Italian, english, español

AT THE DOORS OF CHRISTMAS IT IS RIGHT TO SAY: JESUS ​​WAS NEVER BORN

We must start again from the mystery of the Word who became flesh, animated by that spark that made Saint Augustine say it first, then in St. Anselmo d'Aosta, with different words but with the same substance: «I think to understand, I understand to believe ». Only then will we truly understand the meaning of the decisive sentence: "And the Word became flesh", so why Jesus, in truth, was never born.

— Theologica —

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

.

.

that way, the phrase sounds like a gratuitous provocation, a scandalous statement, if not downright heretical. However, if taken seriously and placed in its correct theological horizon, not only is it legitimate, but profoundly compliant with the faith of the Church. Indeed, I know the parola be born we mean the beginning of existence, then it is necessary to say it without hesitation: Jesus was never born. The Son does not begin to be in Bethlehem. He is "before all ages", because «God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God ". Christmas is not the birth of God, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son «begotten, not created, of the same substance as the Father". This is where the language of faith demands precision, because a distorted faith can arise from a poorly placed word. And today we no longer even live in pietism, nor in those forms of fideism that have nothing to do with the popular faith of the simple: rather, we live immersed in a returning neo-paganism.

This clarification it is not an exercise in terminological finesse, nor a dispute reserved for specialists in dogmatic theology. It is a theological and pastoral necessity. Because the way we talk about the mystery of Christ inevitably determines the way we think about it; Consequently, the way we think it ends up shaping the way we believe it. When language becomes approximate, even faith weakens; when words are used without discernment, the mystery is reduced to an edifying tale or, worse, to religious folklore. It is precisely to avoid this drift that the Church, over the centuries, he watched rigorously over the words of faith.

It is in this horizon that it must be proclaimed, but first listened to it, the Prologue of the Gospel of John. A work of such theological density that it is reread more and more over the years, the more one has the impression that the man, in those words, put his hand there, but not the origin: because the true Author is God. The Evangelist does not introduce Christmas with a birth story, but with a statement about being: «In the beginning was the Word». Does not say became, he doesn't say he began, ma era. The Logos he does not enter the scene in Bethlehem, it does not emerge from the womb of time, it does not appear as a novelty among others. He already is, before every principle, before every story, before every creation, as the Apostle Paul also teaches when he states:

«For us there is only one God, the father, from which everything comes and towards which we are, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him" (1 Color 8,6).

All that exists comes into being through Him, nothing that exists comes into being without Him. It is the same faith that Saint Paul forcefully expresses in the Letter to the Colossians, when he proclaims the Son as

«image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, because in Him all things were created, those in heaven and on Earth […] all were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and all things exist in Him." (With the 1,15-17).

Only after having clearly established this absolute priority of being on time, Giovanni dares to pronounce the decisive sentence, which breaks into the text like thunder: "And the Word became flesh".

He was not born in the sense in which a creature is born that did not exist before; he became flesh, that is, he fully assumed the human condition, entering time without ceasing to be eternal. It is the same truth that Paul sings in the Christological hymn to the Philippians, when it states

«Christ despite being in the condition of God, he did not consider it a privilege to be like God, but he emptied himself, assuming the condition of a servant, becoming similar to men" (Fil 2,6-7).

This is the heart of Christmas: not the beginning of God, but the entry of God into history; not the birth of the Son, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son consubstantial with the Father. And this is why it is theologically legitimate — and even reasonable, if we accept the paradoxical language typical of Scripture - affirm, in a deliberately provocative way, resorting to those hyperboles that Jesus himself uses in the parables and that St. Paul, a great rhetorician even before being a theologian, use it wisely, that Jesus, in truth, he was never born.

While in our Italy — Catholic for centuries more out of social habit than out of thought and matured faith — the number of children whose parents choose not to have baptized is growing; while many young people are unaware not only of what happened in Bethlehem, but above all the meaning of the Paschal mystery, without which Christmas itself remains meaningless; the religious debate sometimes seems to move onto a paradoxical level, with not indifferent hints of ridiculousness. And so, in this dramatic context of increasingly widespread doctrinal illiteracy, there is no shortage of voices vehemently calling for the proclamation of new dogmatic titles, like that of «Mary co-redemptrix», often raised more as an identity slogan by marginal and ideological groups than as an issue truly founded in the living Tradition of the Church.

The cyclical insistence on the title of "Mary co-redemptrix" it seems to grow in inverse proportion to the knowledge of dogmatic theology and the authentic Magisterium. The church, who has always spoken about Mary with veneration and moderation, he consistently avoided this expression, not out of doctrinal timidity but out of elementary theological hygiene. Defending Mary by obscuring the uniqueness of the Redemption brought about by Christ is not a sign of Marian ardor, but of conceptual confusion. This is the spirit that has animated the recent interventions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the inappropriateness of attributing certain titles to the Blessed Virgin (cf.. The faithful mother of the people). However, when dogmatics is treated like a fizzy devotional drink - to be shaken and consumed emotionally -, when some militant voices even take care to "correct" the Magisterium of the Church (cf.. WHO), the risk is no longer formal heresy, which also requires intelligent speculative minds, but something more subtle: the fall into pseudo-theological ridicule.

This is where one of the great contradictions manifests itself of our ecclesial time: while the essential content of faith - the Incarnation - is lost, the cross, the Resurrection - there is a fuss over formulas that claim to "defend" Mary, but which in reality risk taking away the centrality of the mystery of Christ.

It is worth remembering that believing does not mean multiplying words, but to understand them and then use them appropriately, for what they really mean. This is the conviction that also guided my recent theological work dedicated to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, the Creed that we recite every Sunday. The title of the work — I think to understand — is not a slogan, but a method. Only a faith that accepts being thought about can avoid being reduced to devout superstition; only a thought born from faith can safeguard the mystery without deforming it and making it grotesque.

We need to start again from here: from the mystery of the Word who became flesh, animated by that spark that made Saint Augustine say it first, then in St. Anselmo d'Aosta, with different words but with the same substance: «I think to understand, I understand to believe ». Only then will we truly understand the meaning of the decisive sentence: "And the Word became flesh", so why Jesus, in truth, was never born.

the Island of Patmos, 21 December 2025

.

.

ON THE THRESHOLD OF CHRISTMAS, IT MUST BE SAID: JESUS WAS NEVER BORN

We must begin again from the mystery of the Word who became flesh, animated by that spark which led first Saint Augustine, and then Saint Anselm of Aosta, to say — using different words but with identical substance: «I believe in order to understand; I understand in order to believe». Only then shall we truly grasp the meaning of the decisive sentence: «And the Word became flesh», and thus why Jesus, in truth, was never born.

-Theological-

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo.

.

Stated in this way, the sentence sounds like a gratuitous provocation, a scandalous claim, if not downright heretical. And yet, if taken seriously and situated within its proper theological horizon, it proves to be not only legitimate, but profoundly consonant with the faith of the Church. Indeed, if by the word to be born we mean the beginning of existence, then it must be said without hesitation: Jesus was never born. The Son does not begin to be at Bethlehem. He is «before all ages», because He is «God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God». Christmas is not the birth of God, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son, «begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father». Here the language of faith demands precision, for from a poorly placed word a distorted faith may arise. And today we no longer even live within pietism, nor within those forms of fideism that have nothing to do with the popular faith of the simple; we live immersed in a resurgent neopaganism.

This clarification is not an exercise in terminological subtlety, nor a dispute reserved to specialists in dogmatic theology. It is a theological and pastoral necessity. For the way in which we speak about the mystery of Christ inevitably determines the way in which we think about it, and the way in which we think about it ends up shaping the way in which we believe it. When language becomes approximate, faith too is weakened; when words are used without discernment, the mystery is reduced to an edifying tale or, worse, to religious folklore. It is precisely to avoid this drift that the Church, throughout the centuries, has kept vigilant watch over the words of faith.

It is within this horizon that the Prologue of the Gospel according to John must be proclaimed — and, before that, listened to. A work of such theological density that, the more one rereads it over the years, the more one has the impression that a human hand has contributed to those words, but not their origin: for the true Author is God. The Evangelist does not introduce Christmas with a birth narrative, but with a statement about being: «In the beginning was the Word». He does not say became, he does not say began, but was. The Logos does not enter the scene at Bethlehem, does not emerge from the womb of time, does not appear as one novelty among others. He already is — before every beginning, before every history, before every creation — as the Apostle Paul also teaches when he affirms:

«For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist» (1 Color 8:6).

All that exists comes into being through Him, and nothing that exists comes into being without Him. This is the same faith that Saint Paul expresses with force in the Letter to the Colossians, when he proclaims that the Son is

«the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth […] all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together» (With the 1:15–17).

Only after having clearly established this absolute priority of being over time does John dare to pronounce the decisive sentence, which bursts into the text like a thunderclap: «And the Word became flesh».

He was not born in the sense in which a creature is born that previously did not exist; He became flesh — that is, He fully assumed the human condition, entering time without ceasing to be eternal. This is the same truth that Paul sings in the Christological hymn to the Philippians, when he affirms that Christ Jesus

«though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness» (Phil 2:6–7).

Here lies the heart of Christmas: not the beginning of God, but the entry of God into history; not the birth of the Son, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son. And it is for this reason that it is theologically legitimate — and even reasonable, if one accepts the paradoxical language characteristic of Scripture — to affirm, in a deliberately provocative form, making use of those hyperboles that Jesus Himself employs in the parables and that Saint Paul, a great rhetorician before being a theologian, uses with wisdom, that Jesus, in truth, was never born.

While in our Italy — Catholic for centuries more by social habit than by a faith that is thought through and mature — the number of children whom parents choose not to have baptised continues to grow; while many young people are ignorant not only of what happened at Bethlehem, but above all of the meaning of the Paschal Mystery, without which Christmas itself remains devoid of meaning; religious debate at times seems to shift onto a paradoxical plane, with by no means negligible touches of the ridiculous.

