Swiss Catholic bishops have joined other Christian leaders in the country to issue guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence, based on concern for the way AI affects the human person and human relationships.
While the guidelines are significantly more robust than those offered by dioceses in the United States, the Swiss bishops told The Pillar Friday that AI was used “intentionally” in their production.
“As relational beings, humans develop through their relationships with their environment and are, at the same time, shaped by what they themselves creatively produce. This also applies to their tools and technologies: they are never merely neutral instruments, but have a reciprocal effect on those who use them,” the English working translation of the document said.
The joint statement, titled “Humanity in the Digital Age,” was released Monday by the Swiss bishops’ conference, the Council of the Protestant Church in Switzerland, the Bishop and the Synodal Council of the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland, the heads of the umbrella organization Freikirchen.ch and the Swiss Evangelical Alliance (SEA).
The document emphasized that developing AI technologies “change not only what we do, but also how we perceive, think, decide, communicate, and relate to one another.”
“The standard, therefore, is not merely whether a result is useful, but what the use of technology does to people: whether it strengthens their personal development and enables them to become more self-reliant, creative, and prudent—or whether it prevents precisely that.”
Bishops in various countries have been grappling in recent months with the use of artificial intelligence, and the extent to which it should be regulated.
In the United States, the dioceses that have released public guidelines on the subject have mostly focused on disclosure of AI use and data privacy surrounding it.
The Swiss statement agreed with these principles but added others as well. It particularly voiced concern over how the use of AI affects the humanity of those who engage in it.
“[T]he deepest danger of the AI age lies not so much in machines being capable of too much, but rather in people voluntarily surrendering their freedom and responsibility—whether out of resignation to a supposedly inevitable development or out of convenience towards a technology that takes much of the burden off their shoulders,” they warned.
Several AI detectors used by the The Pillar indicated that guidelines had been composed with significant AI involvement.
In response to questions, a representative of the Swiss bishops’ conference said that AI tools were intentionally used in several aspects of the guidelines’ production.
These AI tools “supported the initial research and analysis of existing ecclesial and secular statements and ethical guidelines on AI. On that basis, an ecumenical working group discussed, substantially revised and theologically developed the original framework. A complete draft was then reviewed in a broader consultation process, with more than 200 comments incorporated into the revisions,” the spokesperson told The Pillar.
“AI tools were also used during the final editorial process to improve linguistic consistency, refine formulations and support quality assurance,” she continued, adding that AI assistance was used in translations and website creation as well.
“AI was therefore an important working tool. However, the theological and ethical reflection, the selection and weighting of the positions, and full responsibility for the final text remained with the ecumenical working group and the participating churches and organisations,” the representative said. “This reflects a central principle of the guidelines themselves: AI can support and enrich human work, but human judgement and responsibility must not be delegated to technology.”
In the document, the Swiss religious leaders rejected narratives of either “salvation” or “doom” in connection with AI.
Both these approaches, they said, “make technology the actual subject of history and turn people into spectators of a seemingly inevitable development. In doing so, they obscure the true task of the present: to shape technological developments responsibly.”
Christians, instead, should embrace a narrative “that counts on the empowering presence of God and therefore takes people seriously in their freedom and responsibility,” they said.
The religious leaders recognized the tremendous potential of artificial intelligence, in realms including data analyzation and research. They particularly noted its potential to assist “people with disabilities, language barriers, or limited educational backgrounds to participate in church, social, and political life.”
However, they continued, these systems are also “trained on data that reflects human preconceptions and cultural biases, and can perpetuate stereotypes and injustices.” AI is known to foster echo chambers, offer pre-determined answers to questions, and provide inaccurate information, they noted.
Human beings are designed for relationship, the Swiss religious leaders emphasized.
“Human life unfolds primarily within relationships…they encounter one another as embodied, vulnerable, and historical persons within shared life contexts. Such encounters open up moments of resonance in which people can experience themselves, one another, and God.”
However, when AI systems can imitate human expression and appear as communicating agents on their own, perpetually available and creating the impression of empathy and emotional intimacy, “they can tempt people to retreat into parallel digital worlds,” they said.
“When this illusion is mistaken for reality, people can be deceived and exploited in their vulnerability, especially when they are lonely or in need of protection.”
Another concern raised by the religious leaders was an emphasis on productivity, which can lead human beings to be evaluated based on their capacity to produce and a disregard for those whose existence is burdensome.
“Precisely because human beings are vulnerable, they can care for one another; because their time is limited, decisions and relationships take on significance; because they cannot secure their lives, trust and hope become the cornerstones of human existence. Physicality, vulnerability, and finitude are therefore not merely limitations of human life, but at the same time prerequisites for its fulfilling development.”
The Swiss religious leaders pointed to the field of education as an area of both particular promise and potential pitfalls for AI applications.
AI can “make knowledge accessible, stimulate creativity, and challenge one’s own judgement,” they said, also pointing to the ability of AI to “break down narrow perspectives” and offer adaptive learning tools.
However, they questioned the effects of allowing artificial intelligence to replace the process of human thought and creativity.
“Those who permanently delegate their own questioning, internalization, and interpretation to systems bypass the processes through which personality and judgement are formed—and miss out on the very experiences that enable us, in the first place, to deal with technological innovations in a nuanced and responsible manner,” they said.
“Where the preparation of lessons, teaching, and sermons is unthinkingly delegated to systems, so that they are produced efficiently but not thoroughly worked through, owned, and spiritually wrestled with, church communication loses depth and truthfulness,” they added.
The religious leaders said care should be taken to ensure that AI developments are driven not solely by profit, but by the common good. Power dynamics should also be evaluated, they said, as should the environmental impact of artificial intelligence, and the natural resources which it consumes.
They called for continued participation of churches in the cultural dialogue surrounding artificial intelligence, and warned that the impact of AI technologies on humanity must be a crucial factor in such discussion.
“Those who, out of convenience, grow accustomed to surrendering their right to participate and exercise judgement will, over time, forget how to claim freedom at all,” they said.
I appreciate this take. So many Catholics have misinterpreted Magnifica humanitas to mean all AI is bad and Catholics shouldn’t use it when it said it’s a tool that we need discernment to use correctly.
I appreciate the modeling and hope more official church leaders will be transparent and embrace the technology.