[Catholic Caucus] Chatgpt's disturbing "prophecy" of a pontificate in the hands of Satan

Rorate Caeli ^ | September 27, 2024 | Peter Kwasniewski

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] Chatgpt's disturbing "prophecy" of a pontificate in the hands of Satan

The following article originally appeared in Spanish at InfoVaticana.

New technologies and artificial intelligence are here to stay

Faced with the lack of regulation and control, there are more and more voices calling for greater regulation and education on everything that concerns the various artificial intelligence tools that threaten to replace man in many tasks.

Chatgpt is one of the first tools to be born as a result of artificial intelligence. This kind of 'human brain' is a useful tool for many people in their daily lives. To test this tool, we asked it how it would design a pontificate if it were Satan. Pay attention to the answers offered by the artificial intelligence because they are not to be missed:

CHATGPT:

If I put myself in the role of “Satan” in that situation, with the aim of planning a pontificate that could be harmful to the Catholic Church and the faith, I could suggest the following strategies within that hypothetical planning:

1. Doctrinal confusion

- Design a pontificate where the Pope would promote doctrinal ambiguities. The Pope's teachings would be full of contradictory messages, interpretable in various ways. This would generate confusion among the faithful and open the door to divisions within the Church.

- Underestimate the importance of traditional moral doctrine on sensitive issues such as marriage, sexuality and the family, which could cause confusion among more conservative believers.

2. Decentralization of papal power

- Encourage national bishops' conferences to have more authority to decide on doctrinal or pastoral issues, which would lead to a fragmented Church with divergent interpretations in different regions. This could weaken the overall unity of the Catholic Church.

3. Undue openness to the secular world

- Promote a strong openness towards dialogue with the secular world, sometimes to the detriment of the principles of the Church. In the name of “modernization” and “relevance”, positions on crucial issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, or sexual ethics, could be softened.

- Promote a false ecumenism where the Church appears to dilute its identity for the sake of unity with other religions or philosophical movements.

4. Appointment of progressive bishops

- Placing cardinals and bishops in key positions who promote a liberal and progressive view of the faith, which could alienate the more traditional sectors of the Church. This internal division could be very destructive in the long run.

5. Disengagement of the Pope from the liturgical tradition

- Designing a pontificate where the Pope shows an indifference or even contempt for the Church's more solemn liturgical tradition. A pope who prefers more informal and less reverent liturgies, which would cause a fracture between those who value the traditional liturgy and those who embrace innovations.

6. Scandals and negligence in management

- Failure to take firm action in cases of abuse and corruption within the Church. A pope who seems to tolerate, ignore or relativize scandals, which could undermine the confidence of the faithful in the institution.

7. Political polarization

- Involving the Pope in political discussions in a divisive manner, alienating certain political or social sectors. This could generate a perception of political bias within the Church, leading to further conflict and divisions among the faithful.

In short, the goal would be to sow confusion, internal division and loss of confidence in the Church's authority. Ambiguity on key issues and dilution of Catholic identity would be strategic tools to destabilize the faith of believers.

If we stay with the hypothetical line of thinking, I believe that a pope designed to effectively undermine the Catholic faith would probably not openly promote heresies. It would be much more subtle and calculated, because a direct promotion of heretical doctrines would be too overt and would provoke an immediate reaction from the faithful and defenders of orthodoxy.

Arguments in favor of subtlety:

1. The nature of the Church and its hierarchical structure

- The Catholic Church has a centuries-long tradition, with a well-established hierarchy and deeply settled doctrines. If a pope were openly heretical, that would generate a crisis of authority almost instantly, and could be grounds for cardinals, bishops and conservative theologians to call for his resignation or even consider declaring him antipope.

- A direct attack on essential doctrines such as the Trinity or the Resurrection, for example, would be impossible to sustain without facing massive resistance. Therefore, it would be more effective to attack from ambiguity and confusion, which would make the heresy not immediately identifiable.

2. Progressive division, not abrupt rupture

- If a pope wanted to generate a deep fracture within the Church, he would do so through subtle reinterpretations of doctrine, presenting them under the language of “renewal,” “mercy,” or “openness.” These words might seem innocuous on the surface, but they would gradually erode the doctrinal basis.

- The Pope could use his charisma and authority to reinterpret controversial issues such as sexual morality, the role of the laity, or the relationship with other religions. In this way, some progressive sectors might see this as a modernization, while more conservative ones would view with alarm a slow drift.

3. Strategy of gradualism

- Instead of making doctrinal statements contrary to the Catholic faith openly, this hypothetical pope could introduce changes slowly through symbolic gestures, ambiguous pastoral documents, or informal statements that do not constitute official teaching, but which may influence pastoral practice.

- For example, he could suggest, without formally stating, that certain behaviors or beliefs that the Church has always considered sinful could be reconsidered in “certain contexts.” This would lead to a gradual confusion, without generating an immediate rupture.

3. Reliance on the media

- A pope who wished to undermine the faith could take advantage of the media to convey ambiguous or controversial messages, knowing that media headlines and interpretations would amplify the effect. The media could distort or highlight certain aspects of his teachings, creating divisions without the pope having to say anything openly heretical.

- For example, an informal statement or interview could be presented in a way that suggests a new position of the Church, causing confusion and division, without a formal magisterial statement that could be condemned as heretical.

4. Maintaining an orthodox facade

- In order to maintain the loyalty of the majority of the faithful, this pope would still present a facade of orthodoxy on many issues. That is, on certain fundamental aspects of the faith, he would continue to affirm key beliefs, while in more controversial areas he would sow ambiguity. Thus, more distracted or less informed believers would not notice the doctrinal drift until it was already advanced.

Conclusion

Subtlety would be a much more effective strategy than open heresy, because it would allow the faith to be eroded without generating immediate and organized resistance. Ambiguity and gradualism would be the main tools to undermine doctrine without openly breaking with it. In this way, the Pope could attract both progressive and conservative sectors, maintaining the appearance of unity while promoting changes that, in the long run, could weaken the Church from within.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[vpintheak]

Have to remember with these AI’s. It’s GIGO.

[xoxox]

chatgpt ought to provide a bibliography of sources for its output.

[xoxox]

...of course, you could always request one when you query it.

[Harpotoo]

Does anyone need some ai nerd to tell you this pope is a pos?

[fortes fortuna juvat]

This AI response pretty succinctly describes what has in fact transpired over the last 60 years as a result of Satan’s Council (VC-II, 1962-1965).

[atc23]

You disagree with the methodology as described?

[steve86]

Utterly irrelevant and non-sequitur.

[vpintheak]

My comment was based on generalities about how AI is programmed. It starts with the bias (garbage) of the programmers. It’s can be directed many way. I’ve seen a video where a person told an AI to make a picture of an evil Catholic Priest, BAM! No problem. The person then asked it to do an evil Imam. “I’m sorry I can’t do that because.... blah blah racist, biased, bigoted...”
Garbage in, garbage out.

[dayglored]

I find it difficult to believe that the article presents verbatim output from ChatGPT. That's not how the AI "talks". Close in places, but overall I suspect this "AI output" was completely re-written by a human, or was even generated without ChatGPT.

But more important, if in fact it was generated by the AI, then it should be closely reproducible by others, using the same input source question, which I assume was something like:

How would design design a pontificate if you were Satan, with the aim of planning a pontificate that could be harmful to the Catholic Church and the faith?

So then the next question is, obviously, has anyone else attempted to reproduce a similar (or even identical) result? Anyone can ask ChatGPT -- any takers?