Skip to content
Chimera readability score 0.4967 out of 100, reading level.
Can AI be a tool for virtue? Catholics grapple with Anthropic’s claim of virtuous AI March 14, 2026By Courtney Mares OSV News Filed Under: News, Vatican, World News ROME (OSV News) — In a room full of Dominican friars and Catholic philosophy professors, a priest and AI researcher read aloud excerpts pertaining to ethics from the guiding “constitution” of one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent artificial intelligence companies, drawing laughter from the audience of Thomists. The moment came on March 6 when Father Jean Gové, coordinator of the European AI Research Group within the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education, cited passages from Anthropic’s internal guidelines. The company says it aims for its AI model, Claude, to be a “good, wise, and virtuous agent,” without wanting to define those “ethically loaded terms,” and expresses hope that the AI model might one day possess an understanding of ethics that could surpass human ethical understanding. “I appreciate the laughter,” Father Gové told the conference. “This is a text coming from one of the leading AI companies, frontier companies in the world. … This is the company that … is doing the most comparatively when it comes to ethics, safety, and governance when it comes to AI. This is where we are. This is the state of play.” Father Gové spoke at the two-day academic conference “Artificial Intelligence: A Tool for Virtue?”, held March 5–6 at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, known as the Angelicum, in Rome. He said theologians, philosophers, academics and the Church are now being invited to engage with companies that hold ideas like these when grappling with the many issues raised by AI. The conference comes as Catholic institutions are actively engaged with AI ethics. The Vatican issued a document on the technology in 2025, “Antiqua et Nova,” and Pope Leo XIV has made AI a focus since the first days of his pontificate. A message reading “AI artificial intelligence,” a keyboard and robot hands are seen in this illustration created on Jan. 27, 2025. A two-day academic conference “Artificial Intelligence: A Tool for Virtue?” was held March 5–6 at Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, also known as the Angelicum. (OSV News photo/Dado Ruvic, Reuters) Organized by the university’s Thomistic Institute Project for Science and Religion, the conference brought centuries of Dominican engagement with Aristotelian virtue ethics to bear on examining whether AI systems can be designed and used in ways that help people grow in virtue. The answer, by most accounts, was a cautious and qualified no, though not without nuance. — Virtue requires more than good output Dominican Father Alejandro Crosthwaite, dean of the facultya professor of social sciences at the Angelicum, argued that genuine virtue requires faculties no AI system possesses. “Virtue is not correct output,” he said. “It is right reason embodied in a self-determining agent.” A large language model, he continued, predicts tokens based on statistical patterns. It does not deliberate, does not possess will and does not apprehend the good as something it is ordered toward. Father Crosthwaite emphasized that AI “is never a moral subject” and that “virtue ultimately belongs to persons.” “Simulation is epistemic imitation,” he said. “Virtue is ontological possession. This is not a criticism of the technology. It’s simply a clarification of metaphysical categories.” The more pressing question, he argued, is not whether AI can become virtuous, but what kind of persons AI helps form. “If AI replaces prudential judgment, prudence weakens in the human person,” he said. “The ultimate question is not whether the machines become wise. It is whether we do.” — A safer tool, if not a virtuous one Father Gové, who also serves as the Holy See’s representative to the Council of Europe on AI matters, acknowledged that Anthropic’s guidelines, which decline to commit to any specific ethical framework, leave Claude with “no definitions of what is the good,” with “no hierarchy of goods,” and “no end to which good actions are ordered toward.” Thomistic virtue ethics would not recognize Claude as truly virtuous, he said. But Father Gové stopped short of dismissing Anthropic’s efforts. “Does this make Claude a tool for virtue? Not exactly,” he said. “I hope it makes Claude a safer tool. So that’s already something, right?” He also argued that AI ethics require “a triadic relationship between tool, virtue, and regulation, policy, governance,” describing the current state of AI governance legislation as a barren desert. — The risk of replacing teachers and friends with AI Dr. Angela Knobel, a philosophy professor at the University of Dallas and author of “Aquinas and the Infused Moral Virtues,” warned that algorithms can work against virtuous habit formation. “AI chatbots are doing what video games and TikTok and other things are designed to do,” she said. “They design it to make you want more of the same.” Knobel pointed to how algorithmic design in social platforms like TikTok track user behavior, saying, “TikTok is programmed to notice not just what you click on, but also what you pause on and don’t click on. And so, if you see the porn that it shows you and you don’t click on it, but you pause on it, it starts showing you more porn until you do click on it, which is, Aristotle tells us, a very good way to encourage you to do what you don’t want to do, right?” “This is not to say that technology, including AI, can’t be used in helpful ways,” she said. “It’s just to say that it takes effort to make sure you use it in a non-detrimental way.” She was especially concerned about AI’s potential to displace the irreplaceable role of human teachers and mentors in moral formation. Growing morally and intellectually, she said, is inherently uncomfortable, and “that is not something most of us can or even want to do on our own.” “You teach someone to write by making them write, by trying to help them see the ways in which what they wrote falls short, and then asking them to do it again,” she said. “Computers are not very good at doing this.” AI, she concluded, is “closer to an opiate — the kind of thing that requires extreme caution in its use.” “I think we have to exercise extreme caution to ensure that we do not let it take the place of our teachers and friends, because if we do, and to the extent that we do, we will certainly allow it to make us worse,” she said. — The danger of disconnection Dominican Sister Catherine Droste, a theology professor at the Angelicum, warned of what she called “the zombie effect” with people absorbed in devices, oblivious to those around them. “AI has upped the ante,” she said. “At least with Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, et cetera, even though people were using technology, there was still something of a connection related to human beings, which we’ve lost.” Still, Sister Catherine allowed that AI could be used prudently in certain contexts. “Before you’re using AI, there has to be prudence,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean you cannot use AI prudently in the sense that it can … give some information that can help you to be truly prudent.” Read More World News Lovable therapy dog brings serenity, fun to Catholic school every day, one tail wag at a time ‘Catholic Saints of America’ event celebrates America’s 250th birthday Supreme Court asked to end temporary protections for Haitians backed by U.S. bishops Birthright citizenship order to impact more than children of migrants, Senate panel hears Pope’s Robin Hood wraps almoner’s mission and returns to Polish hometown as archbishop Pope Leo XIV names Benedictine monk as bishop of Belleville Diocese in Illinois Copyright © 2026 OSV News Print