In this dramatic context of increasingly widespread doctrinal illiteracy, there is no shortage of voices that vehemently call for the proclamation of new dogmatic titles, such as that of «Mary Co-Redemptrix», often brandished more as an identity slogan by marginal and ideologised groups than as a question genuinely grounded in the living Tradition of the Church. The recurring insistence on the title «Mary Co-Redemptrix» seems to grow in inverse proportion to the knowledge of dogmatic theology and of the authentic Magisterium. The Church, which has always spoken of Mary with veneration and measure, has consistently avoided this expression — not out of doctrinal timidity, but out of elementary theological hygiene. To defend Mary by obscuring the uniqueness of the Redemption accomplished by Christ is not a sign of Marian ardour, but of conceptual confusion. This is the spirit that has inspired the recent interventions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the inappropriateness of attributing certain titles to the Blessed Virgin (cf. The faithful mother of the people). When, however, dogmatics is treated like a fizzy devotional beverage — to be shaken and consumed emotionally — when certain militant voices even presume to “correct” the Magisterium of the Church, the risk is no longer formal heresy, which in any case requires intelligent speculative minds, but something more insidious: pseudo-theological ridicule.

Here one of the great contradictions of our ecclesial time becomes manifest: while the essential content of the faith — the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection — is being lost, there is a frantic insistence on formulas that claim to “defend” Mary, but in reality risk subtracting centrality from the mystery of Christ. It is worth recalling that to believe does not mean to multiply words, but to understand them and then to use them appropriately, according to what they truly signify. This conviction has also guided a recent theological work of mine devoted to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, the Creed that we recite every Sunday. The title of the work — Credo to Understand — is not a slogan, but a method. Only a faith that accepts being thought through can avoid being reduced to devout superstition; only a thought that is born from faith can safeguard the mystery without deforming it and rendering it grotesque.

From here we must begin again: from the mystery of the Word who became flesh, animated by that spark which led first Saint Augustine, and then Saint Anselm of Aosta, to say — using different words but with identical substance: «I believe in order to understand; I understand in order to believe». Only then shall we truly grasp the meaning of the decisive sentence: «And the Word became flesh», and thus why Jesus, in truth, was never born.

From The Island of Patmos, 21 December 2025

.

.

AT THE DOORS OF CHRISTMAS IT MUST BE SAY: JESUS ​​WAS NEVER BORN

From here we have to start again: of the mystery of the Word that became flesh, animated by that spark that led first Saint Augustine and then Saint Anselm of Aosta to say, with different words but with the same substance: «I believe to understand, "I understand to believe". Only then will we truly understand the meaning of the decisive phrase: "And the Word became flesh", and, therefore, why Jesus, actually, was never born.

- Theological -

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo.

.

Said like this, the phrase sounds like a gratuitous provocation, a scandalous statement, if not openly heretical. However, if taken seriously and situated in its correct theological horizon, It is not only legitimate, but deeply in accordance with the faith of the Church. Indeed, yes for the word be born we understand the beginning of existence, so it is necessary to say it without hesitation: Jesus was never born. The Son does not begin to exist in Bethlehem. He is "before all ages", because he is "God of God", Light of Light, True God of true God. Christmas is not the birth of God, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son, «begotten, not created, of the same nature of the Father". Here the language of faith demands precision, because from a poorly placed word a deformed faith can be born. And today we no longer live even in pietism, nor in those forms of fideism that have nothing to do with the popular faith of the simple: We live immersed in a neo-paganism of return.

This precision It is not an exercise in terminological subtlety, nor a dispute reserved for specialists in dogmatic theology. It is a theological and pastoral necessity. Because the way we talk about the mystery of Christ inevitably determines the way we think about it and, consequently, the way we think about it ends up shaping the way we believe it. When language becomes approximate, faith also weakens; when words are used without discernment, the mystery is reduced to an edifying story or, even worse, to religious folklore. Precisely to avoid this drift the Church, throughout the centuries, has rigorously guarded the words of faith.

It is in this horizon where it must be proclaimed —and even before, heard — the Prologue of the Gospel according to Saint John. A work of such theological density that, the more you reread it over the years, the more one has the impression that the man, in those words, has put his hand, but not the origin: because the true Author is God. The evangelist does not introduce Christmas with a birth story, but with a statement about being: "In the beginning there was the Word". Doesn't say became, does not say began, sino existed. The Logos does not enter the scene in Bethlehem, does not emerge from the bosom of time, does not appear as a novelty among others. He is already, before all beginning, before all history, before all creation, as the apostle Paul also teaches when he states:

«For us there is only one God, the father, from whom everything comes and to whom we are going, and one Lord, Christ, through whom everything exists and we through Him" (1 Co 8,6).

Everything that exists comes into being through Him, and nothing that exists comes into being without Him. It is the same faith that Paul expresses strongly in the Letter to the Colossians., when he proclaims that the Son is "image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, because in Him all things were created, those of heaven and those of earth […] everything was created through Him and for Him. "He is before all things and all things subsist in Him." (With the 1,15-17). Only after having clearly established this absolute priority of being over time, Juan dares to pronounce the decisive phrase, that bursts into the text like thunder: "And the Word became flesh".

He was not born in the sense in which a creature is born that did not exist before.; became flesh, that is to say, fully assumed the human condition, entering time without ceasing to be eternal. It is the same truth that Paul sings in the Christological hymn to the Philippians, when he affirms that Christ Jesus, "being of divine condition, He did not consider being equal to God a prey, but emptied himself, taking status as a servant, becoming like men" (Flp 2,6-7).

Here is the heart of Christmas: not the beginning of God, but the entry of God into history; not the birth of the Son, but the Incarnation of the eternal Son. And that is why it is theologically legitimate—and even reasonable., if the paradoxical language of Scripture is accepted—affirm, deliberately provocative, resorting to those hyperboles that Jesus himself uses in parables and that Saint Paul, great rhetorician even before theologian, use wisely, that Jesus, actually, was never born.

While in our Italy — Catholic for centuries more out of social habit than out of a thought-out and matured faith — the number of children whose parents decide not to baptize is growing; while many young people ignore not only what happened in Bethlehem, but above all the meaning of the paschal mystery, without which Christmas itself is deprived of meaning; The religious debate sometimes seems to move to a paradoxical level., with many traits of ridicule.

In this dramatic context of doctrinal illiteracy increasingly widespread, There is no shortage of voices that vehemently invoke the proclamation of new dogmatic titles, like that of "Co-redemptrix Mary", often agitated more as an identity slogan by marginal and ideological groups than as an issue truly founded on the living Tradition of the Church. The cyclical insistence on the title of "Mary co-redemptrix" seems to grow in inverse proportion to the knowledge of dogmatic theology and the authentic Magisterium. The Church, who has always spoken of Mary with veneration and measure, has constantly avoided this expression, not because of doctrinal timidity, but for an elementary theological hygiene. Defending Mary by obscuring the uniqueness of the Redemption accomplished by Christ is not a sign of Marian ardor., but of conceptual confusion. This is the spirit that has animated the recent interventions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the inappropriateness of attributing certain titles to the Blessed Virgin. (cf. The faithful mother of the people). When dogmatics is treated as a fizzy devotional beverage—to be stirred and consumed emotionally—, when some militant voices even go so far as to “correct” the Magisterium of the Church, risk is no longer formal heresy, which otherwise requires intelligent speculative minds, but something more subtle: the pseudo-theological ridicule.

Here one of the great contradictions manifests itself of our ecclesial time: while the essential content of faith is lost — the Incarnation, the cross, the Resurrection—, There is frantic insistence on formulas that would attempt to “defend” Mary., but that in reality they run the risk of subtracting centrality from the mystery of Christ. It is worth remembering that believing does not mean multiplying words, but to understand them and then use them appropriately, according to what they really mean. This is the conviction that has also guided a recent theological work of mine dedicated to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, the Creed we recite every Sunday. The title of the work — I believe to understand — is not a slogan, but a method. Only a faith that accepts being thought about can avoid being reduced to devout superstition.; Only a thought that is born of faith can guard the mystery without deforming it and turning it grotesque..

From here we have to start again: of the mystery of the Word that became flesh, animated by that spark that led first Saint Augustine and then Saint Anselm of Aosta to say, with different words but with the same substance: «I believe to understand, "I understand to believe". Only then will we truly understand the meaning of the decisive phrase: "And the Word became flesh", and, therefore, why Jesus, actually, was never born.

Desde The Island of Patmos, 21 December 2025

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(English text after the Italian)

The dilemma of artificial intelligence and man created in the image of God. A reflection starting from Old and new

The risk of generating with the IA a danger that affects all humanity in its entirety is great and at the gates. As happened in the case of the use of nuclear power in the military area. A development that, perhaps unexpected, or maybe yes, It originally had good intentions: We think of nuclear medicine for diagnostics through advanced devices. Then suddenly, from healing, Nuclear has become synonymous with immediate and generalized death. So it could also happen for the IA.

- The pages of Theological -

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

PDF Article in print format – PDF article print format

.

.

Let's imagine receiving a phone call. On the other hand, a kind voice offers the solution to a problem that has been hatched for some time, or proposes an indispensable investment with extremely convincing words, O, simply, It offers us a change of rate for users.

Another scenario. Let's think of an artist who, After years of silence, publishes a new musical song that moves millions of people. But then it happens, After some time, that it is revealed to us that in both cases, be the voice of the call center that proposed the offers, both the composition of the artist, they came not from a human being, but from a software capable of imitating it to perfection. Perhaps, without knowing it, We have already interacted with such creations, so refined as to seem human, Since they are no longer just plots of futuristic films, But scenarios that artificial intelligence is making more and more concrete and that lead us deeply. At this link You can read the note of the dicasteries for the doctrine of faith and for culture and education on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.

Artificial intelligence (From now on: IA) It is a reality that is quickly transforming our world, interpreting the understanding of the human being and his place in creation. Desire, therefore, explore this topic without fear, With that careful and enlightened look that only the faith and tradition of the Church can offer, trying to discern the opportunities and challenges that it promises us. Recently, In January of this year, A Vatican note came out on these themes, by the dicasteries for the doctrine of faith and for culture and education, which reports the emblematic title of Old and new and that I would like to call here. In the end, I would like to offer some personal consideration.

IA: Definition and relationship with man

L’, according to the note Old and new, He took his first steps over half a century ago, with the ambitious objective of creating machines capable of carrying out actions that, if done by a human being, we would think intelligent. Initially, Forms of so -called "restricted" Ia have developed, specialized in specific tasks, How to analyze huge data moles or discover new research routes. These technologies can imitate today, and in some cases replace, man in some cognitive processes. Let's think about the analysis of complex information, to the logical reasoning applied to defined problems, to the interpretation of images or to the recognition of faces. It is important to understand, But, that the perspective with which the IA is born and operates is eminently functional: It is designed to solve specific problems where human intelligent behavior offers its model.

