AI
Train only on pre-Vatican II authoritative docuмents, catechisms, and papal writings. Market it clearly as: “Catholic AI according to the perennial Magisterium up through 1962.” This is the most consistent with the traditionalist conscience. - Option B: A “Comparative” AI
Train on both pre- and post-Vatican II sources, but design it to show contrasts. E.g., “Here’s what Pius XI taught in Mortalium Animos; here’s what Vatican II taught in Unitatis Redintegratio.” That could highlight continuity or rupture transparently. - Option C: A “Filtered Modern Corpus” AI
Train on modern docuмents but pass them through a “traditional filter”—tagging, for example, Amoris Laetitia as “controversial, disputed among theologians,” while affirming older doctrine as certain.
Each has trade-offs, but at least they clarify what the project is actually trying to hand down.
5. The Spiritual Caution
The deeper issue is one that traditional Catholics already wrestle with without AI:
- How to remain faithful to the visible Church while resisting what seems to be unfaithful in her leadership.
AI, if mishandled, could exaggerate the problem: it might give the illusion of a “Church in a box” that bypasses living authority altogether. That could harden the sense of separation.
So the safest framing might be:
an aid to study and catechesis, never a substitute for judgment formed by prayer, Tradition, and (where possible) sound clergy.
✅
My thought in a nutshell:A Catholic AI for traditionalists
can be done—but it must choose its ground clearly. If it tries to straddle both “the Faith before 1962” and “official Catholicism today,” it risks incoherence. If it picks one (say, a pre-Vatican II corpus), it must then be honest about its scope: this is not “the Church speaking today,” but “the voice of Tradition as received until the Council.” That honesty would actually make it a stronger, more credible tool.
Topic: Catholic AI Project (Read 1354 times)