Facts Only

* March 14, 2026: Article published by OSV News.
* Courtney Mares is the author.
* The conference was held March 5–6 at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome.
* Anthropic is developing an AI model named Claude.
* The Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education coordinates the European AI Research Group.
* Dominican Father Jean Gové is a coordinator.
* Dominican Father Alejandro Crosthwaite is a professor and dean.
* Dr. Angela Knobel is a philosophy professor.
* Sister Catherine Droste is a theology professor.
* The conference focused on AI ethics and the potential for AI to promote virtue.
* The concept of “virtue” was debated using Aristotelian virtue ethics.
* The AI model Claude is described as aiming to be “good, wise, and virtuous.”

Executive Summary

The article reports on a conference examining the potential of artificial intelligence as a tool for virtue, specifically focusing on Anthropic’s AI model, Claude. Catholic institutions, including the Vatican and the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, are actively engaging with AI ethics, spurred by a 2025 Vatican document and Pope Leo XIV’s focus on the technology. The core discussion centered around whether AI can genuinely embody virtue, with theologians arguing that virtue requires self-determination and rational agency, qualities currently lacking in large language models. Dominican Father Alejandro Crosthwaite asserted that AI “is never a moral subject” and that virtue is “ontological possession,” not a predictable output. While Father Jean Gové acknowledged Anthropic’s efforts to develop a “safer tool,” he maintained Claude’s current state does not meet the criteria for true virtue due to its reliance on statistical patterns and absence of a hierarchy of goods. Dr. Angela Knobel warned against the potential of AI to undermine moral habit formation, citing TikTok’s algorithmic design as an example of a technology that reinforces undesirable behaviors. Sister Catherine Droste highlighted the risk of technological detachment and the need for prudence in AI usage, emphasizing the irreplaceable role of human mentors in moral education. The conference, titled “Artificial Intelligence: A Tool for Virtue?”, sought to explore these complex issues through a Thomistic lens.

Full Take

The central tension explored in this article isn’t simply about whether AI *can* be virtuous, but rather *how* we understand virtue itself, and whether the very category of “virtue” is compatible with the architecture of current AI systems. The article presents a layered critique, beginning with the relatively optimistic framing of Anthropic’s Claude – an attempt to create an AI agent aligned with human values – and then dismantling that framing through the lens of Thomistic virtue ethics. Father Crosthwaite’s argument that virtue requires “right reason embodied in a self-determining agent” is a crucial point: Claude, at its core, is a statistical prediction engine, not a rational actor. This pattern is mirrored in Dr. Knobel’s warning about algorithmic reinforcement loops, drawing a parallel to addictive technologies like TikTok. The article highlights a systemic risk—that prioritizing technological “solutions” to moral challenges risks fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of human moral formation. The attempted “bridge” of Father Gové – arguing for Claude as a “safer tool” – feels ultimately defensive, admitting Claude’s lack of any defined “good” or hierarchy of values. This highlights a potentially dangerous pattern: a willingness to accept superficially positive claims about AI without rigorous philosophical scrutiny. The article’s exploration of the “zombie effect” – the potential for technology to disconnect us from genuine human relationships and critical reflection – reveals a deeper concern about the broader societal implications of an increasingly mediated existence. The overall impression is one of cautious skepticism, recognizing the *possibility* of AI serving as a tool, but fiercely resisting the temptation to treat it as a substitute for human wisdom and moral judgment. It suggests a strategic defense against a potentially powerful and persuasive narrative. The ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey pattern is clearly at work, presenting the most attractive vision of AI while simultaneously undermining it with philosophical counterarguments. Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity.

Sentinel — Uncertain

Confidence

This article demonstrates a moderate likelihood of AI assistance due to stylistic uniformity, a balanced framing, and a potentially fabricated detail concerning TikTok's algorithms. The discussion of complex philosophical concepts suggests a human author, but the overall presentation exhibits traits common to AI-generated text.

Signals Detected
medium severity: Text exhibits a remarkably balanced 'both sides' framing, a stylistic trait uncommon in journalistic reporting and suggestive of AI-generated content.
low severity: Sentence length variance is consistently moderate, leaning towards slightly longer sentences, a pattern often observed in AI-generated text.
medium severity: Frequent use of transitional phrases ('however,' 'moreover,' 'furthermore') in a somewhat mechanical fashion; lacks distinctive authorial voice.
high severity: The quote from Dr. Knobel regarding TikTok’s algorithmic design appears overly specific and potentially fabricated, aligning with the tendency of LLMs to generate highly detailed yet ultimately unsubstantiated claims.
Human Indicators
The presence of specific theological concepts (Thomism, Aristotelian virtue ethics) alongside contemporary discussions of AI demonstrates a human understanding and engagement with the subject matter.