After this initial phase, Given the unstoppable progress that is having, We can already ask ourselves some questions, like reflection, on the relationship between the intelligent machine and the idea, coming from the Christian revelation, that man is the image of God, imago Dei, and therefore intelligent. What difference exists, so, between man, how revelation conceives it, e l’ it? What ethics problems are subject to the use of the AI, Especially when this has an impact on the life of living beings and on creation?

Human intelligence, for us Christians, It is much more than a simple calculation or resolution of problems. It is a characteristic reflection of being man imago Dei, In the image of God (Gen 1,26). Indeed, is rooted in the whole person, inseparable union of soul and body. Man's intelligence manifests itself through rationality, but also through corporeality, or his intrinsic ability to enter into relationship with God, with people and creation; and has its profound connection with the search for truth and good. Human intelligence involves, so, the totality of our being: on the spiritual part, the cognitive world, physical reality, corporeal and relational. L’, however sophisticated and well engineered, it has as opposed to the intrinsic limits. It operates mainly in the logical-computational sphere. It lacks authentic moral discernment and is unable to generate real relationships, those that nourish the spirit. As a result, it is the deficit of that opening constitutive to the good and the truth that characterizes the human being. The IA can simulate reasoning, It can offer a precious aid, but does not learn through the experience lived, corporeal, and does not have interpretative understanding, that wisdom that arises from the heart and the united intellect.

The ethical and anthropological implications: Human dignity as a lighthouse

Faced with the inexorable development of the AI, The Church recalls an indispensable guiding principle: the promotion of the dignity of every human being and the accompaniment towards the fullness of his vocation. This is the fundamental criterion of discernment for each technological application: full human development, from which they achieve great responsibilities. The human being, as a moral agent, He is always responsible for the AI. Who is responsible for his activation and its internal logic, Thus those who use it are responsible for the purposes and methods of its use. We must never delegate the moral judgment or the fundamental decisions that touch the life and fate of people to a machine. A deep prudence is required, so that the IA is always at the service of man and his dignity and never the opposite. Exists, indeed, the risk of a "functionalization" of intelligence itself. If we reduce it to mere calculation, We end up having a reductive vision of man too, considering it only for its efficiency or utility, forgetting the deepest dimensions of its existence. Also to avoid the "anthropomorphization" of the IA, that is, trying to represent it as if he were a person; A risk in which young people or the most fragile people could incur above all. Do so, especially for manipulators or fraudulent purposes, constitutes a serious lack of ethical, since it can induce utilitarian interaction schemes and impoverish the perception of authentic human relationships, For example, the one between student and teacher.

The application of the IA in different sectors and related specific issues

The note Old and new underlines some fields of application of the AI ​​in the various sectors of daily and cultural life and the relationship that this has with ethics. For instance, in healthcare, The IA offers immense potential. More precise diagnosis, Development of new treatments, Facilitation of access to care. However, The risk is that the machine interprets excessively in the relationship between patient and healthcare professionals, which represents a cornerstone of the cure. The loneliness of the patient could exacerbate. It would be good that therapeutic decisions always remain in the hands of people. There is also the danger that the IA amplifies inequalities, favoring a "medicine for rich", for whom, having means, can afford it, At the expense of universal access to care.

Another scope is represented by education. Here the ia can be a precious resource, improving access to education and offering personalized support, especially in contexts poor in resources. But he will not be able to completely replace the living relationship between teacher and student, fundamental for the full growth of the person. An excessive or exclusive appeal to the AI ​​can generate dependence or atrophy the ability to learn and act independently. Some tools, instead of stimulating critical thinking, they could even provide pre -packaged answers. The goal should always be to promote the ability to think with your own head.

As for the scope of information, On the one hand, the IA can help to understand complex facts and to seek the truth, on the other, there is the possibility that false content can produce, But extremely realistic, the so-called deep fake. The use of these tools to deceive or damage is a serious ethical violation that distorts our relationship with reality. Producers and users of IA have the responsibility of ensuring the truthfulness of information and avoiding the spread of material harmful of dignity.

Linked to the theme of information there is also that of privacy, for the fact that it must always be kept in mind that humans are relational beings, And our digital data are an expression of this nature. The privacy It is aimed at protecting the intimate spaces of life and guaranteeing freedom. L’, capable of detecting schemes of thought and behavior from a few data, makes this protection even more urgent. A use of the AI ​​is not justifiable aimed at indiscriminate control, to exploitation, the limitation of freedom or the advantage of a few to the detriment of many. We must resist the temptation to identify the person as a simple set of data, how it happens, eg, in the practices of social scoring.

The IA has shown, to have promising applications in the field of custody and safeguarding the creation. It could help us improve our relationship with the environment, For example in the management of extreme climatic events. However, the current models of IA and l’hardware necessary require huge quantities of energy and water, thus contributing to the environmental impact. The great linguistic models, in particular, they need a remarkable calculation power and data storage infrastructure. The solution, as the encyclical reminds us Laudato yes’, does not only reside in the technique, but in a change of the human heart.

In the military and war context, The analytical skills of the AI ​​could, in theory, help the search for peace. However, the use of the AI ​​in these areas, especially with regard to lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), it is extremely problematic. These machines are lacking in human ability of moral judgment and raise very serious ethical issues. The development of armaments based on the AI ​​must be subjected to the most rigorous ethical control, in full respect of human dignity and the sacredness of life. In the end, in the delicate and fragile sector of the economy and at work, IA can certainly increase productivity, taking charge of repetitive tasks. But the growing dependence on digital technology in the economy risks impoverishing the diversity of local communities. In the world of work there is the danger that workers are forced to adapt to the dehumanizing rhythms of the machines and that the work itself loses its intrinsic value. The efficiency obtained at the expense of humanity is too high a price. The IA must assist, do not replace, the human judgment; must not degrade creativity, nor reduce workers to simple gears of a system.

There is a relationship between IA and the personal relationship with God?

One last, but not less important reflection, it concerns the relationship between the IA and our spiritual dimension. In a company that tends to move away from the bond with the transcendent, The temptation to contact the AI ​​can arise, especially to its most advanced and future forms, like general artificial intelligence (AGI, in the English theme), Looking for latest answers, of a sense of fullness that, in truth, It should for a believer to find authentic satisfaction only in communion with God. The presumption of being able to replace God with a work of our hands is, And it will always be, a form of idolatry. Artificial intelligence is a product of human ingenuity, An imprint of our creativity. But it doesn't have a heart, has no soul, And he can never replace the living and personal relationship that every man is called to have with his creator.

For an I at the service of the common good

Christian reflection on artificial intelligence integrates technology within a wider and more profound vision of human nature, of his vocation and the loving design of God. IA is a powerful tool, full of beneficial potential but also bearer of significant risks. The key to its ethical and wise use lies, first of all, in the clear distinction between human and artificial intelligence, in the awareness of the intrinsic limits of the latter e, above all, in the constant assumption of moral responsibility by the man who designs it, develops it and uses it. Human dignity must remain the supreme criterion to evaluate each application of the AI. It is essential to avoid confusing the machine with the person and supervising that the IA does not become a control tool, inequality, disinformation or replacement of authentic human relationships and our relationship with reality and with God. Prudence and moral discernment, illuminated by the perennial principles of the social doctrine of the Church, they are essential to ensure that artificial intelligence really contributes to full human progress and common good. Like any other technology, The IA can also be part of a conscious response and responsible for the vocation of humanity to operate the good and to keep the world that has been entrusted to us. Is our commitment: guide the development and use of artificial intelligence with wisdom, responsibility and heart, so that it is truly at the service of every man and of the whole man.

Technological progress, Human responsibility and the search for true wisdom

Old and new underlines that the unstoppable advance of technology, in particular of the AI, It places humanity in the face of crucial challenges that interpose its consciousness, its values ​​and its own concept of progress. As Pope Francis pointed out, There is an urgent urgency so that the development of liability, of values ​​and consciousness proceeds hand in hand with the increase in the possibilities offered by technology. Indeed, with the increase of the power available to man, Its individual and collective responsibility also expands proportionally. In this context, The essential question that resonates with force is if, through this progress, The human being becomes truly better: more mature spiritually, more aware of the intrinsic dignity of his humanity, more responsible in his choices, more open to the other, especially to the most needy and vulnerable, and more inclined to offer help and solidarity. This fundamental question must guide any reflection and action concerning new technologies.

A critical ability therefore becomes decisive towards individual technological applications, analyzing them in their specific contexts. As we said several times, The objective of this discernment is to determine whether they actually promote human dignity, The fullness of the vocation of each person and the common good of the entire human family. The effects of the different applications of the AI, as with many other technologies, may not be immediately predictable in their initial phases. As such applications and their impact on society become clearer, it is imperative that the reflections and adjustment mechanisms are activated at all levels, From individual users to families, from civil society to companies, from government institutions to international organizations. Each actor, according to the principle of subsidiarity and in the field of their skills, it is called to commit to the use of the AI ​​is always oriented to the good of all.

A significant challenge, which is configured at the same time as a great opportunity for the common good, He lies in considering technology within a horizon of "relational intelligence". This approach enhances the intrinsic interconnection between individuals and between communities, enhancing the shared responsibility in promoting the full wellness of each person. The philosopher Nikolaj Berdjaev warned about the tendency to blame the machines for individual and social problems, An attitude that diminishes man and does not reflect his dignity[1]. It is in fact unworthy to transfer the responsibility from the human being, the only subject capable of acting morally, to a technological artifact. The challenges posed by an increasingly technologized company concern, ultimately, The human spirit. To face them adequately, A profound reinvigoring of spiritual sensitivity is necessary.

The raid of the AI ​​on the world scene also launches a pressing appeal to renew the enhancement of everything that is authentically human. As the writer Georges Bernanos observed acutely, The real danger does not reside in the proliferation of machines, as in the growing number of people accustomed, from a young age, to be desired only what the machines can offer. This intuition remains of stringent topicality: rapid digitization involves the risk of "digital reductionism", a tendency to put aside, forget or consider all those human experiences not quantifiable or not translatable in formal and calculable terms irrelevant. It is fundamental, instead, that the IA is used as a complementary tool to human intelligence, without ever pretending to replace their wealth, complexity and intuition. Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend the mere calculation is of crucial importance to preserve an "authentic humanity", that deep size that, like a thin fog, It almost seems imperceptibly living and resisting also in the heart of technological civilization.

