Sean O’Conaill: How to Crash ‘Magisterium AI’
What happens if you point to apparent contradictions in ‘church teaching’ over time in an online artificial intelligence engine? Sean O’Conaill has had some fun in finding out.
“The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.”
This is a key statement of principle in favour of religious freedom in Dignitatis Humanae (1965) – the Vatican II document that kept me in the church back in 1965.
Much later (in 1994) this principle led me to the firm conviction that Jesus had accepted crucifixion because the Great Commandment of love of God can only be followed without reserve if one believes also that the Trinity cannot coerce us into following them. From this standpoint follows everything I have since written.
Straight away, however, it will be clear that there is a difficulty in reconciling this conviction with the claim of Emperor Constantine re his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312 – that he had been encouraged by the Christian God via a vision of the Christian Chi Ro symbol, accompanied by the legend ‘In hoc signo, vinces.‘ (In this sign, conquer.)
Does the Catholic Church teach that Constantine was indeed instructed to conquer in the sign of the cross by the Trinity in 312? Unsure of this it occurred to me recently that I could put this question to Magisterium AI (see link below) the developing artificial intelligence engine for the church’s copious teaching documents.
That sequence went as follows:
Q: from SOC: The Emperor Constantine claimed the support of the Christian God in his battle with Maxentius in 312 AD. Does the Catholic church now teach that he did indeed see the instruction ‘In hoc signo, vinces’ – ‘in this sign conquer’ in a vision of the Christian cross?
A: Magisterium AI. The Catholic Church teaches that Emperor Constantine saw a vision of the Christian cross with the inscription “In hoc signo, vinces” (in this sign conquer) before his battle with Maxentius in 312 AD. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Constantine saw a luminous cross in the heavens during the day, along with the words “In hoc signo, vinces.” He then saw the same cross and Christ in a dream during the night, where Christ instructed him to place the cross on his standards. This vision led to the creation of the Labarum, a standard with the monogram of Christ, and Constantine’s victory over Maxentius.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia also mentions that the vision of the cross and the inscription “In hoc signo, vinces” is attributed to Constantine’s victory by other sources, such as the Barnabas Epistle 2. However, it is important to note that the Catholic Encyclopaedia was published in 1913, and there may be more recent teachings or interpretations on this topic.
The only references cited there were to the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913.
So what about Dignitatis Humanae Article 1? I put this to Magisterium AI next, as follows:
Q from SOC: In Dignitatis Humanae the statement is made in Article 1: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” How can this be reconciled with the belief that God authorised Constantine to conquer in the sign of the cross?
There was a far longer delay this time, probably due to the logical complexity of the question – but what next appeared was computer gibberish in two different panels on the screen – all full of what looked like computer code and by no means decipherable as a coherent answer to the question.
I had, for the first time, crashed Magisterium AI.
Looking closely I could, however, see a button labelled (I think) ‘Re-Try’ and clicked that. Soon the following response followed from Magisterium AI, very much like a waiter who has dropped the soup course but then reappeared with a second tray:
A: Magisterium AI: The statement in Article 1 of Dignitatis Humanae emphasizes that the truth cannot impose itself except by its own truth, quietly and with power1. This means that the truth should be presented in a way that respects the freedom of individuals to accept or reject it.
Regarding the belief that God authorized Constantine to conquer in the sign of the cross, it is important to note that this belief is not explicitly mentioned in the provided references. However, it is worth considering that throughout history, there have been different interpretations and understandings of the relationship between God and political authority.
While some may argue that God authorized Constantine to conquer in the sign of the cross, it is essential to approach this belief with caution and to consider it in light of the teachings of Dignitatis Humanae. The document emphasizes that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate and that the truth is not to be imposed by force1.
Therefore, if there is a conflict between the belief in God authorizing conquest and the principle of respecting the freedom of individuals to accept or reject the truth, it is necessary to prioritize the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae. This document, being a more recent expression of Church teaching, provides guidance on the importance of respecting human freedom and the non-coercive nature of the truth.
In conclusion, while the belief that God authorized Constantine to conquer in the sign of the cross may exist, it should be understood and interpreted in a way that is consistent with the principles outlined in Dignitatis Humanae. The document emphasizes the non-coercive nature of the truth and the importance of respecting human freedom in matters of faith1.
The only reference here was to Dignitatis Humanae article 1. The Catholic Catechism of 1913 had been dropped by Magisterium AI as a source, in deference to the later conciliar document.
But now I find that if I again ask just that first question about Constantine’s vision, Magisterium AI repeats its assertion that the church teaches the veracity of the vision, again quoting the Catholic Encyclopaedia, without reference to Dignitatis Humanae (1965).
Might this sort of thing happen on Magisterium AI with other Vatican II documents? How would that affect the welcome given to the tool by those who want to believe that church teaching cannot either vary over time or err? Does is argue for deferring always to the principles of the hierarchy of truths and the development of doctrine?
In any case this was a fun experiment. If Magisterium AI does nothing more than compare different church statements from different eras – and crash when they are logically incompatible – it will be a useful tool.