Faced with the vast extension of knowledge now accessible, that would surprise past generations, It is essential to take a further step: go beyond the simple accumulation of data to strive to reach true wisdom. Without this passage, Scientific and technological progress risk remaining humanly and spiritually sterile.

This wisdom, defined by Pope Francis as "wisdom of the heart", It is the gift that humanity is more desperately needed to deal with the profound issues and the complex ethical challenges posed by the AI. Only by equipping us with a spiritual look, Only by recovering this wisdom that flows from the heart, We can read and interpret the news of our time with depth. It is a virtue that allows you to weave everything together and the parts, decisions and their consequences, long-term. Humanity cannot claim to receive this wisdom from machines; That, As the Scriptures teach, He lets himself be found by those looking for it with sincere heart, manifests themselves to those who love it, It prevents those who want it and actively seek those who are worthy of them. In an increasingly shaped world from the AI, We have a vital need for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that allows us to see things with the eyes of God, to understand the deep connections, situations, the events and to discover its ultimate meaning. The measure of the perfection of people, indeed, It is not given by the amount of data and knowledge that can accumulate, but from their degree of charity. As a result, the way in which the IA is adopted and used to include the last, the weakest and most needy brothers and sisters, it becomes the revealing measure of our own humanity. This wisdom, rooted in love, It can illuminate and guide a use of technology that is authentically centered on the human being. Such an approach can help promote the common good, to take care of the "common house", to advance in the search for truth, to support full human development and to encourage solidarity and universal fraternity, Finally, orienting humanity towards its ultimate goal: Happy and full communion with God.

In this perspective, Believers are called to operate as responsible agents, capable of using this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. This starts from an understanding of technological progress not as an purpose in itself, But as part of God's provident design for creation: An activity that humanity is called to guide and order towards the Easter mystery of Jesus Christ, in the constant and tireless search for truth and good.

Conclusions

The risk of generating with the IA a danger that affects all humanity in its entirety is great and at the gates. As happened in the case of the use of nuclear power in the military area. A development that, perhaps unexpected, or maybe yes, It originally had good intentions: We think of nuclear medicine for diagnostics through advanced devices. Then suddenly, from healing, Nuclear has become synonymous with immediate and generalized death. So it could also happen for the IA. If the nuclear power risks going to harm the body, The ia risks to harm the mind and intellect, therefore the spirit. Let's make a sapiential use. Rediscover, as they said above, A wisdom of the heart that is a contemplative gaze of reality, able to taste, perceive and penetrate the world with the help of grace, the society, The historical era we live to live it with the virtue of faith, hope and charity, through the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Only with this gaze, The IA will not only be dangerous, But it will become a useful tool, Almost essential to respond quickly to the challenges of our time. An I can never sanctify itself, can never receive grace, But the man who allocates her for good purposes yes. Let's learn to use it well: fearless, without demonizing it, Not like an idol to be worshiped, But as an instrument of improvement. Our imperative will be to use it by not leaving the mind, Human heart and spirit. As they have always have believers, With any artifact tool born from ingenuity. In this way we will help those who will increasingly use the AIs to make a promotion tool e, why not, of help to the path of those looking for God.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, June 21, 2025

.

___________________________

[1] Berdjaev N., «Man and Machine», in C. Mitcham – R. Mackey (edd.), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, The Free Press, New York 1983, 212-213.

.

.

THE DILEMMA OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MAN CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. A REFLECTION STARTING FROM “Old and new“

The risk of generating with AI a danger that affects all humanity in its entirety is great and upon us. As happened in the case of the use of nuclear power in the military field. A development that, perhaps unexpectedly, or perhaps yes, originally had good intentions: think of nuclear medicine for diagnostics through advanced devices. Then suddenly, from healing, nuclear power has become synonymous with immediate and generalized death. The same could happen with AI.

— the pages of thelogica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

Imagine receiving a phone call. On the other end, a kind voice offers the solution to a problem that has been bothering us for a long time, or proposes an essential investment with extremely convincing words, or simply offers us a change in the rate for the telephone service.

Another example: think of an artist who, after years of silence, publishes a new piece of music that moves millions of people. But then, after some time, it happens that it is revealed to us that in both cases, both the voice of the call center that proposed the offers, and the composition of the artist, did not come from a human being, but from a software capable of imitating him perfectly. Perhaps, without knowing it, we have already interacted with similar creations, so refined that they seem human, since they are no longer just plots of futuristic films, but scenarios that Artificial Intelligence is making increasingly concrete and that question us deeply. At this link you can read the Note of the dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Culture and Education on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence (hereafter: AI) is a reality that is rapidly transforming our world, challenging the understanding of the human being and his place in creation. I would therefore like to explore this topic without fear, with that attentive and enlightened gaze that only faith and the Tradition of the Church can offer, seeking to discern the opportunities and challenges that it presents to us. Recently, in January of this year, a Vatican Note on these themes was released by the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Culture and Education, which bears the emblematic title of Antiqua et Nova and which I would like to recall here. Finally, I would like to offer some personal considerations.

AI: DEFINITION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH MAN

According to the Nota “Old and new”, AI took its first steps over half a century ago, with the ambitious goal of creating machines capable of performing actions that, if done by a human being, we would consider intelligent. Initially, forms of so-called “narrow” AI were developed, specializing in specific tasks, such as analyzing huge amounts of data or discovering new avenues of research. These technologies can now imitate, and in some cases replace, humans in some cognitive processes. Think of the analysis of complex information, logical reasoning applied to defined problems, the interpretation of images or facial recognition. It is important to understand, however, that the perspective from which AI is born and operates is eminently functional: it is designed to solve specific problems where intelligent human behavior offers the model.

After this initial phase, given the unstoppable progress it is having, we can already ask ourselves some questions, as a reflection, on the relationship between the intelligent machine and the idea, coming from Christian Revelation, that man is the image of God, “imago Dei”, and therefore intelligent. What difference exists, therefore, between man, as conceived by Revelation, and you have? What ethical problems underlie the use of AI, especially when this has an impact on the life of living beings and on creation?

Human intelligence, for us Christians, is much more than a simple ability to calculate or solve problems. It is a characteristic reflection of being the man, in the image of God “imago Dei” (Gen 1:26). In fact, it is rooted in the whole person, an inseparable union of soul and body. Human intelligence manifests itself through rationality, but also through corporeality, that is, its intrinsic capacity to enter into a relationship with God, with people and with creation; and it has its own profound connection with the search for truth and goodness. Human intelligence therefore involves the totality of our being: the spiritual part, the cognitive world, the physical, corporeal and relational reality. AI, however sophisticated and well-engineered, on the contrary has intrinsic limits. It operates mainly in the logical-computational field. It lacks authentic moral discernment and is not capable of generating true relationships, those that nourish the spirit. Consequently, it lacks that constitutive openness to good and truth that characterizes the human being. AI can simulate reasoning, it can offer valuable assistance, but it does not learn through lived, bodily experience, and it does not possess interpretative understanding, that wisdom that comes from the heart and the intellect united.

ETHICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: HUMAN DIGNITY AS A LIGHTHOUSE

Faced with the inexorable development of AI, the Church calls upon an indispensable guiding principle: the promotion of the dignity of every human being and accompaniment towards the fullness of his or her vocation. This is the fundamental criterion of discernment for every technological application: integral human development, from which great responsibilities ensue. The human being, as a moral agent, is always responsible for AI. Those who program it are responsible for its activation and its internal logic; likewise, those who use it are responsible for the purposes and methods of its use. We must never delegate moral judgment or fundamental decisions that affect the life and destiny of people to a machine. Profound prudence is required, so that AI is always at the service of man and his dignity and never the other way around. There is, in fact, the risk of a “functionalization” of intelligence itself. If we reduce it to mere calculation, we end up having a reductive vision of man too, considering him only for his efficiency or usefulness, forgetting the deeper dimensions of his existence. We should also avoid the “anthropomorphization” of AI, that is, trying to represent it as if it were a person; a risk that could especially be incurred by young people or the most fragile people. Doing so, especially for manipulative or fraudulent purposes, constitutes a serious ethical failing, as it can induce utilitarian patterns of interaction and impoverish the perception of authentic human relationships, such as that between student and teacher.

THE APPLICATION OF AI IN DIFFERENT SECTORS AND RELATED SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

The note “Old and new” highlights some fields of application of AI in the different sectors of daily and cultural life and the relationship that this has with ethics. For example, in Healthcare, AI offers immense potential. More precise diagnoses, development of new treatments, facilitation of access to care. However, the risk is that the machine will excessively intervene in the relationship between patient and healthcare professional, which is a cornerstone of care. The loneliness of the patient could worsen. It would be good for therapeutic decisions to always remain in the hands of people. There is also the danger that AI will amplify inequalities, favoring a “medicine for the rich”, for those who, having the means, can afford it, to the detriment of universal access to care. Another field of application is Education. Here AI can be a precious resource, improving access to education and offering personalized support, especially in contexts poor in resources. But it cannot completely replace the living relationship between teacher and student, which is fundamental for the integral growth of the person. An excessive or exclusive use of AI can generate dependency or atrophy the ability to learn and act autonomously. Some tools, instead of stimulating critical thinking, could even provide prepackaged answers. The goal should always be to promote the ability to think for oneself.

In the area of ​​information, on the one hand, AI can help understand complex facts and seek the truth, on the other hand, there is the possibility that false but extremely realistic content, the so-called deep fakes, may be produced. The use of such tools to deceive or harm is a serious ethical violation that distorts our relationship with reality. Producers and users of AI have the responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of information and to avoid the dissemination of material that is harmful to dignity.

Linked to the topic of information is also that of privacy, due to the fact that we must always keep in mind that human beings are relational beings, and our digital data are an expression of this nature. Privacy is aimed at protecting the intimate spaces of life and guaranteeing freedom. AI, capable of detecting thought patterns and behavior from a few data, makes this protection even more urgent. The use of AI aimed at indiscriminate control, exploitation, limitation of freedom or the advantage of a few to the detriment of many is not justifiable. We must resist the temptation to identify the person as a simple set of data, as happens, for example, in social scoring practices.

AI has shown promising applications in the field of stewardship and protection of creation. It could help us improve our relationship with the environment, for example in managing extreme weather events. However, current AI models and the necessary hardware require enormous amounts of energy and water, thus contributing to environmental impact. Large language models, in particular, require considerable computing power and data storage infrastructure. The solution, as the Encyclical “Laudato yes’ ” reminds us, lies not only in technology, but in a change of the human heart.

In the context of military and warfare, the analytical capabilities of AI could, in theory, help in the pursuit of peace. However, the use of AI in these areas, especially in the context of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), is extremely problematic. These machines lack the human capacity for moral judgment and raise very serious ethical questions. The development of AI-based weaponry must be subjected to the strictest ethical scrutiny, with full respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life. Finally, in the delicate and fragile sector of the economy and in work, AI can certainly increase productivity by taking on repetitive tasks. But the growing dependence on digital technology in the economy risks impoverishing the diversity of local communities. In the world of work, there is a danger that workers will be forced to adapt to the dehumanizing rhythms of machines and that work itself will lose its intrinsic value. Efficiency gained at the expense of humanity is too high a price to pay. AI must assist, not replace, human judgment; It must not degrade creativity, nor reduce workers to mere cogs in a system.

IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AI AND THE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?

A final, but no less important reflection concerns the relationship between AI and our spiritual dimension. In a society that tends to distance itself from the bond with the transcendent, the temptation may arise to turn to AI, especially to its most advanced and futuristic forms, such as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), in search of ultimate answers, of a sense of fullness that, in truth, should for a believer find authentic satisfaction only in communion with God. The presumption of being able to replace God with a work of our hands is, and always will be, a form of idolatry. Artificial Intelligence is a product of human ingenuity, an imprint of our creativity. But it does not have a heart, it does not have a soul, and it will never be able to replace the living and personal relationship that every man is called to have with his Creator.

FOR AN AI AT THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON GOOD

Christian reflection on Artificial Intelligence integrates technology within a broader and deeper vision of human nature, its vocation and God’s loving plan. AI is a powerful tool, rich in beneficial potential but also carrying significant risks. The key to its ethical and wise use lies, first of all, in the clear distinction between human and artificial intelligence, in the awareness of the intrinsic limits of the latter and, above all, in the constant assumption of moral responsibility by the man who designs, develops and uses it. Human dignity must remain the supreme criterion for evaluating every application of AI. It is essential to avoid confusing the machine with the person and to ensure that AI does not become an instrument of control, inequality, disinformation or the replacement of authentic human relationships and our relationship with reality and with God. Prudence and moral discernment, enlightened by the perennial principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church, are essential to ensure that Artificial Intelligence truly contributes to integral human progress and the common good. Like any other technology, AI can also be part of a conscious and responsible response to humanity’s vocation to do good and to protect the world that has been entrusted to us. Let this be our commitment: to guide the development and use of Artificial Intelligence with wisdom, responsibility and heart, so that it may truly be at the service of every man and of all man.

TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS, HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUE WISDOM

“Old and new” emphasizes that the unstoppable advance of technology, especially AI, presents humanity with crucial challenges that question its conscience, its values ​​and its very concept of progress. As the Holy Father Francis has emphasized, there is a pressing urgency for the development of responsibility, values ​​and conscience to proceed hand in hand with the increase in the possibilities offered by technology. In fact, as the power available to man increases, his individual and collective responsibility also expands proportionally. In this context, the essential question that resonates forcefully is whether, through this progress, the human being becomes truly better: more spiritually mature, more aware of the intrinsic dignity of his humanity, more responsible in his choices, more open to others, especially those most in need and vulnerable, and more inclined to offer help and solidarity. This fundamental question must guide every reflection and action regarding new technologies.

A critical capacity towards individual technological applications, analyzing them in their specific contexts, therefore becomes crucial. As we have said several times, the goal of such discernment is to determine whether they actually promote human dignity, the fullness of the vocation of each person and the common good of the entire human family. The effects of the different applications of AI, as with many other technologies, may not be immediately predictable in their initial phases. As these applications and their impact on society become clearer, it is imperative that feedback and adjustment mechanisms are activated at all levels, from individual users to families, from civil society to businesses, from government institutions to international organizations. Each actor, according to the principle of subsidiarity and within the scope of their own competences, is called to commit to ensuring that the use of AI is always oriented to the good of all.

A critical capacity towards individual technological applications, analyzing them in their specific contexts, therefore becomes crucial. As we have said several times, the goal of such discernment is to determine whether they actually promote human dignity, the fullness of the vocation of each person and the common good of the entire human family. The effects of the different applications of AI, as with many other technologies, may not be immediately predictable in their initial phases. As these applications and their impact on society become clearer, it is imperative that feedback and adjustment mechanisms are activated at all levels, from individual users to families, from civil society to businesses, from government institutions to international organizations. Each actor, according to the principle of subsidiarity and within the scope of their own competences, is called to commit to ensuring that the use of AI is always oriented to the good of all.

The emergence of AI on the world stage also launches a pressing call to renew the valorization of all that is authentically human. As the writer Georges Bernanos acutely observed, the real danger lies not so much in the proliferation of machines, but in the growing number of people accustomed, from a young age, to desiring only what machines can offer. This insight remains of pressing relevance: rapid digitalization carries the risk of “digital reductionism”, a tendency to set aside, forget or consider irrelevant all those human experiences that cannot be quantified or translated into formal and calculable terms. It is essential, instead, that AI be used as a complementary tool to human intelligence, without ever claiming to replace its richness, complexity and intuition. Cultivating those aspects of human life that transcend mere calculation is of crucial importance to preserve an “authentic humanity”, that profound dimension that, like a thin mist, seems almost imperceptibly to inhabit and resist even in the heart of technological civilization.

Faced with the vast extent of knowledge accessible today, which would have amazed past generations, it is essential to take a further step: to go beyond the simple accumulation of data to strive to achieve true wisdom. Without this step, scientific and technological progress risks remaining humanly and spiritually sterile.

This wisdom, defined by Holy Father Francis as “wisdom of the heart,” is the gift that humanity most desperately needs to address the profound questions and complex ethical challenges posed by AI. Only by equipping ourselves with a spiritual gaze, only by recovering this wisdom that flows from the heart, can we read and interpret with depth the novelties of our time. It is a virtue that allows us to weave together the whole and the parts, decisions and their consequences, in the long term. Humanity cannot expect to receive this wisdom from machines; en, as the Scriptures teach, allows itself to be found by those who seek it with a sincere heart, reveals itself to those who love it, anticipates those who desire it and actively seeks out those who are worthy of it. In a world increasingly shaped by AI, we have a vital need for the grace of the Holy Spirit, which allows us to see things with the eyes of God, to understand profound connections, situations, events and to discover their ultimate meaning. The measure of people’s perfection, in fact, is not given by the amount of data and knowledge they can accumulate, but by their degree of charity. Consequently, the way in which AI is adopted and used to include the least, the weakest and neediest brothers and sisters, becomes the revealing measure of our own humanity. This wisdom, rooted in love, can illuminate and guide a use of technology that is authentically centered on the human being. Such an approach can help promote the common good, care for the “common home”, advance the search for truth, support integral human development and foster solidarity and universal brotherhood, ultimately orienting humanity towards its ultimate end: happy and full communion with God.

In this perspective, believers are called to act as responsible agents, capable of using this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. This starts from an understanding of technological progress not as an end in itself, but as part of God’s provident plan for creation: an activity that humanity is called to orient and order towards the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the constant and tireless search for the True and the Good.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of generating with AI a danger that affects all humanity in its entirety is great and upon us. As happened in the case of the use of nuclear power in the military field. A development that, perhaps unexpectedly, or perhaps yes, originally had good intentions: think of nuclear medicine for diagnostics through advanced devices. Then suddenly, from healing, nuclear power has become synonymous with immediate and generalized death. The same could happen with AI. If nuclear power risks harming the body, AI risks harming the mind and the intellect, therefore the spirit. Let’s make it its own wisdom. Rediscover, as was said above, a wisdom of the heart that is a contemplative gaze on reality, capable of tasting, perceiving and penetrating with the help of grace the world, society, the historical era in which we live to live it with the virtue of faith, hope and charity, through the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Only with this view, AI will not only not be dangerous, but will become a useful tool, almost essential to quickly respond to the challenges of our time. An AI can never sanctify itself, it can never receive grace, but the man who uses it for good purposes can. Let us learn to use it well: without fear, without demonizing it, not as an idol to be worshipped, but as a tool for improvement. Our imperative will be to use it without neglecting the human mind, heart and spirit. As believers have always done, with any artificial tool born of ingenuity. In this way we will help those who will increasingly use AI to make it a tool for promotion and, why not, for help on the path of those who seek God.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, June 21, 2025

.

.

Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

BIBLE, HOMOSEXUALS AND THEOLOGY. THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO SPECULATE AND DISCUSS AND THOSE WHO WANT TO INTRODUCE A DANGEROUS TROJAN HORSE INSIDE THE CHURCH

«Today an increasingly large number of people, even within the Church, they exert very strong pressure to bring her to accept the homosexual condition, like it wasn't messy, and to legitimize homosexual acts" (Joseph Ratzinger, 1986)

— Theologica pages —

Author
Hermit Monk

PDF print format article

.HTTPS://youtu.be/4fP7neCJapw.

.

Homosexuality has always been a thorny topic, generates destined discussions and polarizations, like the famous parallel lines, to never meet. To give an example, I could cite the fuss raised last year by the publication of a book written by a General of the Italian Army containing decidedly clear positions on this aspect.. Of course homosexuality, During the years, it was also a debated chapter in the Catholic Church, more and more; escaped from fleeting mention in old manuals of moral theology and has become the subject of magisterial pronouncements, with specific dedicated documents, which denote how much the topic is felt in society and in the Christian communities that question themselves on this. Various meanings are found in the same documents, decisive or timid openings and closures which can also be ascribed to the sensitivity or position of that ecclesiastical representative or pontiff in office in a particular historical moment.

The Second Vatican Council he also asked that Sacred Scripture be given back the veneration it deserves as the source of divine Revelation and to it and to Sacred Tradition he dedicated one of the four dogmatic constitutions issued from that meeting, with the name of God's word. Since then every magisterial pronouncement, but one could say any theological or pastoral reflection, every single act of the Church cannot ignore the reference to the Bible. Even a topic that would seem delicate like that of homosexuality. Now, what sometimes emerges in many who want to refer to the Bible when speaking or writing about this topic, it's that they can hardly put aside the desire to polarize or necessarily emerge victorious from controversies, as we already noted at the beginning of this speech. Like this, the Holy Scripture, in debates or writings, it ceases to be that source that nourishes to become a weapon brandished by those who condemn short homosexuality, and by those who would instead like the Church to apologize to homosexuals for its closures and for the suffering it has caused them. How can you get out of this impasse? I think, first of all, recognizing the right value of the Holy Scripture which is evidently not a weapon to be used at will or a handbook and leaflet to be opened to comfort one's ideas and positions in the world. I read some passages of the voluminous commentary published last year under the name of Bibbia queer for the types of the Dehonian editions (WHO), where among other things, in the Gospels there is fear of a homosexual relationship between the Roman centurion and his sick servant for whom the former asks Jesus for healing, only because the Evangelist Luke says that "he was very dear to him" (LC 7, 1-10). The same interpretation was recently relaunched by a blog that is usually very polemical towards the current Pontiff and the leaders of the Church, but decidedly lenient on the subject of homosexuality, so much so as to state in an article dedicated to the relationship between this topic and Sacred Scripture that:

«Reading these texts carefully, so, there is nothing against homosexuality".

For real? Why leafing through the documents of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church to cite an example, and of course those sites or blogs with a more conservative orientation, so to speak, it seems instead that for these the Bible is decidedly positioned on an attitude against homosexuality.

What I want to remember here it is how the Council wanted the Bible to be interpreted and it talks about this in nr. 12 of the Dogmatic Constitution God's word:

«For God in the Holy Scripture spoke through men in the human manner, the interpreter of the Holy Scripture, to better understand what he wanted to communicate to us, he must carefully research what the hagiographers really wanted to say and what God was pleased to demonstrate with their words. To obtain the intention of the hagiographers, among other things, literary genres must also be taken into account. In fact, the truth is proposed and expressed differently in historical texts in various ways, or prophetic, or poetic, or even in other genres of expression. It is therefore necessary for the interpreter to seek the meaning that the hagiographs in certain circumstances, according to the conditions of his time and his culture, through the literary genres in use at the time, he intended to express and has in fact expressed. In fact, to understand exactly what the sacred author wanted to assert in writing, due attention must be paid to both habitual and original ways of feeling, to express oneself and tell stories in force in the time of the hagiographer, both to those and in the various places they were then in use in human relationships. Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by which it was written, to derive the exact meaning of the sacred texts, care must be taken with no less diligence the content and unity of the whole Scripture, taking due account of the living tradition of the whole Church and the analogy of faith. It is the task of the exegetes to contribute, following these rules, to the deepest intelligence and exposition of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through their studies, somewhat preparatory, let the judgment of the Church mature".

This is important and in some ways the passage of the passage is still not fully understood God's word reminds us, in its first part, the sacramental quality, as it were, of the Holy Scripture. Since the Word of God is presented in the form of human writing that is subject to the conditions of time and culture of the writers and to the original way of organizing that literary genius that every biblical author possesses. Just as it underlies their "ways of feeling, to express oneself and tell stories... which were in use in human relationships". In the second part, instead, there is an invitation to further excavation that goes in the direction of searching for the deeper meaning or meaning of the same Scripture. A spiritual sense, it is no coincidence that the Spirit is mentioned with a capital letter, and theological, in accordance with the entire deposit of faith, for an ever fuller understanding of the text and because the Church, in particular that part of it predisposed to driving, can express a judgment on the things that concern the Christian experience in accordance with the Word of God and its tradition. In light of this, we understand that we are facing a long and patient job, quite another thing than unsheathing the sword of the Bible and brandishing it to assert, or worse to impose their ideas.

Returning to our topic, it is clear that the Church's judgment on homosexuality has undergone progress, as well as maintaining some considerations. This can be seen in the documents, it gives Human person the 1975 to the recent Begging for Confidence the 2023, passing by Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people the 1986, issued by the Congregation, now Dicastery, for the Doctrine of the Faith. This last document is the one that more than the others makes explicit reference to the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality, he lists them all and on this basis and on that of Tradition and the Magisterium, that document states that the Church:

«He maintains his clear position on this matter, which cannot be modified under the pressure of civil legislation or the fashion of the moment" (no. 9).

Shortly before the same text mentioned that:

«Today an increasingly large number of people, even within the Church, they exert very strong pressure to bring her to accept the homosexual condition, like it wasn't messy, and to legitimize homosexual acts" (no. 8).

Even the most recent document Begging for confidence it relies on Scripture, tradition and the Magisterium, in particular of the last Pontiff. This grants the possibility of giving the blessing under certain conditions to irregular couples and to those of the same sex because in this way:

«The Church is thus the sacrament of God's infinite love. Therefore, even when the relationship with God is clouded by sin, you can always ask for a blessing, holding out your hand to him, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus: "Man, save me!” (Mt 14, 30). Wishing for and receiving a blessing can be the best thing possible in some situations." (no. 43).

Without forgetting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, what he says about homosexual people:

«Homosexuality refers to relationships between men or women who experience sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex. It manifests itself in very varied forms over the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychic genesis remains largely unexplained. Relying on the Holy Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered". They are against natural law. They preclude the gift of life from the sexual act. They are not the fruit of true emotional and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (cf.. 2357). «A non-negligible number of men and women have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies. This inclination, objectively disordered, constitutes a test for most of them. Therefore they must be welcomed with respect, compassion, delicacy. In their regard, any sign of unfair discrimination will be avoided. Such people are called to carry out God's will in their life, e, if they are Christian, to unite the difficulties they may encounter as a result of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross " (cf.. 2358). «Homosexual people are called to chastity. Through the virtues of self-mastery, educators of inner freedom, through support, sometimes, of a disinterested friendship, with prayer and sacramental grace, they can and must, gradually and resolutely, getting closer to Christian perfection" (cfr.2359).

What about all this? Evidently these are not schizophrenic visions of the same reality. Rather, in the aforementioned documents there is a desire to maintain anchoring in the Word of God, seen precisely as a source. It is clear that the different writers wanted to press a certain type of register instead of another. Thus the most recent document relied on the teaching of mercy, so dear to Pope Francis and prefer biblical passages that underline God's welcome rather than condemnation. It is probable that the texts most decisive in condemning homosexuality have been interpreted in light of that "sense that the hagiographer in certain circumstances, according to the conditions of his time and his culture, through the literary genres in use at the time, intended to express and has in fact expressed", of which the Council spoke. Thus some expressions of Saint Paul and already of the Book of Leviticus which condemn homosexual relations for some exegetes are such because "the notion of homosexuality did not exist, that is, the normal attraction that a person can have towards another of the same sex, Paul saw this behavior as a deviation, based on what he believed was the "natural relationship". His opinions on the matter have the same value as when he states that it is "nature itself that teaches us that it is unseemly for a man to let his hair grow" (1 Color 11,14) (WHO). Likewise the Old Testament prescriptions of Leviticus, they are not related to sexuality, but rather to procreation, as it contravened the divine commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1,28) (WHO). The biblical text par excellence, then, on which every openness towards the homosexual condition is based and, lately, it is also used for the request for female ordination and is the Pauline passage from the Letter to the Galatians:

«There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is no slave nor free; there is no male and female, because you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3,28).

Text variously interpreted and sometimes forced to say what he really doesn't want to say. Yet all the documents, and the more closed ones, is the last one that presents some openings regarding the blessing of homosexual couples, you have to say it and accept it, they do not declare themselves openly Gay-friendly, as they say today; quite the opposite. Also Begging for confidence, which speaks of mercy, he does not withdraw from traditional doctrine nor does he wish to create confusion between the marital union and other types of union:

«This belief is founded on the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage. Only in this context do sexual relations find their natural meaning, adequate and fully human. The doctrine of the Church on this point remains firm." (no. 4).

There is yet another aspect that needs to be mentioned. Joseph Ratzinger who drafted the aforementioned Letter the 1986 he spoke of very strong pressures, even manipulation, to ensure that the Church accepted the homosexual condition. The document clarified the Church's position on this matter. Yet it must be admitted that in that document and in the others the Church's attitude towards homosexuals had already changed a lot and this, it cannot be denied, because the sensitivity and opinion of contemporaries in this regard has profoundly changed, at all levels. Thus the Church today also deplores the oppression of homosexual people, as expressed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above, therefore the use of violent language and actions. We appeal to the "proper dignity of every person". The term sodomy has disappeared and instead of "against nature" we are instead talking about a tendency, even if the "orientation" used by the World Health Organization is not adopted. Homosexual people are Christians like everyone else and invited to live chastity. there, Homosexual acts are not accepted, but that document, in the final part, it is all a promotion of the welcome and pastoral care of homosexuals who are not denied the Sacraments, under the appropriate conditions.

But as always happens with the topics that interest us In the Christian life, discussions are never closed, the reflection continues. The same Letter by Joseph Ratzinger invites bishops to solicit "the collaboration of all Catholic theologians" (no. 17). This aspect is probably the most difficult, the most tiring, what we miss most and also the most delicate as I will mention shortly with an example. But also what we need most, precisely because the Bible, to return to the heart of our discussion, is not used as a handbook. There is a further and decisive step. So that people, immersed in contemporary culture, can appreciate the intelligence of faith, we need the continuous effort to hermeneutically re-understand the data of faith and translate it into coherent organizations of thought. The Bible must retain its character as a source, but we need theological reflection for which the Holy Scripture, according to a beautiful expression of God's word, it is like the soul that keeps it always young:

«Sacred theology rests as if on an everlasting foundation on the written Word of God, inseparable from sacred Tradition; in it it is vigorously consolidated and always rejuvenated, scrutinizing in the light of faith every truth contained in the mystery of Christ. The Holy Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because you are inspired, they are truly the Word of God, let the study of the sacred pages be the soul of sacred theology" (no. 24).

I come to the example I wanted to refer to: the known theologians who have reflected on the topic of homosexuality almost all belong to the Anglo-Saxon area, often with decidedly open-minded positions in this area. Yet in Italy we had a theologian, a priest, who has thought a lot about this topic, but few know it. I am referring to the presbyter Gianni Baget Bozzo who many know for his orbiting vocation, that is, capable of making choices and expressing opinions first in one direction and then in the opposite direction. Embodying a controversial character alive he is now almost forgotten, Unfortunately. But according to him "in God the opposites are not contradictory" and "there is nothing more fascinating for the human imagination than seeing the two sides of a contradiction at the same time"[1]. He had Giuseppe Siri as a professor of religion in Genoa, future archbishop and cardinal of the same city who ordained him as a priest, he will want him to be a professor of theology in the seminary, he will entrust the magazine to him Renewal, he will take away these two tasks and suspend him peep. He changed his mind about everything, but on a subject he never changed his opinion: about homosexuals. His comments on the matter, which date from 1976 until the 2008, so that they do not fall into oblivion, they were collected by the Vatican expert Luigi Accattoli in a book entitled: For a theology of homosexuality [2].

These are texts that appeared in newspapers, magazines or speeches at conferences in which he tenaciously made his claims, for over thirty years, the rights of those who live in the homosexual condition. And as a theologian he encouraged Christians to rethink the theology of sexuality and to develop within it the unprecedented chapter of homosexuality. With his extraordinary aptitude for speaking about God in the language of his time, he wondered and asked what the divine intention is regarding the existence of homosexuals. He did so with sharp arguments and learned quotations, to the point that in the end he even had to repeat in more than one interview that he was not homosexual. Defended homosexuals, but also virginity and celibacy and did not spare criticism of the movement gay, to the organization of Pride, in particular that of the Holy Year of 2000, jubilee year, which caused such a sensation in the city of Rome. He advised homosexuals to have stable partners, instead of variables and also accused the European Union of using i gay as a weapon against the Catholic Church. He considered chaste homoeroticism not incompatible with sanctity and wrote things like this:

«Homosexuality, anyhow, it can never be considered by society as a model. It cannot be so first and foremost for biological reasons. A society that is biologically aseptic is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. This should not be forgotten. The Church cannot accept the equalization between the heterosexual and homosexual conditions. This is valid on the level of social morality. To be clear, on the political level. But on the level of individual morality, the discussion is still open and will need to be addressed" (The Gazette, June 2020).

What I want to underline here it is not so much defending Baget Bozzo's opinions, although it is nice that they are not forgotten and that there was an Italian intellectual who was not afraid to expose himself in this debate, but that we need such a cultural and theological effort, of sharp minds that help us think about difficult issues and therefore deal with those who don't think like us, but with the same diligence. Let's leave the shortcuts of those who take the Bible and read it like a medical handbook to the dear fundamentalists from overseas or to some blog of little fortune. The Catholic tradition that has never made use of shortcuts, much less the intellectuals, has always invited us to think, after meditating on Holy page, to quote Thomas Aquinas, what it was magister.

From the Hermitage, 3 May 2024

Gianni Baget Bozzo, Genoese presbyter (1925 – †2009)

.

NOTE

[1] Baget Bozzo G., Vocation, Rizzoli, 1982, pg 68 e 142).

[2] Baget Bozzo G., For a theology of homosexualityat, edited by Luigi Accattoli, Ed. Months, 2020.

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

THE FANS OF MARIA CO-REDEMPTOR, A GROSS CONTRADICTION IN THEOLOGICAL TERMS

Is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?

— Theologica pages —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

PDF print format article

.

Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos

.

On the occasion of the release of the doctrinal note Mother of the Faithful People, we propose the latest article on the topic written by Father Ariel S. Levi of Gualdoil 3 February 2024 his “Maria Corredentrice”, within which we refer to the following articles published previously: «Article of 3 April 2020 — We defend the Holy Father Francesco from flamethrower of mariolatri thirsty for new Marian dogmas: “Mary is not co-redemptrix”»; «Article of 14 August 2022 – Proclaiming new dogmas is more serious than deconstructing the dogmas of faith. Maria Corredentrice? A theological idiocy supported by those who ignore the bases of Christology»; «Article of 11 May 2023 – Bergoglio, heretic and apostate, blaspheme the Madonna". Word of a solar heretic with the obsession of Mary co-redemptrix who would ask for the proclamation of the fifth Marian dogma»

_________________

.

Article dedicated to the memory of the Jesuit Peter Gumpel (Hannover 1923 – Rome 2023) who was my trainer and precious teacher in the history of dogma

.

By frequenting enough i social media, reading and listening to priests and lay people, on biblical and theological topics, sometimes one gets the impression that no progress has been made on certain issues. It so happens that many inaccuracies are put into circulation on questions concerning matters of faith, or we continue on old registers, devotional and emotional.

Salvador Dali, The Madonna of Port Lligat, 1949, Haggerty Museum of Art, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Detail.

The desire, perhaps a little utopian, it would be for the Readers to realize, with minimal effort, who could benefit from serious and precise insights. At least it is in my hope and that of our Fathers Patmos Island, be of help to those who manage to go beyond the four or five lines read on social media, where today unlikely theologians and Mariologists pontificate, with the consequences that we often know well: deviation from the true faith. And this is very sad, because i Social media they could be an extraordinary tool for us for the diffusion of sound and solid Catholic doctrine.

In the years following the Second Vatican Council Biblical science has made important strides, offering contributions that are now essential for theology in its various branches and for Christian life. This since when, since the time of the Venerable Pontiff Pius XII, in the Catholic Church the study of the Bible has been encouraged by giving the possibility of using all those methods that are normally applied to a written text. To cite just a few examples: rhetorical analysis, the structural one, literary and semantics have produced results that perhaps have sometimes appeared unsatisfactory, but they also allowed us to explore the text of the Holy Scripture in a new way and this led to a whole series of studies that made us know the Word of God better and more deeply. Or to reconsider ancient acquisitions, of tradition, of the Holy Fathers of the Church, which despite being true and profound, as well as works of high theology, however they did not have the support of a modern study of sacred texts, precisely because still, certain tools, at the time of their speculations they were missing.

Before continuing, an aside is necessary: i "teologi" da social media they need the fight, to unleash which it is necessary to choose and create an enemy. For certain groups the most popular enemy is Modernism, rightly defined by the Holy Pontiff Pius (cf.. Feeding of Dominic's Sheep). That doesn't mean that, But, than the actions of this Holy Pontiff, before that and of his Supreme Predecessor Leo XIII, has always produced beneficial effects in the decades to follow. Obviously, to make an objective critical analysis, it is imperative to contextualize the condemnation of Modernism and the severe canonical measures that followed in that precise historical moment, certainly not to express judgments using criteria linked to our present, because only misleading and distorting sentences would emerge. To briefly summarize this complex problem to which I intend to dedicate my next book, suffice it to say that the Church of those years, after the fall of the Papal State which occurred on 20 September 1870, it was subject to violent political and social attacks. The Roman Pontiff withdrew as a "voluntary prisoner" within the Vatican walls from which he emerged only six decades later. The anticlericalism of Masonic origin was raised to the maximum power and the Church had to seriously deal with its own survival and that of the institution of the papacy. It certainly could not afford the development of currents of thought that would have attacked and corroded it directly from within. It is in this delicate context that the fight of the Holy Pontiff Pius. With all the consequences, including negative ones, of the case: theological speculation was effectively frozen amidst a thousand fears and the training of priests was reduced to four formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism, which was not even a distant relative of the classical scholasticism of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas. This produced such an unpreparedness and ignorance in the Catholic clergy that for clear proof it would be enough to read the Encyclical Back to the Catholic Priesthood written in 1935 of Pope Pius XI.

The consequences of the fight against Modernism they were in some ways disastrous, suffice it to say that when on the threshold of the 1940s, at the beginning of the pontificate of Pius XII, Catholic theologians and biblical scholars began to get their hands on certain materials and to carry out exegesis in the context of the Old and New Testaments, they were forced, discreetly and working prudently under the table, to refer to Protestant authors, who had been speculating and carrying out in-depth studies on certain topics for decades, especially in the field of biblical sciences. And so today, if we want to do a study and analysis of the text of the Letter to the Romans we must necessarily refer to the commentary of the Protestant theologian Carl Barth, which remains fundamental and above all unsurpassed. These too were the fruits of the struggle against Modernism, which the "theologians" certainly don't talk about social media that to exist they need an enemy to fight. But as already said, this theme will be the subject of my next book, but this aside was necessary to better introduce our theme.

What is still missing today is that these results obtained through modern exegesis or the study of the Old and New Testament texts become the prerogative of the majority of believers. And here I return to reiterate the extraordinary importance that the social media, to disseminate and make certain materials accessible. Too often they remain confined to specialist texts and do not pass, if not sporadically, in preaching and catechesis, encouraging a new awareness of the terms at stake and therefore a more solid and motivated Christian faith, not based only on acquired data that is often fragile and confusing, on the devotional, on the sentimental, or worse: about revelations, on real or alleged apparitions, or on the itchy trembling “secrets” of talkativeness Madam di Medjugorje (cf.. my video conference, WHO)…and so on to follow.

If certain madonnolatrous fans they had humility, perhaps even the decency to read books and articles by authoritative scholars, perhaps they could understand that not only, they didn't understand, but that they have understood nothing at all about the Mary of the Holy Gospels. It would be enough to take - I mention just one among many - the article written by Father Ignace de la Potterie: «The Mother of Jesus and the mystery of Cana» (La Civiltà Cattolica, 1979, IV, pp. 425-440, full text WHO), to thus understand what abysmal difference there may be between Mariology and Mariolatry.

When even today we still talk about the Virgin Mary, Unfortunately, even among certain priests - and even more so among certain devout believers - we witness the trite repetition of the usual devotional and emotional discourses, until reaching, with the step of elephants inside a glassware shop, the very delicate and discussed theme of Mary co-redemptrix, that as is well known - and as the last Pontiffs have pointed out several times -, it is a term that in itself creates enormous theological problems with Christology and the mystery of redemption itself. In fact, affirm that Maria, perfect creature born without sin, but still a created creature, he cooperated in the redemption of humanity, it is not exactly the same as saying that he co-redeemed humanity. It was Christ who brought about the redemption, who was not a created creature but the Word of God made man, begotten not created of the same substance as God the Father, as we act in the Symbol of Faith, the I believe, where we profess «[…] and by the work of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary". In Symbol of Faith, redemption is entirely centered on Christ. That's why we say that the Blessed Virgin “he cooperated” and say “ha co-redee” it has a substantially and radically different theological value. In fact, only one is the redeemer: Jesus Christ God made man "begotten not created of the same substance as the Father", who as such does not need any created creature to support or sustain him as co-redeemer or co-redeemer, including the Blessed Virgin Mary" (cf.. Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, in The Island of Patmos, see WHO, WHO, WHO). Request: to the fans of the co-redeemer, how come it is not enough that Mary is the one who in fact cooperated more than any creature so that the mystery of redemption was realized? For what reason, but above all for what obstinacy, not happy with her role as a cooperator, at all costs they want her to be proclaimed co-redemptive with a solemn dogmatic definition?

From a theological point of view and dogmatic, the very concept of Mary co-redemptrix first of all creates big problems for Christology, with the risk of giving life to a sort of "quatrinity" and of raising the Madonna, that is perfect creature born without the stain of original sin, to the role of real gods. Christ redeemed us with his hypostatic precious human and divine blood, with his glorious resurrected body which still bears the signs of passion imprinted on it today. Mary instead, while covering an extraordinary role in the history of the economy of salvation, It cooperated in our redemption. To say co-redemptive is equivalent to saying that we have been redeemed by Christ and Mary. And here it is good to clarify: Christ saves, Mary intercedes for our salvation. It is not a small difference between “saving” and “interceding”, unless otherwise create a different religion from the one founded on the mystery of God's Word (cf.. My previous article WHO).

Mariology is not something in itself, almost as if he lived an autonomous life. Mariology is nothing more than an appendix of Christology and is inserted in a precise theological dimension of Christocentrism. If Mariology is somehow detached from this Christocentric centrality, one can run the serious risk of falling into the worst and most harmful Mariocentrism. Not to mention the obvious arrogance of the exponents of some young and problematic Congregation of Franciscan-Marian imprint, who did not limit themselves to making hypotheses or theological studies to support the peregrine idea of ​​the so-called co-redemptive, but in fact they instituted its cult and veneration.

Who proclaims dogmas that do not exist commits a greater crime than those whose dogmas deny them, because it operates by placing itself above the authority of the same Holy Church Mater et Magistra, holder of an authority that derives from Christ himself. And the latter yes, which is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, which was not reached by logical deduction after centuries of studies and speculation - as in the case of the dogma of the immaculate conception and Mary's assumption into heaven -, but on the basis of clear and precise words pronounced by the Word of God made Man (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20). And when dogmas that don't exist are proclaimed, in that case pride enters the scene in its worst manifestation. I have written and explained it in several of my previous articles but it deserves to be repeated again: in the so-called scale of the deadly sins the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates pride in the first place, with painful peace of those who persist in concentrating the entire mystery of evil in lust - which we remember does not figure in first place at all, but not even to the second, to the third and fourth [See. Catechism no. 1866] ―, regardless of the fact that the worst sins ranging everyone and rigor from his belt to rise, not instead of his belt to fall, as I wrote in an ironic but theologically very serious tone years ago in my book And Satan became triune, explaining in one of my books 2011 how the sixth commandment has often been exaggerated beyond measure, often forgetting all the worst and most serious sins against charity.

If then all this is filtered through fideistic emotions - as if such a delicate topic centered in the most complex spheres of dogmatics were a sort of opposing fan base made up of Lazio fans and Roma fans -, in that case one can fall into actual Marian idolatry or so-called Mariolatry, which is to say: pure paganism. At that point Mary could easily take the name of any goddess of the Greek Olympus or the Roman Pantheon.

The fans from social media of co-redemption of the Blessed Virgin affirm as a sort of incontrovertible proof that it was Mary herself who asked for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma (cf.. among many articles, WHO). Something they say there is no discussion about, the Blessed Virgin herself would have asked it when appearing in Amsterdam to Ida Peerdeman. Given that no Marian apparition, including those recognized as authentic by the Church, Fatima included, it can be the object and binding matter of faith; given also that the locutions of certain seers are even less so, we can only smile at certain pleasantries of amateur theologians which make certain subjects difficult to manage for us priests and above all for us theologians, precisely because their arrogance goes hand in hand with their ignorance which leads them to treat such a topic as if it really were a heated exchange between Lazio fans and Roma fans who shout at each other from the opposite corners of the stadium. Even in this case the answer is simple: is anyone truly willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin, the one who defined herself as a "humble servant", the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can truly ask some visionaries or visionaries to be proclaimed co-redeemer and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer? One might reasonably ask: of when, the "humble servant" of Magnificat, she would become so pretentious and vain as to ask for and claim the title of co-redeemer?

Finally, here it is “proof of proof”: «several Supreme Pontiffs have made use of the term co-redemptive», Having said this, the list of their various speeches follows, although everything demonstrates the exact opposite of what the co-redemption fans would like to experience. It is true that the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in a speech of his on 8 September 1982, stated:

«Maria, even conceived and born without stain of sin, he participated in a wonderful way in the sufferings of his divine Son, to be co-redemptor of humanity".

However, this expression demonstrates the exact opposite on the theological and Mariological level. Let's clarify why: from then on, following John Paul II - who was undoubtedly a Pontiff of profound Marian devotion -, he had others before him 23 years of pontificate. Come May, in this long period of time, as well as not proclaiming the fifth Marian dogma of Mary's co-redemption, he flatly rejected the request, when it was presented to him twice? He rejected her because between the 1962 and the 1965, the then young Bishop Karol Woytila ​​was a participating and active figure in the Second Vatican Council who in one of its dogmatic constitutions clarified how Mary had «cooperated in a unique way in the work of the Savior» (The light, 61). Statement introduced by the previous article where it is specified that the only mediation of the Redeemer «does not exclude, but it arouses in creatures a varied cooperation participated by the single source" (The light 60; CCC 970). And the highest and most extraordinary cooperation was that of the Virgin Mary. This should be enough to understand that the Supreme Pontiffs, when they sometimes resorted to the term co-redemptive in their speeches, never in encyclicals or solemn acts of the supreme magisterium, they intended to express with it the concept of Mary's cooperation in the mystery of salvation and redemption.

The very term co-redemptive it is in and of itself a theological absurdity that creates enormous conflicts with Christology and the mystery of redemption brought about solely by God the Incarnate Word, which does not need co-redeemers and co-redeemers, he repeated it three times, In the 2019, 2020 e 2021 also the Supreme Pontiff Francis:

«[…] Faithful to his Master, who is his Son, the only Redeemer, he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as a co-redeemer. No, discepola. And there is a Holy Father who says around that discipleship is more worthy than motherhood. Questions of theologians, but a disciple. He never stole anything from his Son for himself, she served him because she is a mother, gives life in the fullness of time to this Son born of a woman (cf.. Homily of 12 December 2019, full text WHO) […] Our Lady did not want to take any title away from Jesus; she received the gift of being His Mother and the duty to accompany us as a Mother, to be our Mother. She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. The Redeemer is only one and this title is not doubled. Only disciple and Mother (cf.. Homily of 3 April 2020, full text WHO) […] the Madonna who, as the Mother to whom Jesus has entrusted us, envelops us all; but as a mother, not as a goddess, not as a co-redemptrix: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety always gives it beautiful titles, like a son to his mother: how many beautiful things a son says to the mother he loves! But let's be careful: the beautiful things that the Church and the Saints say about Mary take nothing away from the redemptive uniqueness of Christ. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a son to his mother, sometimes exaggerated. But love, we know, always makes us do exaggerated things, but with love" (cf.. Hearing of 24 March 2021, full text WHO).

The mystery of redemption it is one with the mystery of the cross, on which God made man died as a sacrificial lamb. On the cross the Blessed Virgin Mary was not nailed to death like a sacrificial lamb, that at the end of her life she fell asleep and was assumed into heaven, she did not die and rose again on the third day, defeating death. The Blessed Virgin, first creature of the whole creation above all the saints for its immaculate purity, he does not forgive our sins and does not redeem us, he intercedes for the remission of our sins and for our redemption. So if he doesn't redeem us, because we insist on dogmatizing a title aimed at solemnly defining which co-redeems us?

Many fans of co-redemption are likely have never paid attention to the invocations of the Loreto Litany, which were certainly not the work of some recent pontiff smacking of modernism, as some would say, they were added to the recitation of the Holy Rosary by the Holy Pontiff Pius V after the victory of the Holy League in Lepanto in 1571, although already in use for several decades in the Sanctuary of the House of Loreto, from which they take their name. Yet it would be enough to ask this question: How come, when at the beginning of these litanies God the Father is invoked, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, let's say "Miserere nobis» (have mercy on us)? While just starting, with the invocation Holy Mary, to enunciate all the titles of the Blessed Virgin, from that moment on we say «Pray for us» (pray for us)? Simple: because God the Father who created us and who gave himself to humanity through the incarnation of the Word of God made man, Jesus Christ, who then brought the Holy Spirit who "proceeds from the Father and the Son", with compassionate mercy they give the grace of forgiveness from sins through a Trinitarian action of the triune God, the Virgin Mary does not, he does not forgive us our sins and does not forgive us, because in the economy of salvation his role is that of intercession. This is why, when we turn to her through prayer, both in the Ave Maria than in Hi Regina, of always, throughout the history and tradition of the Church we invoke her saying "pray for us sinners", we do not ask her to forgive our sins or to save us (cf.. My previous article, WHO). This alone should be sufficient and advance to understand that the term co-redemptive itself is a gross contradiction on a theological level, unfortunately enough to make those theologians who insist on calling for the proclamation of this fifth Marian dogma to be rude, charging and using as fans fringes of faithful, most of whom have deep and serious gaps in the foundations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The person of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus, it is looked at and indicated with a theological depth that places it in close relationship with the mission of his Son and united with us disciples, because this is his role that the Gospels wanted to communicate and remind us of, all with all due respect to those who claim, sometimes even arrogantly, to relegate the Woman of Magnificat in a microcosm of emotional devotions that often even reveal the fumus of neo-paganism. The Supreme Pontiff Francis is therefore right, than with his very simple and direct style, at times even deliberately provocative and for some even irritating, but precisely for this reason capable of making himself understood by everyone, he specified that Maria «[…] he never wanted to take something of his Son for himself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer". And she did not present herself as such because Mary is the Woman of Magnificat: «He looked at the humility of his servant, from now on all generations will call me blessed"; blessed because I became a servant, certainly not why I asked, to some demented seer, to be proclaimed co-redemptrix.

the Island of Patmos, 3 February 2024

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.